Union Blockade - Revision history

RobSmith: /* Economic impact on Confederacy */

2026-05-09T20:26:15Z

Economic impact on Confederacy

DavidB4-bot: /* Bibliography */HTTP --> HTTPS #3, replaced: http://www.amazon.com → https://www.amazon.com

2019-04-09T23:39:28Z

Bibliography: HTTP --> HTTPS #3, replaced: http://www.amazon.com → https://www.amazon.com

DavidB4-bot: clean up

2016-06-27T03:57:59Z

clean up

Show changes

DavidB4: removed missing image, and category

2016-06-10T14:57:48Z

removed missing image, and category

RJJensen at 04:55, March 18, 2009

2009-03-18T04:55:26Z

RJJensen: Union blockade moved to Union Blockade: Blockade is part of name and should be cap

2009-02-13T03:09:26Z

Union blockade moved to Union Blockade: Blockade is part of name and should be cap

RJJensen at 10:51, February 1, 2009

2009-02-01T10:51:11Z

RJJensen at 13:43, January 6, 2009

2009-01-06T13:43:02Z

RJJensen at 13:42, January 6, 2009

2009-01-06T13:42:06Z

RJJensen at 21:55, December 26, 2008

2008-12-26T21:55:05Z

@@ Line 83: / Line 83: @@
 Sudrum (2001) argues the Union Navy's control of the American coastal and internal waterways was a decisive factor in the Civil War, but its exact role is often misunderstood. In order to assess that role, one must consider what would have happened had the South not only prevented or lifted the Union's blockade of southern ports, but mounted attacks against or blockaded northern ports.  Northern naval superiority had three crucial effects upon the war, according to Sudrum. First, the North's naval blockade prevented the South from exercising its price-setting power in the market for raw cotton. Although some have contended that the demand for southern-grown raw cotton was destined to decline in the 1860s, the evidence indicates that, in the absence of the blockade-induced shortage of raw cotton, the demand for southern-grown cotton would have continued to be robust and growing. Instead, the blockade constricted exports of raw cotton and suppressed revenue; actual southern revenue from raw cotton was reduced by up to $700,000,000 during the war. This revenue loss severely impaired the South's war-making ability, particularly its ability to acquire a first-class navy. Second, Federal control of the coastal waters and inland rivers impeded southern intra-regional movement of goods, cutting off needed supplies of beef and other foodstuffs from Texas and Florida to civilians and soldiers throughout the eastern Confederacy. Since the North's control of the American waters exerted such deleterious effects upon the southern economy, one should ask whether the North was vulnerable to attacks upon its economy. This leads to the third, and perhaps most important, effect: preventing the South from mounting naval actions against northern ports. Such attacks would have created economic hardships and eroded support for the Lincoln administration and the northern war effort. Given these effects of northern naval superiority, it is hard to see how the North could have defeated the South without its possession of a superior navy.
-Some historians have argued, "The blockade,  because it did not deny the South essential imports, failed to have a major military effect."<ref>Archer Jones, "Military Means, Political Ends: Strategy," in Gabor S. Boritt, ed. ''Why the Confederacy Lost.'' (1992) p. 74</ref> That analysis ignores the inability of the Confederacy to clothe and feed its remaining soldiers, or to use its long coastline to move troops and supplies by boat.  Most economic analysis agrees the blockade crushed the Southern economy and decisively weakened the military's maneuverability and logistics. Surdam shows the blockade denied the Confederacy the badly needed purchasing power that exporting its cotton and tobacco would have generated, raised the costs and reduced the volume of imported goods, and hampered intraregional trade. Without these effects the North would have faced much greater difficulties in subduing the South.<ref>See Surdam (1998) and Surdam (2004) for elaborate detail.</ref> Elekung (2004) concludes, "The fall of Fort Fisher and the city of Wilmington, North Carolina, early in 1865 closed the last major port for blockade runners, and in quick succession Richmond was evacuated, the Army of Northern Virginia disintegrated, and General Lee surrendered. Thus, most economists give the Union blockade a prominent role in the outcome of the war."
+Some historians have argued, "The blockade,  because it did not deny the South essential imports, failed to have a major military effect."<ref>Archer Jones, "Military Means, Political Ends: Strategy," in Gabor S. Boritt, ed. ''Why the Confederacy Lost.'' (1992) p. 74</ref> That analysis ignores the inability of the Confederacy to clothe and feed its remaining soldiers, or to use its long coastline to move troops and supplies by boat.  Most economic analysis agrees the blockade crushed the Southern economy and decisively weakened the military's maneuverability and [[logistics]]. Surdam shows the blockade denied the Confederacy the badly needed purchasing power that exporting its cotton and tobacco would have generated, raised the costs and reduced the volume of imported goods, and hampered intraregional trade. Without these effects the North would have faced much greater difficulties in subduing the South.<ref>See Surdam (1998) and Surdam (2004) for elaborate detail.</ref> Elekung (2004) concludes, "The fall of Fort Fisher and the city of Wilmington, North Carolina, early in 1865 closed the last major port for blockade runners, and in quick succession Richmond was evacuated, the Army of Northern Virginia disintegrated, and General Lee surrendered. Thus, most economists give the Union blockade a prominent role in the outcome of the war."
 ==See also==
 * [[American Civil War homefront]]

@@ Line 104: / Line 104: @@
 * Surdam, David G.  ''Northern Naval Superiority and the Economics of the American Civil War.'' U. of South Carolina Press, 2001. 286 pp., the most detailed analysis of the impact [http://www.carlisle.army.mil/USAWC/parameters/03autumn/aut-rev.htm online review]
 * Time-Life Books, ''The Blockade: Runners and Raiders''. 1983.
-* Wise, Stephen R., ''Lifeline of the Confederacy: Blockade Running during the Civil War''.  University of South Carolina Press, 1988, detailed scholarly history; argues that enough military suppies got through to extend the life of the Confederacy a little [http://www.amazon.com/Lifeline-Confederacy-Blockade-Running-Maritime/dp/0872497992/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1195176306&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
+* Wise, Stephen R., ''Lifeline of the Confederacy: Blockade Running during the Civil War''.  University of South Carolina Press, 1988, detailed scholarly history; argues that enough military suppies got through to extend the life of the Confederacy a little [https://www.amazon.com/Lifeline-Confederacy-Blockade-Running-Maritime/dp/0872497992/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1195176306&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
 ===Primary courses===
 * Durham, Roger S.  ''High Seas and Yankee Gunboats: A Blockade-Running Adventure from the Diary of James Dickson.'' U. of South Carolina Press, 2005. 185 pp.

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-[[Image:Anaconda Plan.jpg|thumb|right|310px|1861 Cartoon map of the blockade]]
+<!--[[Image:Anaconda Plan.jpg|thumb|right|310px|1861 Cartoon map of the blockade]]-->
+<small>see also [[American naval history]] and [[American Civil War]]</small><br />
 The '''Union Blockade''' was a United States Navy [[blockade]] that closed the Confederate ports 1861-1865, during the [[American Civil War]]. The U.S. Navy maintained a massive effort on the Atlantic and Gulf coasts of the [[Confederate States of America]] designed to prevent the local and international movement of cotton, supplies, soldiers and arms into or out of the Confederacy.  The vast majority of vessels from other nations obeyed the blockade. However, specialty ships were built to slip through, called blockade runners. They were mostly new high-speed ships with small cargo capacity. They were built and financed by British interests and operated by the British (using Royal Navy officers on leave) and ran between Confederate-controlled ports and the neutral ports of Havana, Cuba (Spanish); Nassau, Bahamas (British) and Bermuda (British), where British suppliers had set up supply bases.
@@ Line 126: / Line 124: @@
 [[Category:United States Navy]]
 [[Category:The South]]
-[[Category:Economic history]]
+[[Category:Economic History]]

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:55, March 18, 2009
Line 1:		Line 1:
	[[Image:Anaconda Plan.jpg\|thumb\|right\|310px\|1861 Cartoon map of the blockade]]		[[Image:Anaconda Plan.jpg\|thumb\|right\|310px\|1861 Cartoon map of the blockade]]
		+
		+	see also [[American naval history]] and [[American Civil War]]

	The '''Union Blockade''' was a United States Navy [[blockade]] that closed the Confederate ports 1861-1865, during the [[American Civil War]]. The U.S. Navy maintained a massive effort on the Atlantic and Gulf coasts of the [[Confederate States of America]] designed to prevent the local and international movement of cotton, supplies, soldiers and arms into or out of the Confederacy. The vast majority of vessels from other nations obeyed the blockade. However, specialty ships were built to slip through, called blockade runners. They were mostly new high-speed ships with small cargo capacity. They were built and financed by British interests and operated by the British (using Royal Navy officers on leave) and ran between Confederate-controlled ports and the neutral ports of Havana, Cuba (Spanish); Nassau, Bahamas (British) and Bermuda (British), where British suppliers had set up supply bases.		The '''Union Blockade''' was a United States Navy [[blockade]] that closed the Confederate ports 1861-1865, during the [[American Civil War]]. The U.S. Navy maintained a massive effort on the Atlantic and Gulf coasts of the [[Confederate States of America]] designed to prevent the local and international movement of cotton, supplies, soldiers and arms into or out of the Confederacy. The vast majority of vessels from other nations obeyed the blockade. However, specialty ships were built to slip through, called blockade runners. They were mostly new high-speed ships with small cargo capacity. They were built and financed by British interests and operated by the British (using Royal Navy officers on leave) and ran between Confederate-controlled ports and the neutral ports of Havana, Cuba (Spanish); Nassau, Bahamas (British) and Bermuda (British), where British suppliers had set up supply bases.

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:51, February 1, 2009
Line 123:		Line 123:
	[[Category:American Civil War]]		[[Category:American Civil War]]
	[[Category:United States Navy]]		[[Category:United States Navy]]
		+	[[Category:The South]]
		+	[[Category:Economic history]]

← Older revision	Revision as of 03:09, February 13, 2009
(No difference)

@@ Line 122: / Line 122: @@
 <references/>
 [[Category:American Civil War]]
 [[Category:United States Navy]]

@@ Line 84: / Line 84: @@
 Some historians have argued, "The blockade,  because it did not deny the South essential imports, failed to have a major military effect."<ref>Archer Jones, "Military Means, Political Ends: Strategy," in Gabor S. Boritt, ed. ''Why the Confederacy Lost.'' (1992) p. 74 </ref> That analysis ignores the inability of the Confederacy to clothe and feed its remaining soldiers, or to use its long coastline to move troops and supplies by boat.  Most economic analysis agrees the blockade crushed the Southern economy and decisively weakened the military's maneuverability and logistics. Surdam shows the blockade denied the Confederacy the badly needed purchasing power that exporting its cotton and tobacco would have generated, raised the costs and reduced the volume of imported goods, and hampered intraregional trade. Without these effects the North would have faced much greater difficulties in subduing the South. <ref>See Surdam (1998) and Surdam (2004) for elaborate detail.</ref> Elekung (2004) concludes, "The fall of Fort Fisher and the city of Wilmington, North Carolina, early in 1865 closed the last major port for blockade runners, and in quick succession Richmond was evacuated, the Army of Northern Virginia disintegrated, and General Lee surrendered. Thus, most economists give the Union blockade a prominent role in the outcome of the war."
 ==Bibliography==
@@ Line 94: / Line 97: @@
 * Davis, Lance E., and Stanley L. Engerman. ''Naval Blockades in Peace and War: An Economic History Since 1750'' (2006)
 * Drysdale, Richard. "Blockade-running from Nassau, 1861-5." ''History Today'' 1977 27(5): 332-338. Issn: 0018-2753 Fulltext: in Ebsco
-* Elekund, R.B., Jackson J.D., and Thornton M.,  "The 'Unintended Consequences' of Confederate Trade Legislation."  ''Eastern Economic Journal'', Spring 2004)
+* Elekund, R.B., Jackson J.D., and Thornton M.,  "The 'Unintended Consequences' of Confederate Trade Legislation."  ''Eastern Economic Journal'', (Spring 2004)
 * Fisher, John Phillip.  "A Blockaded State: Texas during the Civil War, 1861-1865."  PhD dissertation Texas A. & M. U. 1995. 408 pp.  DAI 1996 57(2): 827-828-A. DA9618193
 * Lebergott, Stanley. "Through the Blockade: the Profitability and Extent of Cotton Smuggling, 1861-1865." ''Journal of Economic History'' 1981 41(4): 867-888. Issn: 0022-0507 [http://www.jstor.org/pss/2120650 in Jstor]

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:55, December 26, 2008
Line 120:		Line 120:
	[[Category:American Civil War]]		[[Category:American Civil War]]
	[[Category:Military History]]		[[Category:Military History]]
		+	[[Category:United States Navy]]