The Southern Blockade

[jenna]

I have a question. I read in a book recently the following statement:

Secretary of State Seward blundered in the original act by declaring the Southern porst blockaded, rather then closed- a legal technicality that gave the Confederacy the status of belligerent and opened the way to foreign adventurers and profiteers, chiefly the British.


Now, what does that mean? Blockaded rather then closed. And how could the north have legally closed the ports in the south in the first place.

Without getting into too much of a can of worms, anyone want to clear this up for me?

Jenna

[ole]

Jenna:

Can't clear it up for you as it apparently has something to do with international law. Something like you can blockade and foreign governments will honor that blockade. But only if the blockaded entity is a belligerent nation.

As rebellious states, which Lincoln persisted in calling them, a blockade need not be recognized by other nations. On the other hand, a closed port is useless to legitimate as well as illegitimate shippers.

As the Confederacy had committed an armed, rebellious act against the United States, presidential war powers legally empowered him to do whatever he considered necessary to put down the rebellion. Ordering up troops, closing what ports he could, reinforcing Ft. Pickens (the only remaining federal property not seized by Confederate forces), arresting southern citizens caught in the north ...

Legal is a can of worms, considering the circumstances.

BTW. That little one is just too cute!
Ole

[jenna]

So if that be the case, and they would have called the southern ports closed, would blockade running been as profitable? How would the technicality of calling one closed and one blockaded made that big of a difference?

But thanks for the insite there Ole. I really appreciate it. It does sort of clear things up. Being a "ladie" re-enactor I usually don't get involved in the politics of the time, but that one statement in the book really kind of threw my brain into over drive.

And thanks for the compliment on Mason. He sure is getting big.

Jenna

[cash]

Originally Posted by jenna

I have a question. I read in a book recently the following statement:

Secretary of State Seward blundered in the original act by declaring the Southern porst blockaded, rather then closed- a legal technicality that gave the Confederacy the status of belligerent and opened the way to foreign adventurers and profiteers, chiefly the British.


Now, what does that mean? Blockaded rather then closed. And how could the north have legally closed the ports in the south in the first place.

Without getting into too much of a can of worms, anyone want to clear this up for me?

Jenna

---------

Jenna,

First to your question. The result of a blockade or declaring the port closed is the same. The Federals would not allow ships into the ports. The mechanism is the same. For the blockade they had US ships interdicting traffic. With the ports closed, they would have US ships interdicting traffic. The only difference is the terminology, and this was a major difference solely from a legal standpoint. Normally a hostile nation's ports are blockaded, whereas you close your own ports. The key word, though, is "Normally." It's not always the case, and our Civil War is a prime example.

Now, to expand the discussion just a little bit, the book you read is wrong. Seward did not blunder, and the blockade did not open the way to British adventurism. In fact, just the opposite.

It was at the behest of the British that Lincoln, not Seward, determined to blockade the ports rather than close them. The British Ambassador told the US officials that if the ports were closed, Her Majesty's Navy would have no recourse but to force their way into the ports, thus igniting a war against Britain; however, if the ports were blockaded, the British would respect the blockade, and thus war with Britain would be avoided on that issue.

Some observers opined that blockading the ports rather than closing them automatically conferred belligerent status on the rebels. This is not necessarily true. Even after the blockade was established, there was an open question as to whether captured rebel sailors would be charged for piracy or held as prisoners of war. It was in response to this that the rebels said they would retaliate if any of their sailors were tried for piracy, and especially if they were executed for that crime. It was after that threat that Lincoln acknowledged belligerent rights for the confederates, which meant captured rebels could not be tried as pirates, thieves, or murderers for their actions as soldiers and sailors, but would be granted the status of prisoners of war.

Regards,
Cash

[jenna]

Thanks Cash, that really helped allot. It makes a wee bit more sence. I don't normally get into the polotics of the war, since that is not where my specialty lies, but that comment in that book just confused me.
Jenna

[Admiral_Porter]

Legally, simply declaring ports closed to traffic would not allow US warships to have the scope of powers they had under a blockade.