Wrapped in Flames: The Great American War and Beyond
- Thread starter EnglishCanuck
- Start date
Well I've never said who will be fighting who
Thank you! It is enjoyable to get into a different aspect of the war. The Alligator will have a quite fine legacy TTL.
I've liked writing the naval aspect because I've hoped to show how the Americans could fight back, but at the strategic level they don't have many good options. The British blockade is one of their greatest strategic tools, even if it takes time.
Sotheby's had a pretty crazy year. From a meteoric rise in 1862 winning some big battles, and commanding a powerful squadron, to going down as the commander who presided over not only the first loss of a battleship in years, but also one of the worst naval losses in British history. Now he's probably going to be permanently on the beach for the rest of his life.
No. No, we don't know any of that.
All we know is that there will be a Battle of the Falklands, just as there was in our timeline. There is no indication at all who the enemy is- it could be the USA, it could be Argentina, it could be Germany as in our timeline, it could be France or Russia!
The USA laying down a class of submarines in 1915 doesn't indicate anything either- if a Great War has broken out, then modernising the navy becomes an imperative even for a non-involved USA, just as in our timeline.
Seriously people, there simply hasn't been enough to indicate what the world looks like in the 1880s, let alone the 20th century!
Sotheby got lazy and has nobody to blame but himself. Great battle for American morale, and one that probably gets brought up into the modern era, but pretty small terms as far as strategic goals are concerned.
Essentially yes. I was amused at the idea of setting the battle on September 13th 1863, but that felt a little too on the nose here. Though this will be, like the Battle of Littlegull Island, a morale boosting victory, it doesn't accomplish much at the strategic end. Much like there was much celebration about the Battle of New Orleans in 1815.
I have plans for South America, history will very much not be ignored there.
The question this rises is - will Lincoln think his hand is so good now that he overplays it and ruins the chances to get a separate peace with acceptable terms for both parties, or if he manages to strike while the iron is hot while making concessions which Her Majesty's Government will find acceptable.
There have been many comments that the USA is unwilling to cede land belonging to the original 13 colonies, but looking at maps of Maine, there's little to no settlement in the Appalachians. If the border were moved to the Allagash river, then Canada would control the spring of the St John river (mostly in New Brunswick) and there would be a mountainous secure buffer for the northern branch of the Grand Trunk at it's closest approach to the US border. This might be a sufficient concession for British interests, without the USA losing any settlements worth mentioning.
Add to that accepting British claims in the Puget Sound area and that might be enough territorial concessions.
There have been many comments that the USA is unwilling to cede land belonging to the original 13 colonies, but looking at maps of Maine, there's little to no settlement in the Appalachians. If the border were moved to the Allagash river, then Canada would control the spring of the St John river (mostly in New Brunswick) and there would be a mountainous secure buffer for the northern branch of the Grand Trunk at it's closest approach to the US border. This might be a sufficient concession for British interests, without the USA losing any settlements worth mentioning.
Add to that accepting British claims in the Puget Sound area and that might be enough territorial concessions.
It seems like the mentioned 1915 Falkland Islands battle is an analogue to the OTL Battle of Coronado in 1914 (off the coast of Chile), where a British cruiser squadron was annihilated by a German force that was numerically and qualitatively superior. Said Germans were themselves annihilated near the Falklands two months later, when they ran into a Royal Navy force consisting of modern cruisers and the battlecruiser HMS Invincible.
Lincoln does have an opportunity here. Lifting the Siege of Washington is both a big morale booster and propaganda hit. A very astute observer might say that "even with the aid of the Royal Navy the Confederacy could not take Washington" which may sour some opinions. However, he has to act fast, and Farragut's victory is also a good propaganda moment since it might be able to drive home that the war is still costly for Britain too. With most of Britain's war aims being accomplished, Canada not in danger of being bisected, and the Union not a real threat to Britain's North American and Caribbean possessions, maybe he can entice Britain out of the war with some juicy concessions?
The British very much have an idea of the ideal concessions they'd like to take. Not all of them are territorial either. However, the War Cabinet is very hawkish at the moment, and they have some firm opinions on what should be done.
Realistically, I see any British Empire that went to war with the US over a Trent Affair being very very committed to getting something out of the war. They would, unless totally humiliated in the field somehow, fight on with what they have in order to maintain some pretense of national prestige. Too many modern people tend to forget that in this era war is not just looking at a balance sheet, but thoughts of national honor and a feeling that you have to maintain face. Even if Canada was lost, the British felt they could maintain the blockade almost indefinitely, and eventually push the Union to the negotiating table through economic means. There isn't really a scenario where the Union can deliver any combination of blows that materially effects Britain enough that they have to sign an extremely disadvantageous peace.
In Wrapped in Flames, Britain probably could have been convinced to sign what amounts to a "White Peace" with financial reparations only in September 1862, when the Palmerston government TTL assumed their strategic calculus would force Lincoln to the table to accept their original December Ultimatum. However, with how the war went, the Lincoln government still felt they could obtain better terms than the original British demands and fought on. By September 1863 however, even with British reversals in the field, there's no chance Britain will sign anything resembling a peace under the terms offered in December 1861 now that the blockade is still biting and there is a less than zero chance the Union can seriously threaten Canada again.
Although the strategic effects of the battle aren’t very significant it’s probably a pretty huge propaganda coup for the fledgling US navy inflicting the first significant naval defeat for Britain since Trafalgar. The US navy to this day still names some of it’s most important moments as the naval victories they won in 1812. (There’s a whole timeline of all the battles in the bluejacketeers manual given to all US sailors) would assume this would be a major point of pride in the future for them
Would have to imagine that this naval defeat while a bit embarrassing for the British would probably make them even less willing to talk favorable terms to the US then they might otherwise be.
On a personal note I’ve always loved early US naval history- some of their most impressive victories came when they were the underdogs against the British fleets imo so this was very cool to read
Would have to imagine that this naval defeat while a bit embarrassing for the British would probably make them even less willing to talk favorable terms to the US then they might otherwise be.
On a personal note I’ve always loved early US naval history- some of their most impressive victories came when they were the underdogs against the British fleets imo so this was very cool to read
Last edited:
The victories achieved here are indeed going to be huge propaganda coups! Sandy Hook will, rightly so, go down in history as one of the greatest US naval victories. Farragut too will be a much more intense topic of study for USN cadets and officers in history and his potentially apocryphal phrase from Chapter 24 is going to become the unofficial motto of the USN. Farragut will also have a very large shadow to cast on the navy post-war.
The Admiralty is not inclined to lose gracefully I'm sorry to say.
I'm very glad you're enjoying the naval aspect! It's somewhat refreshing to write about after all the infantry and siege heavy campaigns I've been plotting out so far! I hope you enjoyed the little easter eggs in there too!
The USN had a very creditable history of fighting Britain in smaller ship to ship actions and Perry's victory at Lake Erie was indeed one of the truly few outright lasting strategic victories of the War of 1812. His famous painting has, TTL, been finished just in time! I think that the US would have much more reason, and ability, to make the naval war costly for Britain. There was very little ability outside building armored frigates for the USN to fight a British ship of the line, but in smaller squadron actions I think that suitably daring men could have held their own, and Farragut is nothing if not suitably daring!
How’s the rest of the world doing since all this has been going on? Would imagine the confederate assault on the capital would have at least made the news- ha I wonder which is more newsworthy internationally the massive siege of Washington or The loss of a British ship of the line.
Last edited:
I did cover the rest of the world back in Chapter 43, and in a few chapters I'll be giving another general world update very soon. Suffice to say that in 1861-63 not much has changed outright, but the butterflies flapping their wings is going to bring some big changes in 1864 which you'll get some hints of in the opening chapters on 1864. There will of course be another update on that once I finish the campaigns of 1864 and after the big Election of 1864 chapters.
It's probably a tie which is more newsworthy. While the Russians are thrilled at the news of the ending of the Siege of Washington, the gossip in the salons of Paris and St. Petersburg is far more about the sinking of Conqueror rather than the Confederate army being driven from north of the Potomac. There's going to be more than few snide remarks by foreign admirals at the battleships loss in the years to come.
Yes and no. The Battle of Little Gull Island back in 1862 is the premier of ironclad battles, but Sandy Hook will be instructive because it shows that wooden line of battleships are no longer kings of the seas in the battles to come[1] which will have some big effects on naval learning. There's going to be other battles which demonstrate the concepts of ironclads, as there were in OTL's 19th century, but these two battles are the going to be some of the biggest on European naval thought[2].
1] Which would ironically vindicate the commander of the British blockade, Admiral Milne, as he believed their time was done anyways. Either way, don't expect Britain to be commissioning anymore wooden line of battle ships in the post war world!
2] OTL you had the Chinca Islands War and the War of the Pacific which were also instructive in showing how ironclads could be used. It was a big period of naval transition however. By the end of the century you would probably see many similar lessons being learned in various conflicts.
Chapter 75: A Fire in the Rear
Chapter 75: A Fire in the Rear
“Our situation is more distressing than pride and obstinacy will permit most to allow, and many dare to complain of. Exactly that of a besieged city is our condition. Nothing doing, all business at a standstill, nothing talked of but the enemy and the war. What an enormous tax upon us is the war! The price of every thing almost doubled, and our supplies by water totally cut off! If no change takes place in a few months the middling classes of society must leave the place, and go where they can get employ and support their families.” – Ellen Hutchinson, Philadelphia, September 1863
“The Lincoln administration found itself under considerable strain in September 1863, not the least because of reverses in Kentucky and Canada, but overall losses in the war were mounting far in excess of what the nation could reasonably bear. Though the fall of San Francisco represented a potential body blow, only the news that Wright had transferred the gold reserve to a secure location prevented a massive economic shock from dangerously turning the public against the greenback. Even so, the news of further economic losses raised inflation to 300 greenbacks to 100 gold dollars, a ruinous rate if allowed to continue.
Throughout the year though, anger had been growing against the Republican handling of the war, though it was hardly unified in its desire. By the winter of 1863 the manner of resistance to the war could be looked at in three ways; firstly there were the War Democrats, men who wanted to continue the fighting, but merely with a different administration in charge. Then the Copperheads, men like Clement Valladingham, Joel Parker, and James Bayard. Finally, there were Conservative Republicans who believed that Lincoln was erring in going down the Radical path. They disagreed with the Emancipation Proclamation and the arming of black soldiers, but were willing to support the party in order to win the war and prevent any sort of “compromise” candidate that could be fielded by the Democratic Party from attempting to run the war.
War Democrats all desired to see a successful conclusion to the conflict with both Britain and the Confederacy, but it was their opinion that Lincoln squandered any advantages the Union possessed. The Copperhead faction of the Democrat Party (or as they called themselves, Peace Democrats) instead proclaimed a desire to see a successful war with Britain prosecuted. As one of their leading voices, Ohio Governor Clement Valladingham stated “Why must the blood of American men be spilt in anger against one another? Should not both parties lay down their arms and come to a just and honest peace as sister states in our great Republic? In doing so, we may then turn our swords against our true enemy, the British Empire which has so cruelly decided it must crush the spirit of a free nation!”
Resistance to Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation and handling of the war could be seen in 1863. From the ousting of the Republican Governor William Buckingham in favor of the Copperhead candidate William Seymour to the devastating upset of John Brough losing the governor’s seat in Ohio to the “arch Copperhead” Clement Valladinghim, these losses were coupled with losses in the House in each state, only offset by staunch support for the Republican cause in Pennsylvania and Wisconsin maintaining the tenuous balance in the House. It was a status quo which was only made possible by a fine line walked by Lincoln to try and keep War Democrats and Conservative Republicans behind his administration.
While cheered by the support he received in the loyal states, he was increasingly worried by “the fatigue now evidenced by the peoples of the Northwest and New England” in regards to the war…” Snakes and Ladders: The Lincoln Administration and America’s Darkest Hour, Hillary Saunders, Scattershot Publishing, 2003
“When the Emergency of 1863 began with the Maryland Campaign and the eventual siege of Washington, the nation had over seven-hundred thousand men under arms, from ninety day militia, to the three year volunteers enrolled in 1861 and the call-up in 1862. However, in less than four months time, tens of thousands would be killed, captured, or so badly wounded that they would be invalidated from the army. Between the beginning of the Maryland Campaign, the Siege of Corinth, and the Hudson Valley Campaign, the United States would lose over 70,000 men.
This was a nearly irreversible loss. While over 100,000 black men had answered the call, it was not enough to stop the hemorrhaging of men and material, and Lincoln and his cabinet, though they had been reluctant to do so, were forced in June to issue the first order for a draft…” – The Colored Troops, Isaiah Devlin, University of Boston, 2003
“The draft of 1863 was almost uniformly unpopular. It was however, militarily necessary to stave off potential disaster. Volunteering amongst the white population, whether for patriotic duty or bounty had dried up completely, and even with higher bounties and the threat of the draft being held overhead, many men would simply not volunteer to march out to die.
While many at the time blamed this on Copperhead rhetoric, it is much more likely the case that the ever mounting casualty lists seen in the papers, the sight of wounded men on many of the nations streets, and the communities commonly afflicted with letters regretfully informing tearful families of the loss of sons, brothers, fathers and husbands, many men were loath to sign up for what was perceived as an almost certain chance of dying. It is easy for many at home to think about fighting gallantly, but in counties where men had marched off never to return, the anxiety of leaving ones family was palpable.
This was spurred on not merely by existential dread, but very real economic fears. Inflation had been held relatively at bay across much of 1862, but in 1863 the deeper blockade, the needs of the government, and much economic anxiety aside, had caused prices to rise alarmingly for many household goods, from salt, sugar, and spices, while correspondingly, food prices had dropped dramatically. Farmers, shorn of foreign markets, had to sell crops at a loss, and in 1862-63 many were rendered destitute by falling prices. It is estimated that nearly 5% of all farms in the Northwest were forced into bankruptcy by a combination of the loss of one or more family members and the drop in food prices.
This played out in the civilian market. One Cincinnati housewife writing to her husband serving in the Army of the Mississippi wrote “...food is cheap and plentiful, but the price of salt has doubled, and no coffee, tea, or sugar is to bad had at any price.” While the consumption of iron for the war effort made it impossible for many to replace stoves or other household tools so badly needed.
Though the Federal government would step in come late 1863 and begin a limited subsidation of farms and other necessities, it was not enough to save many from the fall into steep economic depression.
All of this added to the draft resistance in 1863. New York was, ironically, the state most bitterly against the draft. Though tens of thousands had flocked to the banner of the Union in 1862, largely to protect New York City, the state government of New York refused to lift a finger to help the government, Governor Fillmore writing in response to a letter from Lincoln pleading for support that: “Should the Federal Government desire to carry out the draft in New York state, the Government shall have to furnish the men to preform such a task itself, for the State of New York will not furnish a single individual or dollar to carry out such an act of rank tyranny.”
In other Democratic leaning states, there was less overt resistance from state governments, but draft resistance was plainly visible. In Sullivan and Columbia counties of Pennsylvania, it became worth the life of a government official to go about without an escort, and in Holmes County, Ohio no fewer than two draft officers were lynched by the local population. Similar violence was witnessed in Connecticut, New Jersey, Michigan and Pennsylvania, the greatest violence coming in August…” To Arms!: The Great American War, Sheldon Foote, University of Boston 1999.
The 'Arch Copperhead' Clement Vallandigham, 1863
“The draft riots of August 1863 were widespread, and despite the false assumptions, varied in their causes…
In Detroit Michigan, many opposed to the war had seen friends march north for occupation duties, and so there had been a labor shortage in the city. This had resulted in many black families moving into positions formerly occupied by white men. This created intense anxiety, especially amongst the large population of Irish immigrants.
Racial tensions in the city had been high since March, with the arrest of Thomas Faulkner for allegedly molesting a young white girl. Despite the fact that Faulkner claimed, and was recognized in court documents as a Spanish Indian, the virulently racist Detroit Free Press, a Copperhead newspaper which strenuously opposed Lincoln’s policies, recognized him as a negro. The story spread from there, and though the presence of volunteers kept the violence to a minimum, the tensions in the city were palatable.
In July, when the first call for the draft was instituted, angry crowds formed outside the draft offices. The first attempt to disperse the crowd succeeded, but by evening a larger crowd had gathered. This resulted in a company of infantry being called out and the crowd responded angrily. The captain read the riot act, but stones were thrown, he then responded with shots fired above the crowd’s heads. Though this would later be denied, numerous witnesses then stated that the company fired into the crowd, but whatever the actions, the second volley set off a frenzy of violence as word of “murder” spread throughout the city.
The initial stories were garbled, but the official rumour was that a black soldier had killed a white man, followed by rumours that a company of black soldiers had fired on whites, white soldiers were helping black men enforce the draft, and the tales became more lurid from there. In response, armed mobs began rampaging throughout black homes and shops. Draft offices were targeted, and the homes of those deemed sympathetic to “abolitionists” were also targeted. The mob attacked black businesses and houses, looting them of anything valuable, and then burning the homes. The white mobs eventually moved beyond the black area into affluent white areas, continuing the destruction against those who were seen as being able to “buy” their way out of the draft.
At this time Detroit had no full time police force, and the city was forced to call in troops from Fort Wayne and across the border in Canada to contain the violence, and it took over a day for them to arrive…
...from a black population of barely 1,500, over 600 had lost their homes, and the property damage from the riots were estimated to exceed 150,000$. The black population of Detroit would fall to under 1,000, and not rise again until the turn of the century.
In Philadelphia, the resistance, while just as violent, was quickly put down by the garrison…
One of the bloodiest draft riots would come in Pittsburgh. The industrial city was one of the hearts of the Union war effort, turning out iron, steel and weapons to support the foundries and armies of the Union. However, it had also been the site of the flight of many black ‘contrabands’ fleeing the advance of Lee’s armies. As a result, several temporary camps were organized by the Republican supporters in the city, and many prominent black men.
Pittsburgh had a long history of abolitionism, from the The Pittsburgh Anti-Slavery Society, organized in 1833 to the first Republican convention in 1856. It also hosted a number of prominent black leaders, from Martin Delany, John Templeton, and Lewis Woodson. There were deep feelings of abolitionism in the city, especially amongst prominent businessmen and politicians, but amongst the working class, economic anxiety increased fears that black men may steal the jobs of working white men, and Irish and German immigrants competed for cheap work. With many having joined the ranks early in the war, feelings of economic anxiety intensified.
On August 14th, when the second round of draft names were to be called, a perfect storm of events contributed to the violence. An altercation between a German steel worker and a contraband escalated into violence, and the quick intervention of the German workers' friends led to the contraband being murdered. Police moved to arrest the man, but crowds resisted. This culminated in an angry march by steel workers on a draft office and burning it to the ground. In a similar story, the violence spread from there. For three days, mobs ransacked black neighborhoods, and on the second day, a mob estimated to be over 800 strong descended on the largest contraband camp outside the city, scattering the inhabitants and burning the encampment.
Black homes were burned, the residences of prominent abolitionists were attacked, and a mob burned the original Wilberforce University. Martin Delany’s family was forced to flee the city, and Lewis Woodson’s home was burned to the ground.
It was only the arrival of troops from Philadelphia and Maryland which put an end to the violence…” Snakes and Ladders: The Lincoln Administration and America’s Darkest Hour, Hillary Saunders, Scattershot Publishing, 2003
The draft riots of 1863 would add a bloody dimension to internal politics
“The worst events for Lincoln’s administration culminated in the Albany Conference of October 1863. It was a gathering of governors, politicians, and men of means sympathetic to the Copperhead cause. Chief among them was Ohio governor Clement Valladingham, and supported by other such luminaries as Millard Fillmore and Joel Parker.
Ostensibly the meeting was organized to celebrate the city's salvation in September, but the true purposes of the meeting were clear by it’s second day. Far from being a loose coalition of like minded individuals, it is clear the conference was established to begin planning for the election of 1864. All involved were aware that the coming year would be crucial to the chances of the Democratic Party to retake the White House, and all present were firm in the belief that it would be their faction which took it.
Though few solid records of the meeting survive, much based on hearsay, the image that scholars can come away with is one of, if not a manifesto, at the very least a solid plan of opposition. One finds that after Albany the increased resistance of the draft became a theme of the Democratic opposition, any military setback was repeated endlessly in sympathetic papers, and the economic privation of the average citizen of the United States brought about by “Mr. Lincoln’s War” was made all too prominent. These three planks would be the beginning of the campaign of 1864…” The Era of Hard Feelings, William Avery, Random House, 1989
“While Lincoln was extremely conscious of the mortal danger posed by the Democratic Party in his rear, he was also somewhat aware of the danger arising in his own cabinet.
One of the largest challenges he faced was keeping the Radical and Conservative wings of the Republican Party in line behind him. His two most ferocious enemies would turn out to be men who, in any other occasion, might have been his greatest allies. Charles Sumner, leader of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and Thaddeus Stevens, were the two most outspoken Radical leaders in the House in 1863. Behind them they carried weight which Lincoln could ignore only at his peril. Their greatest critique was that the administration “gave too generously” to “loyalist slavers, Benedict Arnolds, and the worst traffickers of human flesh.”
They were incensed Lincoln had allowed Kentucky to refuse to recruit black volunteers, angered at the laxity in his Emancipation Proclamation, and unnerved by his unwillingness to return to Washington. They were also angered that, once again, the leader of the Army of the Potomac was a man with Democratic leanings. They had cheered with the news of McClellan’s removal, but were angered that Rosecrans, and his perceived inaction, was allowed to rule the army as summer slipped into fall, and fall into winter.
This was encouraged, some knew, with the help of Lincoln’s Secretary of the Treasury, Salmon Chase. Ever hopeful that he would sit in the highest office in the land, Chase politcked behind Lincoln's back as unobtrusively as he could. This would work backwards through various channels until it reached Seward’s ears…
The breach between Seward and Sumner, always potentially there to be exploited, had expanded to a great chasm after the crisis winter of 1861-62. Sumner, thoroughly embarrassed by his misreading of British opinion and the declaration of war, had fallen into the anti-British camp, and loudly denounced anything and everything related to Britain, and had even gone so far as to once extend his belief that Canada should now be annexed by the Union to “make North America safe for freedom, liberty and justice” in response to the noncommittal nature of Seward’s public remarks on Canada in Union war aims...
Sumner’s cultivation of Chase is difficult to grasp. He was clearly cultivating Chase as an asset inside the cabinet, while being merely speculative on who the Radicals may prefer to be on the ticket in 1864. It was known in Radical circles that Chase had been the loudest voice against the issuance of the Emancipation Proclamation, but he himself maintained that was because he insisted it did not go far enough, though this was not remotely true. Chase would then often be noted in the company of Sumner or Stevens over 1863. In Philadelphia however, he was often noted to be in company with men like James Bayard and Thomas Hendricks, clearly keeping his options open.
Seward was aware of Chase’s backroom dealing, and he continuously tried to alert Lincoln to the danger. Lincoln however, seemed unconcerned. The reasons he would later give were that “I was in the unenviable position of having to pay a dishonest banker to keep the money flowing.” When one considers that Chase had been instrumental to the running of the Treasury Department, Lincoln was not far wrong…
The greatest challenge Lincoln faced in late 1863, was selling his peace plan to the nation. With victories on land, the end of the Siege of Washington, and Farragut’s victory at Lower Bay, many wondered why Lincoln would sue for peace. Had they not turned back the British invasion? Was the capital not free? Lincoln agreed that these were all good things, but that the nation needed to return to the most important war.
In this he was walking a very fine line, Democrats of all stripes would (and did) insist it was cowardice. Republicans were more tepid in their opposition. Most sincerely agreed that it would be better to extricate themselves from the war, but the question was what might the United States be forced to do in order to achieve that peace? There was pressure for Lincoln to reject anything other than a white peace. This position was championed by Sumner and Stevens who were convinced that such a move would weaken the administration at home, and the American image abroad. Lincoln would be forced to spend significant political capital on the matter in 1864…
...By late 1863, the Lincoln administration faced an almost insurmountable uphill battle in the halls of power. Copperheads lurking in the tall grass and Radicals climbing the rungs of power, Lincoln was heard to say “I am minded of some old maxim about men and gods, those whom the gods would destroy they first make mad. I feel like that’s the road they’re on with me.”” Snakes and Ladders: The Lincoln Administration and America’s Darkest Hour, Hillary Saunders, Scattershot Publishing, 2003
This chapter was late, but I hope comprehensive enough on the subjects of internal issues faced by the Union circa late 1863 in the war! Next weekend, the politics of the Confederacy!
The british public is still quite anti-slavery, right? I wonder if not taking a more radical stance on emancipation ultimately hampers his ability to make a separate piece with the confederacy.- If the USA seen as strongly anti-slavery might be seen as more preferable for it to be able to reconquer the south, than to ensure an independent CSA to weaken it.
while the british public being anti-slavery is true, they don't really matter during this time unfortunately. Them being anti-slavery didn't stop the British from trading and even allying with the Brazilians, Ottomans and several powers that followed slavery during this time.