That's correct, as far as I know, there was no blockade before Sumter. But that doesn't mean they wouldn't do it. Scott's actual Anaconda plan called for a blockade and taking over the river system, and in this alternate reality, he would have still been the one in charge. Considering that they never got into a shooting war with England in real life, I see no reason that they couldn't restrict European shipping imports...
GraniteStater wrote:And for our country...if it helps, the US is the Catholic Church, OK? No divorces.
Look, just read my exposition(s) above. Sovereignty is national. You can leave, renounce your citizenship; take the wife and kids, heck, take the clan.
You cannot organize a public effort to alienate jurisdictions from the US, however. That's all there is to it.
Without the existence of a state of war it is probable that the Royal Navy could have legally escorted British flagged shipping to Southern ports for the purposes of trade and used force to prevent interference from Union warships as the latter might have been considered as conducting piracy on the high seas if they attempted to board or search the merchants. Whether the British would have had the political will to use force is another issue entirely but in my opinion, given the narrative in Post #119 they would have had the legal right to do so. How that might have played out is anybody's guess.
The founders had the same ethics as the Mafia.
@ GraniteStater: I have no intention of playing any semantic games regarding tight definitions of international law or specific conventions between nation states.
GraniteStater wrote:Neither did I - was that unclear?
What nations may do are not, in the end, hindered by agreements, no matter how solemn. Sad but true - the last argument of kings is always available. The sending of troops to Canada was a message - HM Gov't had no idea how wise Lincoln was or likely to do, so they took precautions. Bear in mind that the British Army in the nineteenth century was, in reality, a colonial police force - effective, well led, well trained, but look at the previous match in the Crimea, where the UK & France had real troubles retiring the side.
The British Army was in no position to invade upper NY State and make it stick, and they knew it, even in December 61. Don't confuse messages with actual decisions of state. For heaven's sakes, Prince Albert was the one who played a key role in getting Palmerston to put the good stuff down & come to his senses. The Consort? The Consort, who, formally, has Zippo to do or say in the British constitution, afaik. Wiser men prevailed.
FI is in the game - IRL, it was a fantastic set of circumstances, which had as much shelf life as boiling gasoline.
Some states have better track records than others and place more value on Keeping Your Word. But they don't have to; still, any naval leader in HM Gov't would've have counseled prudence, no matter how confident they felt about their chances against the USN. A brief spasm of jingoism was no solld reason to contemplate trading broadsides and nobody wanted to send Tommy Jones against a rapidly ramping up US Army.
Random wrote:
Without the existence of a state of war it is probable that the Royal Navy could have legally escorted British flagged shipping to Southern ports for the purposes of trade and used force to prevent interference from Union warships as the latter might have been considered as conducting piracy on the high seas if they attempted to board or search the merchants. Whether the British would have had the political will to use force is another issue entirely but in my opinion, given the narrative in Post #119 they would have had the legal right to do so. How that might have played out is anybody's guess.
Although the Union never recognized the Confederacy as a sovereign state the real situation was clear enough that the international law of the sea could be applied accordingly. In the event Lincoln very soon unilaterally accepted all the provisions of the Paris Declaration for the duration although the United States remained a non-signatory Power. For their part the British gave the Confederacy the "Rights of a Belligerent", which angered the North but was well short of formal diplomatic recognition and actually legitimized the Union blockade. One other result of this was that the Confederacy ceased to issue letters of marque to privateers and their high-seas raiding was to be conducted by commissioned Confederate Navy warships.
I think your points are all well made, but I highlight these to add one other point. However much Great Britain may have valued the Confederacy as a trading partner, and whatever their legal rights under international law to preserve that trade, I think they were hamstrung by the concern that any action they took to force the issue could well come back to haunt them in the event they found themselves in a future European war with America on the side lines. Britain could have claimed the right to escort its flagged vessels through any Union blockade, but would Britain benefit from a precedent that allowed the USA to do the same were the tables reversed? Whatever else has motivated England throughout history, its security at sea has always been paramount, and I think the US did a good job of playing upon this concern diplomatically. Yet another dagger in the heart of the Confederacy's hopes for foreign intervention.
He wanted a war to restore the Union
As I read Maury Klein's Days of Defiance a few years ago, I found myself thinking "Why can't they just be reasonable?
Kensai wrote:Can a country leave the Union nowadays? Say Texas or California or Alaska or Hawaii? Would it be allowed if its people voted for secession in a state referendum?
GraniteStater wrote:I think the word is 'calumny'.
Really? Based on what evidence? Your Master's Thesis? Those fourteen months you spent digging through the long-lost papers of Speedwell? Your oh so apparent approach to painstaking consideration? I know, it must be your reputation as a profound and insightful interpreter of the historical record.
Unbelievable.
And further down:
If you're talking about a treasonous movement who demonstrated an all too willing readiness to throw over peace, order and honor because they didn't like the electoral results, you're right. Otherwise, the preservation of the Union had something to do with a concept some seem to be struggling to see: principles.
Seriously, you want such bilgewater to pass for sober reflection?
khbynum wrote:I had just come in from feeding the horses when I saw your post so, in an olfactory sense at least, I was prepared for it. I don't have a Masters Degree and I don't know what Speedwell is. If I am to continue to enjoy reading this forum, I will have to skip your posts from now on. But just keep writing, you define yourself far better than I could.
Le Ricain wrote:I think that the phrase is 'ad hominem'.
One of the main reasons that I prefer the AGEOD forum to others such as Paradox is that the latter are littered with ad hominem attacks. This is lazy thinking and shows a lack of respect for other AGEOD forum users and I am sorry to see it appearing here.
fred zeppelin wrote:I've resorted to a policy of Don't Feed the Troll.
khbynum wrote:If it gets to be more of a pain than a pleasure, I stop doing it unless it's something I've sworn or contracted to do. I've made and reiterated my essential points and am glad to have stimulated a discussion on what otherwise seemed a dead subforum. That is really all I wanted to do.
I will not apologize for my opinions, but I am sorry to have brought discord and ill-will to this forum.
GraniteStater wins. I will no longer read his posts, nor will I reply to them. Y'all have a good life.
The war was Lincoln’s choice and more than any other single person, he is responsible for bringing it to that.
The constitution recognizes the right of the people to rebel.
The Union is made of states and represents those states in the form of elected officials.
If the Union wishes to remain united it would be incumbent upon them to negotiate a settlement through dialog, not force of arms.
Return to “ACW History Club / Histoire de la Guerre de Sécession”
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests