alternatehistory.com

In OTL, the Union declared a blockade of the Confederacy in April 1861, in an attempt to starve the South of military resources and hasten its defeat.

Now, what I wonder is what would happen if - instead of declaring a blockade (which is, legally speaking, a weapon of war against a different state), the Union instead declared the closure of those ports in rebellion.


This is a tradeoff:


A Blockade is de facto recognition of the CSA as a belligerent (and hence, in some sense at least, an independent national entity eligible for potential diplomatic recognition - which insurrectionists are not) and grants the right of search on the high seas to neutral ships attempting to call at those ports.

To declare the ports closed, in contrast, does not grant the right of search of neutral ships. It does, however, deny the Confederacy the belligerent status and hence avoid legitimizing their ability to buy arms and obtain loans from neutral states. (Under these conditions, it would only be private individuals able to buy weapons or the like.)
Top