What if British Navy merchants simply chose to sail through the Union's blockade of Confederate ports during the ACW?
Does the Union Navy risk firing upon them?
Does the Union Navy risk firing upon them?
The British government condoned the blockage. I'm making a timeline where they don't, which could prove itneresting
Yeah, the Confederacy wasn't hugely popular in the UK, which is why the most popular PODs here are generally things like the Trent War, which would give Britain a casus belli which has nothing to do with supporting the Confederacy. If a British blockade runner did get shot at/boarded, I imagine the reaction would be something like "Well duh, what did you expect?"
The CSA was not hugely popular, true, although the self-sacrifice of Lancashire cotton-spinners was an instance of division between Westminster and the country. But Palmerston and Russell were not precisely averse to seeing the USA taken down by several pegs, and we all recall Gladstone's Newcastle speech. In fact, Lord John Russell, as he then was, pointed out at the time that, under international law, a Union blockade, as opposed to a quarantine (which one may do to one's own ports), made the CSA at least a legally recognized belligerent, if not recognizable without more as a combatant national party.
In light of all this, I would not quite bet the farm that HM Government - whatever HM thought - might not have reacted badly to the USN's firing on UK merchant vessels in 1861 - mid 1863. And I note Lincoln and Seward chose not to bet the farm on it either. Had Gideon Welles' USN fired on UK merchant shipping, it could not have been smoothed over as easily (for certain values of "easily") as was the Trent affair, and things could have become very ugly indeed; had the blockade not been respected by the British mercantile marine, though, and no USN enforcement been forthcoming, the blockade would have ceased both practically and legally to be in effect, which would also have kicked the lid off.
They did, and they did. SS Modern Greece, for instance, tried to run the blockade of Wilmington: the captain of USS Cambridge reported that:What if British Navy merchants simply chose to sail through the Union's blockade of Confederate ports during the ACW?
Does the Union Navy risk firing upon them?
Even if it's legal to transport grain, it would be more cost-effective to trade cotton for luxury items instead. Additionally, 1860s European harvests weren't that good, which means that a lot of the grain sold to the traitors would have to come from America, which would probably eliminate any profitability. Add transportation difficulties and rampant inflation, and you've got yourself some bread riots.The thing which I'll admit I don't have all the data on is whether a blockade in this period is allowed to be complete - that is, whether there was such a thing as non-contraband. I can't find a list of Union-blockade contraband online, for example, but it may be sitting in a book I've not yet seen.
The reason this would be important is that, theoretically, a ship carrying non-contraband goods would be allowed to go through, and IIRC food was not considered contraband until later in the 19th century (by the French and Russians, and then the British who preferred to let others set that kind of precedent). But then I can't really understand the bread riots in the CSA...
They didn't issue one. The closest they put out was a letter from the Treasury Department:I can't find a list of Union-blockade contraband online, for example, but it may be sitting in a book I've not yet seen.
The US seems to have considered it conditional contraband from 1812 onwards:IIRC food was not considered contraband until later in the 19th century
But that's the thing, I've seen ships captured carrying coffee, and I'm pretty sure that counts as foodstuffs - and, well, if you could trade grain across for cotton then that would be a deal merchants would be mad to not make.Even if it's legal to transport grain, it would be more cost-effective to trade cotton for luxury items instead. Additionally, 1860s European harvests weren't that good, which means that a lot of the grain sold to the traitors would have to come from America, which would probably eliminate any profitability.
You will also refuse clearance to all vessels which (whatever the ostensible destination) are believed by you, on satisfactory ground, to be intended for ports or places in possession or under control of insurgents against the United States; or that there is imminent danger that the goods, wares, and merchandise, of whatever description, laden on such vessels, will fall into the possession or under the control f such insurgents; and in all cases where, in your judgment, there is ground for apprehension that any goods, wares, or merchandise shipped at your port will be used in any way for the aid of the insurgents or the insurrection, you will require substantial security to be given that such goods, wares, or merchandise shall not be transported to any place under insurrectionary control, and shall not, in any way, be used to give aid or comfort to such insurgents.
Not for neutrals, just for Union ships. It's a letter to customs officers in US ports, so 'refuse clearance' means 'don't allow to leave the US'.Wow. So, basically, total blockade no matter what the cargo.
Ah, okay, misunderstanding on my part.Not for neutrals, just for Union ships. It's a letter to customs officers in US ports, so 'refuse clearance' means 'don't allow to leave the US'.
Bear in mind you don't know how many of them got off subsequently, and that not all the details were necessarily provided. For instance, the British bark Fannie Laurie was captured with 'contraband cargo, salt, wine, preserved vegetables, chicory, etc.'. Is that contraband cargo AND the rest, or the rest of the list IS contraband?Still, I've seen ships with cargoes of coffee stopped, and vegetables and citrus fruits were apparently imported largely from British island possessions prewar.