CUSHING AIDS NAVIGATION OF TRENT AFFAIR
Jim Dyer
5/10/11
Just before Christmas 1861, Newburyport’s
Caleb Cushing sat in the library of his High
Street home and reviewed once again the 30+
page memorandum he had just completed for
Secretary of State William H. Seward. In the
morning he must precede post haste to
Washington, DC to meet with the Secretary of
State about the “Trent Affair” which had Great
Britain mobilizing for war.
On November 8, 1861 the British mail packet
RMS Trent had been intercepted by the steam
sloop of war USS San Jacinto, commanded by
Captain Charles Wilkes. Two Confederate
diplomats, former US Senators James Mason
This portrait depicts Caleb Cushing,
and John Slidell had been removed before the
(1800-1879).
Trent was sent on its way. The envoys were Massachusetts Historical Society
154 Boylston Street (directions)
bound for Great Britain and France in order to
Boston, MA 02215-3695
press the Confederacy’s case for diplomatic
Tel: 617.536.1608
recognition by Europe. They were summarily
transported to Boston and imprisoned in Fort Warren. The reaction in Newburyport
and throughout the North was wildly enthusiastic, especially with no other Union
victories to celebrate.
The Trent arrived in London November 27th and reported the boarding. The British
public expressed outrage at this perceived insult to their national honor. The British
government demanded an apology and the release of the prisoners while it also
took steps to strengthen its military forces in Canada and in the Atlantic.
Because the first Atlantic telegraph cable between Great Britain and the United
States had been accidentally severed in late 1858, news across the Atlantic traveled
by boat and was often delayed by as much as twelve or fourteen days. By the time
U. S. Secretary of State William Seward received the note of protest from Lord
Palmerston, France had declared its support for Britain in the matter, even if it
meant war with the United States. In Canada, nationalistic leader John MacDonald
mobilized militia across the southern frontier. Were Seward and Lincoln willing to go
to war over the matter?
In the Confederate States the hope was that the incident would lead to a
permanent rupture in Union-British relations, diplomatic recognition, and Southern
independence. The leadership of the Confederacy had long believed that European
dependence on cotton for its textile industry would lead to diplomatic recognition
and intervention in the form of mediation. The United States had already made it
clear any movement by Britain towards official recognition of the Confederacy
would be considered a hostile act.
William H. Seward (c. 1850)
The US was still on edge about British intentions.
Great Britain had declared themselves ‘neutral’ in
May of 1861. That served as de facto recognition of
Southern belligerency - a status that provided
Confederate ships the same privileges in foreign
ports that Union ships received. Confederate ships
could obtain fuel, supplies and repairs in neutral
ports but could not secure military equipment or
arms. The availability of Britain’s far-flung colonial
ports made it possible for Confederate ships to
pursue Union shipping throughout much of the
world. To make matters worse France, Spain, the
Netherlands and Brazil had declared neutrality, too.
This international recognition of their “belligerent”
status gave the Confederacy a realistic opportunity
to create and sustain a navy to search out and
seize or destroy Union ships worldwide.
From Wikipedia
Since Caleb Cushing’s expertise in international
maritime law was well known, it was no surprise that Secretary Seward would ask
him to review the laws, treaties and precedents applicable to the “Trent Affair”.
Cushing found there was no exact precedent in American maritime law but there
was a doctrine in British law specifically justifying the arrest in transit of ‘unarrived
enemy ambassadors’. However, the most important legal point was that neutral
governments must abstain from affording military aid to any recognized belligerent.
Ironically, by declaring herself neutral, Great Britain had placed herself in a position
which seemed to justify Captain Wilkes’ action.
Even as he presented his findings - the US was indeed justified in taking and
holding Mason and Slidell - Cushing was savvy enough to know there was more to
this than the letter of the law. Seward must carefully balance American public
opinion and British power. He needed a face-saving loophole.
In the last paragraph of his memorandum Cushing’s states:
“Great Britain cannot fail, I think, to perceive that, - as no offense was intended to
her in the matter, and as the rights of belligerency were exercised by Capt. Wilkes
in the most moderate form, without seizure of the mails, without bringing in (the
Trent) as a prize, without injury to private property, - her national pride and her
national honor conspire to dictate the most amicable construction of this inevitable
act of sovereignty and belligerent right of the United States.”
Deftly, Secretary of State Seward found the face saving loophole he needed in
virtually the same argument Cushing had developed in defense of the taking and
keeping of the Confederate emissaries…..the twist was to assert that Capt. Wilkes
had acted “legally” but without direct authorization.
Seward’s reply to Great Britain’s Lord Palmerston was, according to Wikipedia,” ’a
long, highly political document.” Seward stated that Wilkes had acted on his own
and denied allegations by the British that the seizure itself had been conducted in a
discourteous and violent manner. The capture and search of the Trent was
consistent with international law,……..but the release of the prisoners was….
required in order “to do to the British nation just what we have always insisted all
nations ought to do to us.’ “
And indeed on New Year’s Day 1862 the emissaries for the Confederacy were
released from Ft. Warren.
As biographer Claude M. Fuess concludes “Caleb Cushing’s exposition of the
principles of international law involved in the controversy was indubitably sound,
and has since received the approval of the very best authority”. The US and the
Lincoln administration had safely navigated around a potential international crisis.
Jim Dyer is a Newburyport resident, a student of the life and times of Caleb Cushing
and co-chair of the Committee to Re-discover Caleb Cushing.