Blockade Runners

MikeyB

Sergeant
Joined
Sep 13, 2018
What was the status of captured blockade runners? Were they considered prisoners of war? Did they get thrown in jail or just get their cargo confiscated? What if they were foreign nationals?

mike
 
What was the status of captured blockade runners? Were they considered prisoners of war? Did they get thrown in jail or just get their cargo confiscated? What if they were foreign nationals?

mike
Most of the blockade runners crew were forigen Nationals so to avoid diplomatic difficulties they were just cut loose. The ship and it's cargo goes to a prize court. If the crew member owned a nice watch or wiskey bottle " it got lost".
Leftyhunter
 
There was a legal review process to determine the true ownership, origin, and destination of the vessel and cargo; the focus tended to be on those rather than the crew. Pilots were exceptions, however, especially because they were very frequently natives of the southern states, and their skills were considered sensitive; so about any excuse was seized upon to avoid releasing them. If the blockade runner's commander or senior staff could be shown to be Confederate naval officers, they were considered prisoners of war. And if the blockade runner offered armed resistance, the courts were eager to come down on them like the proverbial ton of bricks; so, apart from weapons shipped as cargo, blockade runners were almost universally unarmed apart from the occasional sidearm.
 
Related question - did the CSN utilize privateers? Or were all "privateer" like efforts officially commissioned CSN ships? The Alabama came to mind but given it was CSS Alabama, makes me wonder.

If they did use privateers, did the US government ever try to prosecute as pirates?
 
Related question - did the CSN utilize privateers? Or were all "privateer" like efforts officially commissioned CSN ships? The Alabama came to mind but given it was CSS Alabama, makes me wonder.

If they did use privateers, did the US government ever try to prosecute as pirates?
Early in the war there were a few Confederate privateers but for legal reasons it was deemed much better to have the CSN seize all Union ships as if captured the CSN sailor's would be considered POWs not pirates subject to hanging. Also it was better to have all capable ships under Confederate command.
Leftyhunter
 
Of potential relevance, I got the sense that crews may have viewed being taken prisoner by the Federals as a colossal waste of time better spent on another ridiculously-profitable voyage (which would explain why they tended to drop the lifeboats and row like cocaine addicts for shore, should there be any chance of being taken).

Consult @AndyHall for more educated observations.
 
Even the 'most' successful runners only made 20 - 30 runs. I think the CSS Advance had 20+ and the SS Syren had like 33. The Advance was Confederate and the Syren was privately owned.
 
There have been other very impressive runs:
  • ALICE - 24 runs - retired
  • DENBIGH - 26 runs - burned
  • HAROLD - 24 runs destroyed
  • LUCY - 21 runs - captured
  • HANSA - 20 runs - retired
  • KATE - 20 runs in 11 months - damaged.
But the question is, what did they carry? I've always been meaning to attempt research on this but never got around to it. Once they hit port the goods were auctioned off. Notices were posted in the local paper (or some sort of bulletin board if no paper was available). That's how you'd need to research runners - I think. If you generically looked up runners I think you'd get a feel for what they were bringing in. I've never tried it yet.
 
There have been other very impressive runs:
  • ALICE - 24 runs - retired
  • DENBIGH - 26 runs - burned
  • HAROLD - 24 runs destroyed
  • LUCY - 21 runs - captured
  • HANSA - 20 runs - retired
  • KATE - 20 runs in 11 months - damaged.
But the question is, what did they carry? I've always been meaning to attempt research on this but never got around to it. Once they hit port the goods were auctioned off. Notices were posted in the local paper (or some sort of bulletin board if no paper was available). That's how you'd need to research runners - I think. If you generically looked up runners I think you'd get a feel for what they were bringing in. I've never tried it yet.
What you see in the newspaper ads are only a part of the cargo. Anywhere from a little to most of a cargo could be claimed by the government and an offer made for the items. Even must have things like shoes were not bought if the runner priced them too high. There are many telegrams from Wilmington asking the QMG if he was willing to pay a particular price for a part of a cargo.

Second, many items were sold in lots to merchants and jobbers before any public notice was made of the goods for sale.

Last, both officers and crew carried some goods on their own for sale. The space for such was limited and controlled, so only goods bringing high return for small space were found in this category. This is only mentioned by the runners themselves.

Many years ago, I started making an inventory of the reported cargoes of all the runners I could find. After a while, it was obvious that most of the cargo that was purchased by the government was not showing up. Also, there was sometimes a serious difference between what the government reported receiving from a ship and what was reported on its manifest (ie 50 packages of samples and goods = what?). So I gave up. If you are really serious, the receiving port authorities recorded what was on the manifests of each ship that arrived, and most of these are available in the National Archives, but unfolding, recording and refolding them is very time consuming.

Get your library to ILL Vandiver, Confederate Blockade Running Through Bermuda, 1861-1865, Letters and Cargo Manifests and Wise, Lifeline of the Confederacy, Blockade Running During the Civil War. Read the latter one before you start any such project.
 
Even the 'most' successful runners only made 20 - 30 runs. I think the CSS Advance had 20+ and the SS Syren had like 33. The Advance was Confederate and the Syren was privately owned.
I see different estimates of the chances of a blockade runner being captured anywhere from ten to seventeen percent. Essential civilwar .com stated that sailboats had a seventeen percent chance of being captured.
Leftyhunter
 
Almost all Confederate saltpetre came through the blockade (2,700,000 lbs, so about 1,000 tons).

In general the blockade runners which tended to make it once the blockade was properly established were fast, shallow steamers - they were fast enough to make a run and shallow enough to reach safety up rivers, and the fast paddle steamer was already a design that had been developed for a while because of the British mail ship system.


Interestingly on the privateer point there's reason to suspect that the Union hanging privateers as pirates would have been a breech of international law, as while international law outlawed privateering the US had made a point of not signing on to that particular treaty (on the grounds that they felt a non-signatory to the treaty could use privateers against a signatory).
The CSA, of course, never signed that treaty.
 
Interestingly on the privateer point there's reason to suspect that the Union hanging privateers as pirates would have been a breech of international law, as while international law outlawed privateering the US had made a point of not signing on to that particular treaty (on the grounds that they felt a non-signatory to the treaty could use privateers against a signatory).
The CSA, of course, never signed that treaty.
The Paris Declaration Respecting Maritime Law was signed April 16, 1856. It was negotiated at the conference of nations ending the Crimean War (Treaty of Paris, signed March 30, 1856) at the suggestion of the French. The initial signers were Great Britain, Austria, France, Prussia, Russia, Sardinia and Turkey. The US declined to join the agreement in 1857 when their proposed Marcy amendment was rejected by the original parties.

In 1861, the US declared they would abide by the terms of the Paris Declaration Respecting Maritime Law. The reason is obvious enough: allowing privateers would benefit the Confederacy against the large US merchant fleet while the US would get no particular benefit from employing privateers against the largely not-existent Confederate merchant fleet.

The Confederacy could have made the same declaration to abide by the Declaration, but never attempted to do so. The Confederacy could not have actually signed the Paris Declaration Respecting Maritime Law until and unless it was recognized as a nation by the powers that had already signed the agreement (or at least the big ones amongst them, who would have told the others how it was going to go).

 
In 1861, the US declared they would abide by the terms of the Paris Declaration Respecting Maritime Law. The reason is obvious enough: allowing privateers would benefit the Confederacy against the large US merchant fleet while the US would get no particular benefit from employing privateers against the largely not-existent Confederate merchant fleet.
Yes, their reasoning is obvious, but their legal logic is at odds with their argument from a few years previously that by not aceding to Paris they retained the right to use privateers against Paris signatories.

This is basically the problem:

Can a party abiding by Paris claim the protection of Paris from non-signatories employing privateers?

If YES, then the US's logic around Paris pre-Civil-War is false (because they wanted to retain the right to use privateers against the UK in the event of war).
If NO, then the US's logic around Paris during the Civil War is false (because they claimed the protection of Paris from the CSA's privateers).

A treaty is a quid pro quo; in this case, the cost is you give up your own privateers and the benefit is you are protected from the privateers of other signatories.
 
Yes, their reasoning is obvious, but their legal logic is at odds with their argument from a few years previously that by not aceding to Paris they retained the right to use privateers against Paris signatories.

This is basically the problem:

Can a party abiding by Paris claim the protection of Paris from non-signatories employing privateers?

If YES, then the US's logic around Paris pre-Civil-War is false (because they wanted to retain the right to use privateers against the UK in the event of war).
If NO, then the US's logic around Paris during the Civil War is false (because they claimed the protection of Paris from the CSA's privateers).

A treaty is a quid pro quo; in this case, the cost is you give up your own privateers and the benefit is you are protected from the privateers of other signatories.

Yes; and Britain's response was basically, "That's so nice that you've come around; we'll be sure to talk to you again about it after your current troubles are over." :laugh:
 
Yes; and Britain's response was basically, "That's so nice that you've come around; we'll be sure to talk to you again about it after your current troubles are over." :laugh:
From memory there was a literal book of "examples of things the Americans did that expand the scope of what a blockading power is allowed to do" and the British allegorically threw it at America during WW1.

They did manage to extort the Right of Search out of the Union, though.
 
Yes, their reasoning is obvious, but their legal logic is at odds with their argument from a few years previously that by not aceding to Paris they retained the right to use privateers against Paris signatories.
There is no "legal logic" involved. There is no "law" involved. In 1861, the US is simply making a declaration about what they will do. There is no international code of law or court system in place at the time -- simply a treaty the US never signed. Until and unless the US signs that agreement -- and the Senate confirms it -- there is no law involved in the US.

The Marcy amendment is simply a condition the US wanted the other nations to accept before they would sign, and the other countries (IOW, Great Britain particularly, IIRR) objected to the condition.
 
There is no "legal logic" involved. There is no "law" involved. In 1861, the US is simply making a declaration about what they will do. There is no international code of law or court system in place at the time -- simply a treaty the US never signed. Until and unless the US signs that agreement -- and the Senate confirms it -- there is no law involved in the US.
Well, does agreeing to the Paris Treaty protect one from privateers? Either it does or it doesn't; the US is of course free to change its mind on the answer depending on whatever interpretation it will profit from most at the time, but that doesn't mean that other powers will necessarily agree with their interpretation.

If the US argues (during the Civil War) that someone who has agreed to Paris is protected from privateers, and then (in a hypothetical 1870 war) that they can use privateers on Britain (who signed Paris), then they are being hypocritical and as such cannot reasonably expect other powers to offer their privateers legal protection. This is because precedent is international law - and you only need to look at the situation around blockading, admiralty courts and prize law to see that this was a field in which countries paid attention to precedents other countries had set.
 
Back
Top