WI: British Traders Ignore the Union Blockade

Would the Union Navy fire on British traders that ignored the blockade?

  • Yes

    Votes: 22 81.5%
  • No

    Votes: 5 18.5%

  • Total voters
    27
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?
 
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?"
 
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?"

Pretty much. In my TL, The British are going get monetary and trade concessions from the North, so British ships would get "hey! I thought we had a deal" from their landlubber friends and not "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.
 
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.

The rub though is that HM's government has every motivation to keep the international standard on blockades strongly in favor of the instigator; after all, their chief card to play on the international stage was the Royal Navy, who's military potential came primarily from its ability to allow Britain to control the flow of international commerce. Any British government worth its salt would realize that backing private merchant shipping to that extent would just create an prescient that could later come back to bite them in the behind when they themselves might not be able to instruct the Admirality to enforce a blockade as effective as they would like, and that keeping Britain's long-term options open for potentially uncountable situations she may find herself in would outweigh any momentary advantage she might get from backing the CSA unless it appeared she had a very real chance of winning on land with minimal British investment (It'd mess with splended isolation and be a real weight on the budget after all to have permanently soured relations with the Yanks and commitments to the full integrity of the new Southern state with military force if nessicery, after all, and if the Union were victorious normal commerce would resume soon enough anyways).
 
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?
They did, and they did. SS Modern Greece, for instance, tried to run the blockade of Wilmington: the captain of USS Cambridge reported that:
'We immediately stood for her and opened our Parrott gun upon her... At this the propeller hoisted English colours and ran under a heavy press of steam toward the channel within a half a mile of the fort, where she was necessarily beached, in consequence of our continually firing upon her, her crew leaving in boats for the shore. Our battery was fired at intervals for about three hours, and, although the propeller was struck several times, yet we were unable to fire her.'

However, this is a two-way process. The British can't take offence when the Union shell and sink ships attempting to break the blockade (although they do take offence when the Union station ships off the British possession of Nassau, and start shooting at ships coming into the harbour there). The Union shouldn't take offence when British citizens attempt to break the blockade (although they did, and complained bitterly to the British government about it). After all, as Franklin Pierce explained:
'the laws of the United States do not forbid their citizens to sell to either of the belligerent powers articles contraband of war or take munitions of war or soldiers on board their private ships for transportation; and although in so doing the individual citizen exposes his property or person to some of the hazards of war, his acts do not involve any breach of national neutrality nor of themselves implicate the Government.'
 

Saphroneth

Banned
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...
 
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...
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.
 
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.
They didn't issue one. The closest they put out was a letter from the Treasury Department:

TREASURY DEPARTMENT,

WASHINGTON, D. C., May 23, 1862.

SIR,—In pursuance of the provisions of the proclamation of the President modifying the blockade of the ports of Beaufort, Port Royal, and New Orleans, and of the regulations of the Secretary of the Treasury relating to trade with those ports, no articles contraband of war will be permitted to enter at either of said ports, and you will accordingly refuse clearance to vessels bound for those ports, or either of them, with any such articles on board.

Until further instructed, you will regard as contraband of war the following articles; viz., cannons, mortars, fire-arms, pistols, bombs, grenades, fire-locks, flints, matches, powder, saltpetre, balls, bullets, pikes, swords, sulphur, helmets, or boarding-caps, sword-belts, saddles and bridles (always excepting the quantity of the said articles which may be necessary for the defence of the ships and of those who compose the crew), cartridge-bag material, percussion and other caps, clothing adapted for uniforms, resin, sail-cloth of all kinds, hemp and cordage, masts, ship timber, tar and pitch, ardent spirits, military persons in the service of the enemy, despatches of the enemy, and articles of like character with those specially enumerated.

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.

You will be especially careful, upon application for clearances, to require bonds with sufficient sureties, conditioned for fulfilling faithfully all the conditions imposed by law or departmental regulations from shippers of the following articles, to the ports opened, or to any other ports from which they may easily be, and are probably intended to be, reshipped in aid of the existing insurrection; namely, liquors of all kinds, coals, iron, lead, copper, tin, brass, telegraphic instruments, wires, porous caps, platina, sulphuric acid, zinc, and all other telegraphic materials, marine engines, screw propellers, paddlewheels, cylinders, cranks, shafts, boilers, tubes for boilers, fire-bars, and every article, or any other component part of an engine or boiler, or any article whatever which is, can, or may become applicable for the manufacture of marine machinery, or for the armor of vessels.

I am, &c.,
S. P. CHASE,
Sec't'y of the Treasury.

IIRC food was not considered contraband until later in the 19th century
The US seems to have considered it conditional contraband from 1812 onwards:
'In the case of the Commercer (1 Wheaton R., 387) which was a Swedish vessel seized for carrying provisions to an army of Great Britain (with whom we were then at war) operating in Spain, the Supreme Court of the United States observed, that by the modern law of nations, provisions were not generally contraband, but they might become so on account of the particular stuation of the war, on account of their destination; that if they were destined for the ordinary use of life in the enemy's country, they were not contraband, but that it was otherwise if destined for the army or navy of the enemy, or for his ports of military or naval equipment.'

Though I think Frustrated Progressive has the better justification as to why it wasn't imported. Most Confederate food supplies will have come from the North initially, and they were banned from trading with the Confederacy at all (see paragraph 3 of the Treasury instructions).
 

Saphroneth

Banned
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.
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.
The frustrating thing is that I can't find one way or the other whether the Union even had a list of approved commodities. It seems like they just blocked everything.

ED: nevermind, Cerebro to the rescue
 

Saphroneth

Banned
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.

Wow. So, basically, total blockade no matter what the cargo.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
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'.
Ah, okay, misunderstanding on my part.

Still, I've seen ships with cargoes of coffee stopped, and vegetables and citrus fruits were apparently imported largely from British island possessions prewar.
 
Still, I've seen ships with cargoes of coffee stopped, and vegetables and citrus fruits were apparently imported largely from British island possessions prewar.
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?

I also struggled to understand the Circassian case, because the judgement said 'The main voyage was begun at Bordeaux. There she took a cargo -- no part of it contraband'. However, she apparently carried brandy, which as an 'ardent spirit' is contraband. I don't know why the Supreme Court upheld the seizure if they didn't think the cargo was contraband, but perhaps it's a misprint.
 
Top