Overmod- I would think you are right but that is what I've read about it. Blockades are generally considered illegal by the blockade-ee, not the blockader. We were taught in school that British ships would stop American ships "on the high seas" and impressing sailors. We were not taught that American ships were running a British blockade of France, France and Britain being at war at the time. Napoleon and all that. Now, back to our war in progress...
I wish I was in the Land of Cotton old times there are not forgotten. look away dixie land.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XQmO-WfEkk4
Railroad to Freedom
OvermodNow, returning to the original subject -- was there anything comparable on Confederate railroads to the kinds of activity taken during the wolf-pack attacks on coastal shipping starting in 1941, which led to the requirement for all those oil trains (and building of the pipeline network on an expedient basis)?
Returning to the original subject? What are we to think?
I don't know about anything comparable to wolf pack attacks. Confederates attacked Union trains in order to take the supplies they were carrying and tore up a lot of track. The Union tore up as much track as they could and tried to destroy rail junctions. The big difference was that the Union was a lot more successful at repairing torn up track and destroyed bridges.
Let me make one thing clear: declaring the ports closed certainly wouldn't have meant a thing to the Confederate states. What it would have done was put a "Keep Out!" sign on the ports as a warning to any foreign shipping. "If you're bringing goods to the United States, you better bring them to the open ports, or else!" No one likes to hear "or else", especially if you're going to be hit in the wallet.
Certainly the blockade couldn't be enforced at first, but that hardly made it invalid, only impractical for a time. But as time went on and more ships were aqquired by the US Navy, the blockade certainly became valid. Downright deadly in the long run, like the tightening noose.
Keep in mind at the beginning of the war the Confederates, in addition to having no navy, didn't have much in the way of a merchant marine as well. That meant that imported goods were going to be carried by British ships, French ships, Dutch ships, Scandinavian ships, or anyones ships. If you're one of those ship owners, do you want to take a chance on losing everything, ship included, by running into a closed port? Even pleading "Force Majure" isn't likely to help you. No, you're going to go where it's OK for you to go. Later, as the Confederacy got it's fleet of blockade runners the foreign ships only needed to go as far as the West Indies or Bermuda. The Reb merchant marine could take it the rest of the way and assume the risk.
No, declaring a port closed it a serious matter anyway you look at it, one most shippers will take seriously.
Firelock76 Was the blockade legal? It was, but there was a bit of a foul-up on the Lincoln Administrations part when they declared a blockade. A blockade is a legitimate act of war on an enemy power, so by declaring a blockade Lincoln was in fact giving de-facto recognition to the Confederacy as an independant nation. Whoops! This meant that any foreign ship that tried to run the blockade was free to do so, but if it was stopped and the cargo seized the shippers would have to be re-embursed for the value. What Lincoln should and could have done was declared the Southern ports CLOSED. Then any ship attempting entry would be liable to seizure without compensation. Also, there would have been no recognition by Lincoln, accidental or otherwise, of the Confederacy as anything other than American states in rebellion against the Federal government.
Was the blockade legal? It was, but there was a bit of a foul-up on the Lincoln Administrations part when they declared a blockade. A blockade is a legitimate act of war on an enemy power, so by declaring a blockade Lincoln was in fact giving de-facto recognition to the Confederacy as an independant nation. Whoops! This meant that any foreign ship that tried to run the blockade was free to do so, but if it was stopped and the cargo seized the shippers would have to be re-embursed for the value.
What Lincoln should and could have done was declared the Southern ports CLOSED. Then any ship attempting entry would be liable to seizure without compensation. Also, there would have been no recognition by Lincoln, accidental or otherwise, of the Confederacy as anything other than American states in rebellion against the Federal government.
Actually, it's perfectly legitimate to declare war on a domestic insurgency without ever getting even close to recognizing national sovereignty. The real issue, if I remember correctly from Walter Murphy's Constitutional Interpretation class, was that Lincoln could not enforce the blockade consistently, and that therefore it was invalid. I cannot quote you the precedents without looking them up, but they are there for the reading. If only I had more charge in the battery tonight!
"Declaring the ports closed" would work about as well as provisioning Sumter did -- there's this little thing South Carolina in particular was good at: ignoring anything the Union government said or did. You have to be able to MAKE them closed -- and that would only be possible with blockade, same as with all the other examples of commerce raiders that were bottled up until surrendered, scuttled, or sunk.
Was the blockade legal? It was, but there was a bit of a foul-up on the Lincoln Administrations part when they declared a blockade. A blockade is a legitmate act of war on an enemy power, so by declaring a blockade Lincoln was in fact giving de-facto recognition to the Confederacy as an independant nation. Whoops! This meant that any foreign ship that tried to run the blockade was free to do so, but if it was stopped and the cargo seized the shippers would have to be re-embursed for the value.
As far as the Union Navy causing Confederate shipping problems that would have had to have been allieviated by railroads, the closest thing I can think of would have been Confederate imports coming through Mexico. The US Navy couldn't do a thing about Mexican ports. Articles recived there were shipped through Texas to the rest of the Confederacy. Once the Mississippi was "blocked", however, that option was out. Since the Mississippi has no places where it can be forded (like the Hudson River for that matter), get control of the ferry points and you've stopped cross-river traffic. Texas and the other Confederate states on the "wrong" side of the river were isolated from the rest.
Southern congressmen and senators were blocking legislation for years before the war which was designed to increase our merchant fleet. The result was a declining merchant fleet before Sumter. Confederate raiders and other ships only captured 200 Union merchant ships combined.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Firelock76There was also CSS Shenandoah, which was never caught and captured by the way
That's why I mentioned Idy. Fact is,though, that if he had not surrendered RIGHT quick in Britain, he thought he would face charges of piracy...
Firelock76As far as comparable activity to the oil trains during World War Two I'm not aware of any close examples.
Keep in mind that I mean specific activity either (1) to get round the problems imposed by the (was it even legal?) blockade, and (2) to supply towns or forces that would otherwise have been supplied or resupplied by sea? I'd also apply this (in lesser respect) to the Union interdiction of Mississippi shipping... except for that little contretemps at Vicksburg ... as far as the Confederates were concerned with it, which I think was slight even by the time of the fall of Memphis.
I wasn't implying the use of railroads to bring in resources that were other
Don't forget CSS Alabama wasn't the only Confederate commerce raider. There was also CSS Shenandoah, which was never caught and captured by the way, and presumeably there were a few others. The fact remains Confederate commerce raiders did quite a bit of damage to Northern shipping that took the shipping industry years to recover from. In addition to which the American merchant marine at the time was small compared to the British. As a matter of fact even well into the 20th Century the British merchant marine was the largest in the world.
As far as comperable activity to the oil trains during World War Two I'm not aware of any close examples.
54light15I have to mention this about the Seeadler, captive sailors were permitted to work the ship and were paid the same wages as their own companies would have,
But would this not open them to charges of piracy or treason if the Germans lost the war, or if their government failed to recognize the legitimacy of the ship's commission? (Certainly Idy Waddell thought so... ! )
It may bear remembering that the general politeness observed by surface ships was also extended by submarines... in the early days. U-boats would only attack on the surface, and give the crew a chance to surrender and take to the boats before sinking the ship. The British invention of Q-ships put a close to that method!
I don't think anyone could have criticized Semmes and his (largely British) crew as uncivilized. Northern shipowners didn't care if he was a civilized disaster ... they only recognized the disaster. Often, by using a flag of convenience or some other method that would still provide them some form of profit... or by selling should the availability or cost of insurance for them make business too bad. And that, I think, was one of the principal reasons for the Alabama and the other raiders -- and it was a success.
Perhaps even too much of one: the British became more of a predominant mercantile shipping power after the War; possibly this was by greater exploitation of steam and iron, but I rather agree that the ruination of American shipping by actions on both sides greatly promoted British influence.
Now, returning to the original subject -- was there anything comparable on Confederate railroads to the kinds of activity taken during the wolf-pack attacks on coastal shipping starting in 1941, which led to the requirement for all those oil trains (and building of the pipeline network on an expedient basis)?
That's exactly what I was talking about,. exorbitant insurance rates will keep a ship in port as if it were blockaded. The Seeadler! Now there is a story but for another forum I suppose. It is true about the commerce raiders mentioned, they all let the captured crews free from time to time. They were civilian sailors, not naval personnel. I have to mention this about the Seeadler, captive sailors were permitted to work the ship and were paid the same wages as their own companies would have, and the captive officers drank champagne with their meals. Probably too good to be true but that's what I've heard.
The fear was loss of ship and its cargo and exorbitant shipping insurance rates (Lloyds). The crews captured by the Emden, Graf Spee, See Adler (a sailing ship) and others were treated well and sent to shore often.
CSSHEGEWISCHAlthough lone commerce raiders (CSS Alabama, SMS Emden, Graf Spee, etc.) can and have inflicted significant losses, their real effect was the fear factor, which was out of proportion to what actually occured.
This is a fascinating observation. But what would be the rational response to the "fear factor" caused by the CSS Alabama? To a Union ship owner? Or to the officers and men on a Union merchant ship? I have heard Raphael Semmes, Captain of the Alabama, did not kill the men on the ships he captured but put them ashore in some neutral place.
schlimmhe numbers don't quite total. maybe the other several hundred thousand tons were retired.
Frankly, I've pulled together strands from my own memory of things I've read and heard in various sources. Other people (including you) have rather different perspectives. I'm not inclined to go to the mat defending every single statement I've made as precisely accurate. On the other hand this thread includes a discussion of what would the Civil War have been like if AK-47's were available. I hope you will cut me a little slack here.
Although lone commerce raiders (CSS Alabama, SMS Emden, Graf Spee, etc.) can and have inflicted significant losses, their real effect was the fear factor, which was out of proportion to what actually occured. Chasing down a lone raider and/or providing convoy protection also tied up a significant amount of the opposing navy's ships and men.
The numbers don't quite total. maybe the other several hundred thousand tons were retired.
schlimmhe number is 110,000 tons
OK. I though one number was supposed to be subtracted from the other.
Winfield Scott's Anaconda Plan was one of the keys to the Union victory by eliminating Confederate traffic on the rivers and gradually blockading most ports.
John WR schlimmI did some research and found the text of a history of US commercial shipping, 1620 to 1902. Thank you for your research, Schlimm. However, I think you misplaced a decimal point and meant to write that the Confederate Navy sunk 1,100,000 (one million 100 thousand) tons. In the face of this destruction I believe that many Union ship owners sold their vessels to foreign owners.
schlimmI did some research and found the text of a history of US commercial shipping, 1620 to 1902.
Thank you for your research, Schlimm. However, I think you misplaced a decimal point and meant to write that the Confederate Navy sunk 1,100,000 (one million 100 thousand) tons.
In the face of this destruction I believe that many Union ship owners sold their vessels to foreign owners.
Overmodor had you forgotten Mason & Slidell and that whole brouhaha?
I think those names have not been totally erased from my memory. I think you refer to the Trent affair. James Mason went on to England where he met unofficially with Foreign Secretary Lord John Russell and arranged to buy a year's production of rifles. The Foreign Secretary would not wait for the US Minister Charles Francis Adams. It was all very clever. Such was Britain's neutrality.
John WRAs it was the Confederacy won the Naval War. The Union lost its whole merchant marine.
Somebody is defining things a peculiar way.
The Alabama and other raiders were the only real deepwater Navy the Confederates were able to muster. The Union activity was largely concerned with blockade running... which, as you know, as with most smuggling, involves transfer from seagoing vessels in international waters -- or had you forgotten Mason & Slidell and that whole brouhaha? -- and certainly none of that activity would benefit from any particularly large class of capital ship the Confederacy could either build or man. Up to the time of the Laird rams (CSS North Carolina and CSS Mississippi), the ironclad designs on both sides were... to put it gently, primitive in any kind of oceangoing sense.
If you take the '200 ships' figure and consider it as deadweight tons, what average weight per ship do you get for the various numbers being 'discussed' here? Compare that with the likely class of ship the Alabama would be able to catch and destroy. Or would you prefer to work the other way, starting with somebody's estimate of total tonnage... perhaps derived from Union insurance claims, a not-entirely-credible source if you take my meaning... or the roughly 6 and a half million of damage claimed, and see how many ships you get. (Then divide that into the time the Alabama was at sea, and figure out how tired they must have become...)
I suspect that if you compare the number of ships, or total tons, sunk by the Alabama to the overall shipped tonnage of the Union's merchant marine during this time, you will find it relatively slight. On the other hand, the terror factor was enormous; when you consider the number of ships the Alabama stopped (about 450) vs. the number sunk (I give credence to 65) you can appreciate that an effective means of sailing under some flag of convenience, with papers that would hold up, would be a significant approach for Union shipowners to take -- hence, the large number of reported sales to foreign entities...
From the standpoint of steam technology and marine engineering, the blockade runners were far more interesting, and often as daringly and sensibly captained and crewed...
54light15I imagine the same thing applied with the C.S.S. Alabama, not to mention around Somalia today.
Yes, I think you're right. It was also an opportunity for Britain as the British merchant marine promptly move in to carry what Americans had been carrying.
There is also the insurance factor to consider. In the First World war, the commerce raider the S.M.S. Emden was sinking everything on the Indian ocean in 1914. It paralised shipping as cargoes and ships could not be insured when there was an enemy cruiser out there. Ships stayed in port once word got out about the Emden. I imagine the same thing applied with the C.S.S. Alabama, not to mention around Somalia today.
I understand. I referred to the entire naval war, which clearly was won by the US Navy, at sea and the rivers. As to the notion the US commercial fleet was destroyed, i presented the number of commercial northern ships, aka, the merchant marine, lost or captured as ~200. That was a lot, but I doubt if it is close to the entire US merchant marine.. I did some research and found the text of a history of US commercial shipping, 1620 to 1902. http://archive.org/stream/cu31924024731659/cu31924024731659_djvu.txt I found the following:Total tonnage US ships
spring 1861 = 2,496,894
1866 = 1,387,756
Confederate sunk 1861-65 = 110,000
Sold to foreign nations = 751,595
You've got me Schlimm. I learned this from a lecture by an amateur historian many years ago but I've even forgotten his name and I cannot give you a reference.
However, I was referring to to ocean shipping; not lakes and rivers. And I was not referring to Union Navy ships but rather commercial ships. I should have made that clear but I didn't. In fact it took a long time but ultimately the Union did accomplish Winfield Scott's Anaconda strategy of surrounding the Confederacy and cutting off all of its supplies. But the Port of Wilmington, North Carolina remained open until early 1865.
So I was asserting that Union ocean going merchant shipping was destroyed. However, I cannot now provide a source for that statement.
What is your evidence for that assertion? Confederate raiders captured or sank about 200 ships of the Northern merchant fleet out of how many? The Union Riverine Navy destroyed the Confederate's and controlled the commerce on the Mississippi. The Union Navy increasingly was able to blockade southern ports.
OvermodAnd if you think the sailing raiders were bad ... imagine the fun if the rams had been delivered in 1862...
As it was the Confederacy won the Naval War. The Union lost its whole merchant marine.
FWIW, there are some good (and some not so good) discussions of the Civil War "what ifs" at this site. Some interesting (and eye rolling) ones, too, about railroads.
http://alternatehistory.com/
Lest we wander too far afield in this forum...
John WRNot only did Confederate debts go unpiad; there is also the issue of the Alabama claims. British ship builders built ships for the Confederate Navy. Those ships then went to France to be armed. Then at sea the titles were transferred to the Confederate Government.
And if you think the sailing raiders were bad ... imagine the fun if the rams had been delivered in 1862...
(Incidentally, Rocky Semmes was a friend in the architecture & urban planning school, and Kattie Mosby was and is a good friend. How time heals at least some of the wounds ...)
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.