Davis Confederate President Davis Encourages Privateers.

jessgettysburg1863

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Jun 3, 2012
Location
Living in Kilmore in Victoria Australia
Submitted by tonyp on Tue, 04/17/2012 - 08:48.

After Fort Sumter surrendered to Confederate forces on April 13, 1861, President Lincoln issued a call for 75,000 volunteers to serve for 90 days to preserve the Union. The South scrambled to respond. Realizing the Confederacy lacked an effective navy, President Jefferson Davis issued a proclamation on April 17 offering to give sanction to any armed private vessel that was willing to attack Northern ships.
This official sanction was called a “letter of marque”: essentially, a license for privateers to attack at will. Without such sanction, acts of violence on the high seas by private vessels were acts of piracy. With a letter of marque, however, these privateers could ennoble their plundering by acting on behalf of the Confederate States of America.
In his proclamation, Jefferson Davis was careful to demand a high standard of conduct by these privateers. He had no interest in collaboration with lawless pirates. Private armed vessels serving under a Confederate letter of marque had to post a bond and follow all laws and regulations governing their behavior.
President Davis’ proclamation was obviously of great interest to the North. The entire proclamation was published in the April 26, 1861, issue of the Farmer’s Cabinet (Amherst, New Hampshire).

See the link for the full article.

http://www.newsinhistory.com/blog/confederate-president-davis-encourages-privateers
 
The United States had relied on privateers in its two earlier wars against Britian and refused to sign the 1856 Treaty of Paris because one of the Articles provided for the abolishment of letters or marque by belligerents. Immediately following the announcement in April 1861 that the Confederate government was going to issue letters of marque to privateers, Secretary of State Seward instructed the U.S. minister in London to open up negotiations with the British for American adherence to the 1856 Treaty.
 
The British response was essentially, "Oh, so now you want to sign?" :laugh:

Well, a lot more diplomatically than that... we're pleased you want to adhere to a high standard of conduct, yadda yadda.

Privateering ended up playing very little role in the war, principally because the blockade made it highly difficult to send prizes back to a Confederate port, and neutrality laws forbade the sale of prizes in foreign ports. There being no money in it (and lots to be had in blockade-running), privateering rapidly faded away.
 
The British response was essentially, "Oh, so now you want to sign?" :laugh:

Well, a lot more diplomatically than that... we're pleased you want to adhere to a high standard of conduct, yadda yadda.

Privateering ended up playing very little role in the war, principally because the blockade made it highly difficult to send prizes back to a Confederate port, and neutrality laws forbade the sale of prizes in foreign ports. There being no money in it (and lots to be had in blockade-running), privateering rapidly faded away.

Still a great incentive to crew vessels, on a buccaneering promise of bounty. A great number of foreign mariners signed up, or switched sides to serve on board CS naval ships.
From dockyard construction, to captured crewmen. A large percentage of Confederate naval personnel, were foreign born. The lure of adventure, and high seas plunder might have drawn many to take the risk. But without these mercenaries. The navy of the Confederacy, may well have been unable to set sail.
I absolutely love the stories behind the naval war. I recognise the differences between the brown water, and blue water engagements. But there really is something for everyone in there.
 
Another sprig of all this is that the Crown Prince (future King of Germany) watched the CSA Commerce raiders from their situations and gave rise to German Commerce raiders in both World Wars PLUS Germany had the hots to develop submarines after the Hunley actually sank a ship.
 
Another sprig of all this is that the Crown Prince (future King of Germany) watched the CSA Commerce raiders from their situations and gave rise to German Commerce raiders in both World Wars PLUS Germany had the hots to develop submarines after the Hunley actually sank a ship.
source?

Also, there was no king of Germany.

There wasn't even a Germany when the Hunley was in use.
And the German imperial navy didn't get its first uboat until the 1890ties.

So more like american nationalistic myth-making
 
Aagaard - I am part Danish by descent (and Norwegian & Swedish to name but a few)! Myth Making? Quote your source my friend.

"The unification of Germany (excluding Austria and the German-speaking areas of Switzerland) was achieved under the leadership of the Chancellor Otto von Bismarck with the formation of the German Empire in 1871. This resulted in the Kleindeutsche Lösung, ("small Germany solution", Germany without Austria), rather than the Großdeutsche Lösung, ("greater Germany solution", Germany with Austria). The new Reichstag, an elected parliament, had only a limited role in the imperial government. Germany joined the other powers in colonial expansion in Africa and the Pacific." Wikipedia.

Just because Germany did not exist in 1860s as it did in 1900 - 1918 does not mean it did not exist. To say this is American Nationalist "myth-making" is really funny. Just because some of the players were still in the early version of pampers, does not mean they did not learn some history lessons.

Gonna slam me (which is why I don't spend a whole lot of time here" then get out and quote your own sources.
 
Quote your source my friend.
You are the one making the claim that "Germany had the hots to develop submarines after the Hunley actually sank a ship. "

And you have posted no evidence of this.

You also make the (wrong) claim that there was a King of Germany during this period.
And the claim that CSA Commerce raiders had an influence.

You are the one making the claims, then you are the one who need to prove it.
Since you can't prove a negative.
(I can't prove that Lee's men did not have laser rifles. I can just point of the lack of evidence for them)

--

But as I pointed out. In 1860-65 there was no single german state. There was the German federation.
It was made up of a long list of big and small "German" states.

There was no King of Germany.
This title fell out of use much earlier.
In 1871 The German empire was created. And it was headed by an Emperor.

Commerce raiding have been done for centuries, and have for centuries been a good idea for anyone with a smaller battlefield then the enemy.
What is your evidence that specifically csa raiding was an influence? (and not commerce raiding done by other powers?)

And finally, the Imperial german navy did not get its first uboat until the 1890ties.
3 decades after the Hunley. (This can easily be found in the wiki article about the u-boat.)

Other naval powers where building submersibles at the same time. And if the Germans had the "hot", then why did they only have 20 u-boats at the start of the great war? compared to the royal navy who had 74. (numbers from to wiki)

They where 17 to 29 when it came to dreadnoughts, much closer to parity.
So I would say they had the hots for building dreadnoughts... not subs. But that is just my interpretation of the numbers.

But Again no evidence that specifically the Hunley was a influence. (more than it was for everyone else.)

But I would love to see evidence of this from a period source.

---
What I see is a typical problem.
American authors wanting to make things that happened during the civil war, be bigger and more important to the rest of the world than it often was. (You are use to being the center of the world, since the US have been that for the last 80 years.. but that was simply not the case back in 1860-65)
And you as a reader then get the idea...

Another example of this is the claim (that you did not make) that Moltke (the elder) got his whole idea of using railroads from the civil war. (when he wrote a book about using RRs for warfare before the war and was the director of a railroad before the war)

Or even worse the claim that the civil war was the first war where the rifle musket was used.
Or the first war where RRs was used...

And that is simply american myth-making.. because it is factually not correct.
 
My understanding has been that the major source of naval warfare against Union commercial shipping were vessels commissioned by the Confederate States Navy (CSS Alabama, Florida, Shenandoah), and not privateers.
 
***Posted as Moderator***
Let's stay focused on discussing how Davis encouraged privateers and how that decision affected the American Civil War.
 
When you are faced with a superior foe, you do everything you can to win...we had done the same in the Wars with Britain.. I dont like it, but I understand it.....then again, if you are not at war with a country, and you encourage piracy just for material gain, you have everything, and in my book more, in the way of hell coming to you
 
When you are faced with a superior foe, you do everything you can to win...we had done the same in the Wars with Britain.. I dont like it, but I understand it.....then again, if you are not at war with a country, and you encourage piracy just for material gain, you have everything, and in my book more, in the way of hell coming to you
I would go even further by not placing qualifications ("superior foe"): a government that gets its nation involved in armed conflict has an obligation to its people to use every available means to win as quickly as possible.
 
Submitted by tonyp on Tue, 04/17/2012 - 08:48.

After Fort Sumter surrendered to Confederate forces on April 13, 1861, President Lincoln issued a call for 75,000 volunteers to serve for 90 days to preserve the Union. The South scrambled to respond. Realizing the Confederacy lacked an effective navy, President Jefferson Davis issued a proclamation on April 17 offering to give sanction to any armed private vessel that was willing to attack Northern ships.
This official sanction was called a “letter of marque”: essentially, a license for privateers to attack at will. Without such sanction, acts of violence on the high seas by private vessels were acts of piracy. With a letter of marque, however, these privateers could ennoble their plundering by acting on behalf of the Confederate States of America.
In his proclamation, Jefferson Davis was careful to demand a high standard of conduct by these privateers. He had no interest in collaboration with lawless pirates. Private armed vessels serving under a Confederate letter of marque had to post a bond and follow all laws and regulations governing their behavior.
President Davis’ proclamation was obviously of great interest to the North. The entire proclamation was published in the April 26, 1861, issue of the Farmer’s Cabinet (Amherst, New Hampshire).

See the link for the full article.
Not understanding the importance of privateers. They were simply not used for the reasons already

http://www.newsinhistory.com/blog/confederate-president-davis-encourages-privateers
Not seeing the significance of Confederate privateers. As other posters pointed out privateers don't could not access Confederate ports with a captured vessel. The best the Confederacy could do was buy a few warships from the UK with mostly British crews and at best burn but not confiscate Union cargo's. Confederate raiders were a nuisance but not even a nuisance that required the Union Navy to institute convoys.
The Union Navy was able to destroy most of the Confederate raiders and the Confederate Navy failed mightly in protecting Confederate ports and maritime trade routes.
Leftyhunter
 
Privateers were an apparently-inexpensive way to conjure up a navy from nothing, and there was a long tradition of them in the American memory, going back even to Elizabeth I's 'sea dogs.'

They were not a good substitute for an organized navy, though, and in most historical cases were little more than an annoyance to the enemy. While annoying one's enemy in every way possible is not necessarily bad strategy, it shouldn't be done in place of something that damages the enemy in a more material fashion. Privateers (real privateers) were largely an undisciplined lot who preyed on what was easy/profitable, were very bad at taking central direction, and could seldom handle a serious challenge. (I say "real" privateers because there are many references to Southern government cruisers as "privateers"-- but they really were not. The Union called them that because admitting the existence of a Southern government presented major problems, and many Southerners called them that because there was a certain 'romance' attached to them, regardless of their actual historical impact.)

Navies being most effective when there is central direction, standardized training, and discipline... privateers were always a poor alternative in the long run.
 
Back
Top