The Blockade, Paris Rules, and Contraband - question

Saphroneth

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Feb 18, 2017
This came up in another thread, so I thought I'd open a new one to try and get information on the matter.


The Union declared that their blockade would be under Paris Treaty rules in the ACW.
Now, Paris Treaty rules were:
(1) privateering was illegal
(2) a neutral flag covered enemy goods except contraband
(3) neutral goods, except contraband, were not liable to capture under an enemy flag
(4) a blockade, to be legal, had to be effective.


Now, going down the list, the first one is largely irrelevant to the ACW. The CSA originally felt that because it hadn't signed Paris then it could commission privateers, but decided against it when the Union got upset about it (despite this being the exact reason the Union had declined to acede to Paris rules beforehand).
The other three have relevance:

(4) is that a blockade has to be effective to be legal. There's scope to argue that this rule was being bent - British ships record testing the blockade to see whether their warships were even noticed, and early on they weren't in some cases - but the meaning of "effective" is slippery and the interpretation used at the time and subsequently was largely "if you're complaining about it, it's clearly effective".
But (2) and (3) are where I think there is a problem.
Because I don't know of any official list of Union contraband. (Paris didn't lay out rules like later treaties would on what could be declared contraband, so there's no fallback list.)

The reason why this matters is that I know of at least one case where a British ship was captured by blockading Union vessels when carrying a cargo of grain. Here both the goods and the flag are neutral, which would imply that unless the grain was explicitly declared contraband then this would be outside the terms of a Paris-rules blockade.

So: does anyone know of a source for what the Union considered to be contraband in the ACW?
 
I believe such a list would have been issued by the State Department, since it had to do with relations with foreign countries. I have not yet found such a list, but did find the following:

ORN Series I, Vol 2, p. 412 July 27, 1863
Report of Capt. Winslow relative to the detention and examination of supposed blockade runner Juno.

*****
In closing this letter I would beg leave to add that, the Department having given instructions to capture all vessels laden with munitions of war or contraband, it may be considered that an error in judgment has been made in not sending this vessel to the United States; but as the word contraband has taken so general a scope in diplomatic correspondence, a question necessarily arises of what is contraband on this side of the Atlantic, and the definition might be quite distinct from what may be classed contraband on the other side. In conclusion, I will state that if this vessel had been taken out of Bermuda on her alternate voyage I should without hesitation have sent her to the United States for adjudication.
 
I suddenly have the funny image of a "Jobsworth" Union blockade commander saying that it's clear that the blockade runner has no contraband aboard - all the crew are free men!
 
Getting closer. Richmond Dispatch newspaper, May 15, 1861:

Washington,May 14.--The Secretary of the Treasury has just issued a circular to all Collectors and Surveyors, and other Officers of Customs, in relation to commerce with the Southern States, with the following addition: Among the prohibited supplies are included coals, telegraphic instruments, wire, cups, platini, sulphuric acid, zine, and all telegraphic material.
 
Richmond Dispatch, May 16, 1861

--The following articles have been officially declared as coming under the head of "contraband of war," by the Federal Administration:

Gold and silver coin, checks or bills of exchange for money, articles of food, clothing, and materials for the manufacture of clothing; rifle, pistol, musket and cannon balls and shells; gunpowder, and all materials used in its manufacture; ammunition and munitions and implements of war of every description; books of military education; saddles, harness and trappings for flying artillery, field and staff officers and cavalry troops; horses, gun-carriages, timber for ship building, all kinds of naval stores, engines, boilers and machinery for boats, locomotive engines and cars for railroads, and goods and commodities which might be useful to the enemy in war.
 
The big hole is the last part of the list: "goods and commodities which might be useful to the enemy in war."

I have seen cases where coal for ships and medicine were included, but food was very much in question for much of the war.
 
--The following articles have been officially declared as coming under the head of "contraband of war," by the Federal Administration:

Gold and silver coin, checks or bills of exchange for money, articles of food, clothing, and materials for the manufacture of clothing; rifle, pistol, musket and cannon balls and shells; gunpowder, and all materials used in its manufacture; ammunition and munitions and implements of war of every description; books of military education; saddles, harness and trappings for flying artillery, field and staff officers and cavalry troops; horses, gun-carriages, timber for ship building, all kinds of naval stores, engines, boilers and machinery for boats, locomotive engines and cars for railroads, and goods and commodities which might be useful to the enemy in war.
Aha! Thanks, that's helpful.

Huh, wow, most of this is what I'd have expected, but "articles of food" is the one I suspected but wasn't sure of - it's a common thing in discussion of the 1914 blockade of Germany to note that it was unusually restrictive in blocking food, but it seems that in fact it was not unusual for a large blockade.

The big hole is the last part of the list: "goods and commodities which might be useful to the enemy in war."
That's the "...and anything else you might be carrying" entry, isn't it...
 
I believe such a list would have been issued by the State Department, since it had to do with relations with foreign countries.

Sirs, my thoughts were the same as @DaveBrt 's. This would have to be communicated to every country that has merchant vessels flying their flag that could be near patrol areas. That should be quite a list. A complete copy should be somewhere - I can't find one.

I assuming that the attitude taken was any merchant vessel was a potential target. Stop, search, require papers. If there is the least scent of underhandedness, send said merchant into port for adjudication. Yes, there were claims against the Federal Government that were found for the plaintiff. The price of those rulings was budget dust compared to the overall war effort. Still, this could be very effective. Stop the ship, send it to port, where it sits and waits for its trial date. I have read that there was a 6 to 12 month backlog in the court system - except for vessels that the USN really wanted to acquire. (and no sirs, sorry, been looking and can't find the reference...). While sitting there, the bottom fouls, maintenance isn't done, and the cargo - if perishable - rots. And no other voyages can be made. Any shipper that wasn't involved in efforts to supply the South is going to steer well clear of USN efforts and have their papers in order.

Not the same as seizing the vessel but effective none the less...

The big hole is the last part of the list: "goods and commodities which might be useful to the enemy in war."

"Send them all to port let the courts sort them out..."

The great catch all like "...and other duties as assigned..."
43

Cheers,
USS ALASKA
 
Last edited:
My impression is that the British were tolerant and slightly supportive of the blockade, because even in the Spring of 1861 the US administration was dangling the possibility of conceding the long sought after right of inspection to the British, with respect to the trans-Atlantic slave trade. If the US also ended the outfitting of slave ships in New York, Lord Palmerston might achieve the long desired end of the international slave trade between Africa and the Americas.
It took about 1 year, but after the right of inspection was granted, the US flag was no longer available as cover for the Cuban slave trade.
The issues mentioned above were significant and the New York prize court did not always rule in favor of the US.
 
It is clear from the many uses of "contraband" in the newspapers even before the war, everyone "just knew" what it meant. "I know art when I see it."
 
Not the same as seizing the vessel but effective none the less...
Yes, and frowned upon because it's an underhanded approach - the Federal Government would probably be expected to make full recompense in the event of the seizure being unwarranted. (The WW1 British admiralty courts did their best to clear cases through as fast as possible, and were if anything criticized for being too fast - by the ship owners!)
 
Didn't they make Smalls a privateer because they could not give him a commission in the U.S. Navy?

Robert Smalls was awarded prize money for the capture of the Planter and worked as a civilian for the USN but was never given a Letter of Marque to go privateering that I know of.
85

Cheers,
USS ALASKA
 
Also a minor point - only officers are commissioned in the first place, though it appears a commission was required to command a USN vessel.
I understand that Smalls was technically in USN service as a pilot (under a sailing master) and was only in command of the ship when it was in the US Army.
 
It was my understanding that Smalls and his whole crew kept command and operation of the ship for the rest of the war. That said, I've only learned about Smalls from snippets here and there. He has to be one of the most interesting stories from both the war and reconstruction. Are there any good books on him?
 
It was my understanding that Smalls and his whole crew kept command and operation of the ship for the rest of the war. That said, I've only learned about Smalls from snippets here and there. He has to be one of the most interesting stories from both the war and reconstruction. Are there any good books on him?

Smalls served on several ships including the ironclad Keokuk for the big naval assault on Charleston, where Keokuk was badly damaged and sank the next day. That was due to shortcomings in her armor scheme plus good gunnery by the Confederates, not anything to do with Smalls.
 
Back
Top