Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > American History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

American History American History Forum - United States, Canada, Mexico, Central and South America


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old November 14th, 2012, 08:20 PM   #21
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Sep 2012
From: Alabama
Posts: 279

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiver View Post
In 1860, 3.6 million bales of cotton were exported. 446,000 total bales were exported during the years 1861 to 1865. In 1864, the last full year of the war, only 17,789 bales were exported.

Some of this was due to decreased cotton production, in 1864 the Confederacy produced about 8% of the cotton they had produced in 1860. Still, the blockade had a clear effect on Confederate exports. In 1860 about 95% of all cotton produced was exported. In 1864 about 6% of all cotton produced was exported.

Another sign of the blockade's effectiveness is Confederate tariff income. The Confederate treasury expect to get $26 million a year from tariffs, but they only got about $3.4 million from 1861 to 1864. That's about 7% of the income they expected.
Im not so sure one can contribute the lack of tariff income to the blockade's effectiveness. The capture of New Orleans had a lot to do with that.
On a side note. I can't imagine studying Confederate finance. Ugh!!

Last edited by Unrevised; November 14th, 2012 at 08:25 PM.
Unrevised is offline  
Remove Ads
Old November 16th, 2012, 06:13 AM   #22
Citizen
 
Joined: Nov 2012
From: Indiana
Posts: 33

Quote:
Originally Posted by tjadams View Post
Lincoln's refusal to recognize the CSA as a nation or to declare the
rebellion as a war with a foreign power, made his blockade Constitutionally
illegal. The Constitution gives the president power to block a port only when
the US is at war with a foreign power. The president can close a US port, but
not blockade it. The blockade not only effected the
CSA's military, it directly impacted the innocent Southern civilians. I find it odd that
the Union recognized international law when dealing with blockade foreign
runners, such as the British seamen and ships, but closed one legal eye
when dealing with the CSA. It is like a policeman giving you a ticket for speeding
but ignoring you have no plates on your car.
Your argument rests on a false dilemma. Your argument assumes the constitution authorizes a blockade of a national port under two circumstances A.) Recognizing the existence of a nation or B.) Declare the rebellion as a war with a foreign nation. Your argument assumes there are no other circumstances when a blockade would be permissible. I am rather incredulous about your position.

The framers and founding fathers believe the executive branch had inherent power and authority to mobilize the U.S. military forces, without any prior authorization by Congress, to respond to an immediate invasion, rebellion, or military threat to the nation. Lincoln was confronted with such a situation in April 1861. The Southern States had seceded from the nation, they had fired upon, attacked, an engaged in an armed conflict against a federal fort and U.S. military service members stationed at the fort. The Southern States' action was an unequivocal message, they were prepared to engage in armed force against the U.S. to enforce their rebellion and secession from the U.S. The message they communicated was they were not peacefully and by negotiation going rejoin the U.S. government but would resist, militarily, any attempt for them to be reassimilated into the Union.

Lincoln understood the implication of the Southern States' conduct, perceived an armed conflict was necessary to restore the Union, and began to institute a military response to the now armed rebellion and insurrection which was going to take military force to quell. The U.S. of force by the Southern States presented Lincoln with an immediate armed surrection, armed rebellion, perpetuated by the Southern States using armed force to attack a federal fort. As a result, Lincoln's mandate to the U.S. navy to blockade the Southern ports was legal as it was done in response to an immediate armed rebellion and insurrection by the Southern States.

Last edited by JamesMadison; November 16th, 2012 at 06:24 AM.
JamesMadison is offline  
Old November 16th, 2012, 06:59 AM   #23
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Sep 2012
From: Alabama
Posts: 279

Quote:
Originally Posted by JamesMadison View Post
Your argument rests on a false dilemma. Your argument assumes the constitution authorizes a blockade of a national port under two circumstances A.) Recognizing the existence of a nation or B.) Declare the rebellion as a war with a foreign nation. Your argument assumes there are no other circumstances when a blockade would be permissible. I am rather incredulous about your position.

The framers and founding fathers believe the executive branch had inherent power and authority to mobilize the U.S. military forces, without any prior authorization by Congress, to respond to an immediate invasion, rebellion, or military threat to the nation. Lincoln was confronted with such a situation in April 1861. The Southern States had seceded from the nation, they had fired upon, attacked, an engaged in an armed conflict against a federal fort and U.S. military service members stationed at the fort. The Southern States' action was an unequivocal message, they were prepared to engage in armed force against the U.S. to enforce their rebellion and secession from the U.S. The message they communicated was they were not peacefully and by negotiation going rejoin the U.S. government but would resist, militarily, any attempt for them to be reassimilated into the Union.

Lincoln understood the implication of the Southern States' conduct, perceived an armed conflict was necessary to restore the Union, and began to institute a military response to the now armed rebellion and insurrection which was going to take military force to quell. The U.S. of force by the Southern States presented Lincoln with an immediate armed surrection, armed rebellion, perpetuated by the Southern States using armed force to attack a federal fort. As a result, Lincoln's mandate to the U.S. navy to blockade the Southern ports was legal as it was done in response to an immediate armed rebellion and insurrection by the Southern States.
I'm not sure of the legality of it, but foreign powers saw it as a joke. Also you wrote...
Quote:
"The message they communicated was they were not peacefully and by negotiation going rejoin the U.S. government but would resist, militarily, any attempt for them to be reassimilated into the Union."
Lincoln ignored the peace commision sent by the Southern states. After the South outlawed protective tariffs and supported free trade the Northern murmers to coerce the states back into the Union became a crescendo.
Unrevised is offline  
Old November 16th, 2012, 07:06 AM   #24

Rongo's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Dec 2011
From: Ohio
Posts: 5,685

Quote:
Originally Posted by Unrevised View Post
After the South outlawed protective tariffs and supported free trade the Northern murmers to coerce the states back into the Union became a crescendo.
Really? I always thought the South lobbing 3,000 cannonballs, many of them incendiary, at 80 United States soliders in a United States fort had something to do with it.
Rongo is offline  
Old November 16th, 2012, 07:16 AM   #25
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Sep 2012
From: Alabama
Posts: 279

I smell a sumter thread coming on. Haha
Unrevised is offline  
Old November 16th, 2012, 09:31 AM   #26
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Sep 2012
From: Alabama
Posts: 279

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rongo View Post
Really? I always thought the South lobbing 3,000 cannonballs, many of them incendiary, at 80 United States soliders in a United States fort had something to do with it.
Really? And here I was thinking it was becaues Northern business interests and radicals in the Republican Party were pushing for Lincoln to do something. And when he failed in his attemp to start a war at Ft. Pickens, he decided to "reinforce" Sumter and as he told Gustavus Fox, he got the result he desired.
Unrevised is offline  
Old November 16th, 2012, 09:32 AM   #27

Rongo's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Dec 2011
From: Ohio
Posts: 5,685

Quote:
Originally Posted by Unrevised View Post
Really? And here I was thinking it was becaues Northern business interests and radicals in the Republican Party were pushing for Lincoln to do something. And when he failed in his attemp to start a war at Ft. Pickens, he decided to "reinforce" Sumter and as he told Gustavus Fox, he got the result he desired.
:Sigh: Start a Fort Sumter thread, if you must.

Rongo is offline  
Old November 16th, 2012, 09:37 AM   #28

Rongo's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Dec 2011
From: Ohio
Posts: 5,685

P.S. Should we get Wilber?
Rongo is offline  
Old November 16th, 2012, 09:49 AM   #29
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Sep 2012
From: Alabama
Posts: 279

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rongo View Post
P.S. Should we get Wilber?
NOOOOOO !!! hahahahaha
Unrevised is offline  
Old November 16th, 2012, 10:13 AM   #30
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Sep 2012
From: Alabama
Posts: 279

Quote:
Altogether I think the Confederate Government is going
to the bad, and if they don't take care the Confederacy will
go too. I never saw things look so gloomy, and I think
spring will finish them unless they make a change for
the better. Georgia is gone, and they say Sherman is
going to seize Branchville ; if he does, Charleston and
Wilmington will be done—and if Wilmington goes Lee
has to evacuate Richmond and retire into Tennessee. He
told me the other day, that if they did not keep Wilmington
he could not save Richmond. They nearly had Fort Fisher
—they were within sixty yards of it—and had they pushed
on as they ought to have done could have taken it. It
was a terrific bombardment; they estimate that about
40,000 shells were sent into it. Colonel Lamb behaved
like a brick—splendidly. I got the last of the Whitworths
in, and they are now at the Fort. They are very hard up
for food in the field, but the Banshee has this time 600
barrels of pork and 1500 boxes of meat—enough to feed
Lee's army for a month.
A letter from Thomas Taylor from the site Harry linked. Thought it was interesting. He had enough food on his ship to feed Lee's army of a month. Lets one see how much these ships could carry.
Unrevised is offline  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > American History

Tags
blockade


Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Blockade of Axis powers-haw effective it was? Edward War and Military History 0 April 4th, 2011 12:52 AM
Cuban Blockade crossroadclarence American History 110 November 22nd, 2009 05:32 PM
Union blockade atanker American History 3 August 16th, 2006 09:21 AM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.