The Blockade: Tell Us Your Opinion

[thea_447]

Personally I have always thought that ultimately the blockade caused the South's defeat. I know some will say the South's defeat was caused by lack of manpower, industries, manufacturing, arms, etc., but I'd like to hear from others what opinions you have about the blockade and its impact.

YMOS,

[unionblue]

Thea,

VERY interesting question! I find myself in a strange position in that I am usually a one-reason/cause man (i.e the Civil War came about because of slavery, zip, period, nothing to add!).

The subject you bring up forces me to consider a VARIETY of reasons as to why the South was defeated, the blockade being only one of them.

Much was against the South, in the way of resources, when the war began. Manpower and manufacturing are two that you have mentioned in your above post. These shortcomings were compounded because of the blockade, but remember, early on the blockade was a joke. Hardly any ships in the Union navy, a vast area to patrol, swift blockade runners getting through almost at will during the first part of the war.

But, due to mistakes in management of the war is when the blockade began to have a more serious result later in the war. Refusing to convert cotton production to food production was one. States refusing to share resources was another. And some of the cargoes carried by the blockade runners were items that could not be used in the war, so-called luxury items that could make huge profits instead of aid the war effort.

So, no, I don't think the blockade was the primary reason the South lost the war, but it in conjunction with many other problems in the South helped lead to its defeat.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

[johan_steele]

To a degree I agree w/ you Thea... stop looking at me like that. It is possible to agree w/ you occasioanlly.

The Anaconda certainly contributed to the defeat of the CSA. It wasn't the sole cause by any means but it was a critical one, particularly by 1864-65. The South just couldn't compete w/ the Union in production of arms & equipment or of medical supplies... three critical items that were lost to the South via the blockade. W/out the blockade the South would have been able to convert it's cotton to money & arms to support the CSA. This would have caused less inflation and perhaps even given Confederate money some worth. But most importantly it would have given Europe a financial incentive to recognize the Confederacy. As it was Blocade Runners were bringing in items that would net them a high profit... luxury items instead of neccesities for the CSA War effort.

[gary]

It was one element that made defeat possible. No trade means that what the South couldn't produce, it wouldn't get either. Restricted flow of vital supplies and heavy reliance on substitution (or supply via McClellan). Inferior substitutes especially in artillery fuses hurt the Confederacy. Millions in cotton was never exchanged for other commodities.

[illreb]

I too agree the blockade was a big reason,By far not the only reason but an important reason for the fall of the Confederacy. Without the blockade I believe the CSA would have been able to resist much longer.
Illreb

[tamaroa]

What Shane said!! The blockade was a component of a multipronged assault; but an important one.

Bill

[dannycarlisle]

One reason not covered here is the fact that, before the war Great Britain bought vast quantities of cotton from the south. So, here they sit with their warehouses full. Therefore, no need for cotton during the war.

[mobile_96]

"Millions in cotton was never exchanged for other commodities."
Gary, wasn't it in '62 that the Confederacy had a cotton embargo of their own to try and force Britian to break the Blockade? By the time they discovered Britian wouldn't do it, the Blockade was too much in place to allow enough cotton to be exported to add any real purchasing power for their needs.

"So, here they sit with their warehouses full. Therefore, no need for cotton during the war."
Danny:
The no need of cotton was only until early '63. But, by then Britian was starting to buy from India, Egypt, China and Brazil, enough to suppy their needs.
A few interesting facts I just found out.
1. Because of bumper cotton crops British manufacturers had huge warehouses of raw cotton and finished goods from overproduction
and both raw and finished goods prices were slumping. Both the embargo and Blockade were a bonus to company owners. Since they could 'not get more cotton' they were able to charge a bit more for the already manufactured goods. And started laying some people off while they worked down the oversupply, a common practice even today. It was autumn of '62 before the real issue with employement in the textile industry reared its head, with up to 75% of the workers being laid off or On Short Time. Very few people went hungry due to public and private charities. Approximately 1/3 of the mills in Britian closed completely during this time, but they actually employed less than 1/3 of the total textile workers. A big uproar from the workers?? Some of course, but not nearly as bad as the British government expected. The Workers themselves were sided with the Union, because of the Slavery issue.
2. Then the owners made more money selling 'surplus' cotton to, of all people, the North. According to prices I've seen they netted up to 40% profit on the raw cotton.
Chuck in Il.

[thea_447]

http://www.civilwarhome.com/blockade.htm

[mobile_96]

Billy,
Link worked just find for me. If it still doesn't work just remember its Shotguns CW site at www.civilwarhome.com, one of, if not the highest rated CW site online, and has been for several years.
As for books, there are 2 good ones concerning running the blockade:
Lifeline of the Confederacy by Wise,
Confederate Privateers by Robinson,