To some degree they did attempt it but it was rather uninspiring. As other have said they built a lot of their commerce using British or foreign nations (which pretended to be neutral) mostly because they lacked the infrastructure and expertise/ engineering ability of the north. These ships were never seriously going to contest the blockading fleets and only once actually defeated a warship.
I will note as a comparison that during the First World War blockade the German High Seas Fleet tried to lift the blockade at the battle of Jutland, the parity between the fleets and industrial capability was far closer there that it was in our civil war. The circumstances of the battle were about as good as the Germans could have expected and yet it did not break the blockade.
I think ships should have been limited to costal defenses and littoral operation to protect places like port royal and fort Fischer (though they did try at mobile and New Orleans). Additionally they should have used their raiders to better effect on the west cost interdicting the large gold shipments from California.
The Confederacy commanded no ex-USN seaworthy ships at all. The most they got were river and estuary craft and very limited in their scope of operation. There was no way they could have tackled the Blockade. That is why they went over to raiding - exactly the same method used by the nascent Union in 1775 and 1812
There was no pretence of Neutrality. They were given NOTHING by the governments of Britain, France and Russia who were the only nations officially declaring Neutrality. The CSA was not recognised as a country nor was it's money. And before the old mantra of supplying weapons - they were all BOUGHT, same as the Union had to. They were commercial contracts. The same as the USA, whose firms supplied weapons contracted and bought by Britain and France in 2 world wars BEFORE the USA was involved - ie NEUTRAL.
The 'raiders' were all bought or built as unarmed merchantmen ordered or bought by British civilians or merchants acting on behalf of the CSA and closely connected with the cotton industry. They were promised payment in the form of cotton. They got precious little.
Serve them right. It was NOT a government scam. Government,
in those days, did not interfere in commercial deals
. All vessels were armed outside British and French territory and waters, which is why the 'reparations' paid in the Treaty of Washington (1871)* were not those demanded.
The
Treaty of Washington of 1871 was signed after discussions, organised by approved uninvolved nations in Geneva, Switzerland, settled various disputes between the two countries (as well as Canada* as a British dominion). It included the
Alabama Claims for damages to American shipping caused by British-built ships, as well as British civilian losses in the American Civil War. They also arranged further discussions on illegal fishing in Canadian water. The British government paid the $15.5million awarded for the Alabama losses but admitted no guilt, but an apology which was accepted. No civilian reparations were made at all since most were involved in Blockade busting.
The cases were considered CLOSED and actually promoted peaceful relations between the USA and Canada/Britain** Later, after the Halifax Fisheries Commission findings (organised as part of the Treaty of Washington) the USA paid back $5.5million in 1877 for the illegal fishing in Canadian waters.
** Any monies were paid to and from Britain, not Canada. Britain still maintained control of Canada's foreign affairs under the British North America Act, 1867' giving Canada 'dominion' status - self-governing internally. Britain had already paid towards the Canadian Pacific Railway and defence during the Fenian Raids in compensation for the illegal fishing. (as had the USA, unofficially)
It also helped to set the rules for Neutrality in further international disputes - the first example of International LAW, rather than tradition or established protocol.
Bringing the