The Trent affair

Undisturbed relations have not always existed between the two great branches of the Anglo-Saxon race on opposite sides of the Atlantic. The English colonies in the New World quarreled continually with their mother country. Finally revolution and war enabled the colonists to free themselves from English rule, although causes of dispute have ever continued to exist. A continuous record of the international difficulties between the United States and England would form no inconsiderable part of American history.

An almost unbroken succession of disputes has occupied the attention of statesmen in both countries for more than a century. The Federal government had scarcely been organized when the first serious cause of trouble arose. England claimed the right forcibly to visit and search American merchant vessels on the high seas in time of peace. Thousands of American citizens having been impressed into the British naval service, the arbitrament of war was resorted to. This did not decide the matter. The abstract right of search and seizure was steadily maintained by England for almost half a century after the close of the war of 1812. An attempt to put it into practice again off the coast of Cuba in the spring of 1858 caused an outburst of popular indignation in every part of the United States, and American war vessels in Cuban waters were immediately ordered to resent such outrages at all hazards. This looked like war, and, without further delay, Great Britain abandoned the claim for which she had so long contended.⁠[1] Boundary disputes were a cause of much agitation for many years. Long and tedious negotiation was required to adjust the northwestern boundary of the United States between Maine and New Brunswick. Although the American claims in this region were ably presented and fairly established, British writers have repeatedly asserted that the United States government, in this instance, accomplished its purposes by means which were unfair, unjust, and entirely unworthy of modern diplomacy.⁠[2]

Scarcely had a treaty been concluded by which this boundary was settled when the Oregon question became one of great prominence, and in 1844, the alliterative campaign cry of “fifty-four forty or fight” testified to the serious character of the dispute. A settlement was finally effected by conceding most of the English claims, although ex-President John Quincy Adams and other equally noted Americans protested against what seemed to them a disgraceful surrender. The details of the various controversies caused by English conduct during the American civil war are fresh in the memory of a generation still living. In our own time fishery disputes have tested the skill of diplomatists in both countries.

There has probably never been a time, however brief, in the history of the United States when absolutely no cause of difference existed between the two nations. At the present date (1895) one hundred seven presidential messages reviewing the state of the country have been submitted to the American congress at the opening of its regular sessions. It is a significant fact that seventy-eight of these messages—almost three-fourths of them—have called the attention of congress to difficulties of more or less importance with Great Britain. To the seventy-eight messages of the latter class every president has contributed except Garfield, Taylor, and William Henry Harrison.

Toward the close of the year 1860, however, British and American international affairs had assumed a much more favorable aspect than usual. All of the most perplexing and dangerous questions which had so long disturbed the relations of the two countries had been peaceably and finally settled. This result gave the greatest satisfaction to the people and government of the United States. In his message to congress at the opening of the session in December, 1860, President Buchanan said: “Our relations with Great Britain are of the most friendly character. Since the commencement of my administration the two dangerous questions arising from the Clayton-Bulwer treaty and from the right of search claimed by the British government have been amicably and honorably adjusted. The discordant constructions of the Clayton-Bulwer treaty, which at different periods of the discussion bore a threatening aspect, have resulted in a final settlement entirely satisfactory to this government.

“It must be a source of sincere satisfaction to all classes of our fellow-citizens and especially to those engaged in foreign commerce that the claim on the part of Great Britain forcibly to visit and search American merchant vessels on the high seas in time of peace has been abandoned. This was by far the most dangerous question to the peace of the two nations which has existed since the war of 1812. While it remained open they might at any moment have been precipitated into a war.

“The only question of any importance which still remains open is the disputed title between the two governments to the Island of San Juan in the vicinity of Washington territory.” It was evident that both countries were expecting this question to be settled without any trouble.

The president also said in the same message: “The recent visit of the Prince of Wales in a private character to the people of this country has proved to be a most auspicious event. In its consequences it can not fail to increase the kindred and kindly feelings which I trust may ever actuate the government and people of both countries in their political and social intercourse with each other.”

Lord Lyons, the British minister at Washington, truly said of this message that its language was the most cordial in character of any which had ever appeared in such a communication. The British government and people appeared to appreciate the friendship and good feeling for them which prevailed in the United States at that time. As an evidence of this fact Queen Victoria sent her son, the Prince of Wales, on a visit to the United States in the latter part of the year 1860—the event referred to in President Buchanan’s message. The Prince was received everywhere with the hearty and enthusiastic welcome which was due to such a distinguished personage. After the visit had terminated, the British minister at Washington was directed to express the thanks of her majesty and to say to the president and citizens of the United States that one of the main objects which she had in view in sanctioning the visit of her son to America was to prove “the sincerity of those sentiments of esteem and regard which her majesty and all classes of her subjects entertain for the kindred race which occupies so distinguished a position in the community of nations.” “Her majesty trusts,” continued the British minister, “that the feeling of confidence and affection, of which late events have proved beyond all question the existence, will long continue to prevail between the two countries to their mutual advantage and to the general interests of civilization and humanity. I am commanded to state to the president that the queen would be gratified by his making known generally to the citizens of the United States her grateful sense of the kindness with which they received her son, who has returned to England deeply impressed with all he saw during his progress through the states, and more especially so with the friendly and cordial good-will manifested towards him on every occasion and by all classes of the community.”⁠[3]

This message was promptly answered by the American assistant secretary of state, who said among other things: “I am instructed by the president to express the gratification with which he has learned how correctly her majesty has appreciated the spirit in which his royal highness was received throughout the republic, and the cordial manifestation of that spirit by the people of the United States which accompanied him in every step of his progress. Her majesty has justly recognized that the visit of her son aroused the kind and generous sympathies of our citizens, and, if I may so speak, has created an almost personal interest in the fortunes of the royalty which he so well represents. The president trusts that this sympathy and interest towards the future representative of the sovereignty of Great Britain are at once an evidence and a guaranty of that consciousness of common interest and mutual regard which have bound in the past, and will in the future bind together more strongly than treaties, the feelings and the fortunes of the two nations which represent the enterprise, the civilization, and the constitutional liberty of the same great race.”⁠[4]

While the Prince of Wales was in the United States the London Times described his visit to the tomb of Washington at Mount Vernon and his planting a chestnut while there. The closing paragraph read as follows: “It seemed, when the royal youth closed the earth around the little germ, that he was burying the last faint trace of discord between us and our great brethren in the west.” Other English newspapers, in commenting upon the prince’s welcome in America, gave utterance to sentiments which were extremely cordial in character. Two extracts from leading London papers may be noticed. “Thus we believe an alliance has been consolidated which will endure for the mutual benefit, not only of the two nations, but of the civilized world.”⁠[5] “At no time could we desire more earnestly than we do now the close alliance of the great Anglo-Saxon family.”⁠[6]

Opportunities were soon to be offered for testing the sincerity of those recently expressed “sentiments of esteem and regard which her majesty and all classes of her subjects entertain for the kindred race which occupies so distinguished a position in the community of nations.” South Carolina seceded December 17, 1860. Other states followed her example. A hostile government was organized within the territory of the United States. A war cloud was rapidly gathering upon the American political horizon. Lord Lyons duly reported all of these occurrences to his government. On February 4, 1861, in a communication addressed to Lord John Russell, the British minister for foreign affairs, Lord Lyons gave a detailed account of Mr. Seward’s views concerning the state of the country and of his plans for securing the peaceable return of the seceding states to “the confederation.” In this dispatch the American union is characterized as a “confederation.” Since the adoption of the constitution no such use of the word “confederation” had ever been made in any diplomatic communication. It was indicative of the English view of the nature of the American union.

Lord John Russell replied to the above communication just two weeks before Mr. Lincoln was inaugurated. After saying that the success or failure of Mr. Seward’s plans were matters of deep interest to her majesty’s government and that it was not their duty to offer advice, Lord Russell said: “Supposing, however, that Mr. Lincoln, acting under bad advice, should endeavor to provide excitement for the public mind by raising questions with Great Britain, her majesty’s government feel no hesitation as to the policy they would pursue. They would in the first place be very forbearing. They would show by their acts how highly they value the relations of peace and amity with the United States. But they would take care to let the government which multiplied provocations and sought quarrels understand that their forbearance sprung from the consciousness of strength and not from the timidity of weakness. They would warn a government which was making political capital out of blustering demonstrations that our patience might be tried too far.”⁠[7]

It is not easy to understand why Lord Russell should make use of such language at this time. Only seventy-two days before this dispatch was written, the most cordial feelings of “confidence and affection” for the American people had been professed in the communication concerning the visit of the Prince of Wales, and in the meantime not an unkind word had been used in the correspondence of either government. His lordship may have seen in a settlement of the American domestic difficulties something which was unfavorable to British interests. The occasion certainly was not one which called for an offensive and unprovoked threat from the British minister for foreign affairs. He did not lose the opportunity, however, to utter an official warning to the American government that British patience “might be tried too far.”

From many similar instances in the official career of that statesman, it is certain that Lord Russell himself never lost a favorable opportunity to “make political capital out of blustering demonstrations.”

AUTHORITIES AND REFERENCES.

1. Annual messages of the presidents of the United States, 1789-1894.

2. Blaine, James G.: Twenty Years of Congress.

3. Diplomatic correspondence with Great Britain, 1860-1861.

4. London newspapers: The Times, News and Post, November, 1860.

5. London Quarterly Review, No. 221.

6. Schuyler, Eugene: American Diplomacy.

7. Westminster Review, Vol. XXI.

8. Winsor: Narrative and Critical History of America.