Changes

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==

* 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

* 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]