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".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
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.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?
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.There have been other very impressive runs:
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.
- 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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.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."
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.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.
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.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.