Dialectic of the Union Blockade during the Civil War

1869 Words4 Pages

The Civil War in the United States from 1861 to 1865 serves as a dark reminder of how disjointed a nation can become over issues that persistently cause heated debate among party factions. Most students that have taken courses in American history understand the disadvantage possessed by the Confederate States of America as they fought against the powerful Union army for what they perceived as a necessary institution of slavery. Historians have debated over the effectiveness of the blockade and if it was important in creating the failures faced by the Confederate States of America. This debate has generated the contested question of “Did the Union blockade succeed in the American Civil War?” The blockade, whether considered a success or an absolute failure on the part of the Union, holds grand significance in the history of the United States. The increased development in the Union’s naval department correlates directly with the necessity of possessing ships that could withstand the threat of blockade running.

This dialectic will focus on two opposing theses on the matter of how successful the Union blockade was in guaranteeing a victory for the Union. Within “Reassessment of the Union Blockade’s Effectiveness in the Civil War,” M. Brem Bonner and Peter McCord make an argument for the success of the blockade by assessing statistical data comprised from the efforts of blockade-runners to breach the hindrance caused by the Union. The authors frequently employ the objecting side of the effectiveness argument when discussing the legality of the blockade and the successes some blockade-runners had in smuggling goods in and out of the Confederacy. On the opposing side of the argument, Daniel O’Flaherty condemns the blockade as ineffecti...

... middle of paper ...

...he historian who reviews the event. The Confederates were able to continue blockade running up until the conclusion of the war, while the Union strengthened its navy in order to compensate for the imbalance of ship maneuverability. If the blockade proved completely effective, the supplies Confederate soldiers possessed throughout the war would have unobtainable via blockade running. It would also distort the history of the Civil War to name the blockade as the main reason for the South’s deterioration, when it only aided to existing problems leading to the conclusion to the war after the South’s surrender.

Works Cited

Bonner, Michael Brem and Peter McCord. "Reassessment of the Union Blockade's Effectiveness in the Civil War." The North Carolina Historical Review (2011): 375-395.

O'Flaherty, Daniel. "The Blockade that Failed." American Heritage 6.5 (1955).

Show More
Related

  • Slavery, The Constitutional, And The Origins Of The Civil War

    1066 Words  | 3 Pages

    In The article “Slavery, the Constitutional, and the Origins of the Civil War”, Paul Finkelman discusses some of the events that he believes lead the United States to have a Civil War. He discusses how both the North and the South territories of the Untied States did not see eye to eye when it came to ab...

    Read More

  • Failure of Mission Command by General McClellan

    2308 Words  | 5 Pages

    Heidler, David Stephen, and Jeanne T. Heidler, eds. Encyclopedia of the American Civil War: a

    Read More

  • Battle of Fort Sumter

    1165 Words  | 3 Pages

    McPherson, James M.; The Atlas of the Civil War. Macmillan: 15 Columbus Circle New York, NY. 1994.

    Read More

  • What They Fought For by James McPherson's

    558 Words  | 2 Pages

    The Union Army was able to match the intensity of the Confederacy, with the similar practice of dedication until death and patriotism, but for different reasons. The Union soldiers’s lifestyles and families did not surround the war to the extent of the Confederates; yet, their heritage and prosperity relied heavily on it. Union soldiers had to save what their ancestors fought for, democracy. “Our (Union soldiers) Fathers made this country, we, their children are to save it” (McPherson, 29). These soldiers understood that a depleted group of countries rather than one unified one could not flourish; “it is essential that but one Government shall exercise authority from the Gulf of Mexico to Canada, and from the Atlantic to the Pacific” (Ledger, 1861).

    Read More

  • Northern Advantages Of The American Civil War

    974 Words  | 2 Pages

    Streich, Michael. "Northern Advantages in the Civil War." Suite. Strayer University, n.d. Web. 24 Mar. 2014.

    Read More

  • Civil War and The South's Loss

    1824 Words  | 4 Pages

    ...iled to gain the recognition of the European nations, North's superior resources made the outcome inevitable, and moral of the South towards the end of the war. The Civil War was a trying time for both the North and the South alike, but the question of its outcome was obvious from the start. The North was guaranteed a decisive victory over the ill-equipped South. Northerners, prepared to endure the deficit of war, were startled to find that they were experiencing an enormous industrial boom even after the first year of war. To the South, however, the war was a draining and debilitating leech, sucking the land dry of any appearance of economical formidability. The debate continues whether or not the South could have won the Civil war. It’s always going to be a bunch of “what ifs?”

    Read More

  • The American Civil War: The Inevitable Confrontation

    1753 Words  | 4 Pages

    Since the beginning of the Market Revolution, the institution of slavery became the leading factor that intensified the relations between the North and the South. Regarding the geographic differences between the North and South, the South was primarily agrarian and the North was mainly urban. Therefore, the North rapidly industrialized while the South remained relatively rural and cotton-slave based. As a result, the Market Revolution economically separated the North and the South and created a second party system. Thus, the issues of pro-slavery and anti-slavery arose between the Southern Democrats and Northern Republicans in the 1850s. The North desired to halt the expansion of slavery into western territories while the South strongly opposed. These two opposing parties led to radical abolitionism in the North, William Henry Seward and John Brown, and extreme secessionism in the South, James Henry Hammond, and South Carolina Ordinance of Secession. Due to their strict ideologies regarding slavery, both parties could not compromise on the issue of the expansion of slavery. Therefore, according to Americans in the years prior to the Civil War, conflict was inevitable.

    Read More

  • The Navy Of The Civil War

    1156 Words  | 3 Pages

    The Civil War consisted of many legendary battles over the soil of the United and Confederate States of America, which will be retold for generations in history books. Although these land battles were indeed great, the concept of this paper will be the Naval warfare of the Civil War, paying certain attention to the battle between the Monitor and the Merrimac.

    Read More

  • The Road to the American Civil War

    1339 Words  | 3 Pages

    The majority of speculations regarding the causes of the American Civil War are in some relation to slavery. While slavery was a factor in the disagreements that led to the Civil War, it was not the solitary or primary cause. There were three other, larger causes that contributed more directly to the beginning of the secession of the southern states and, eventually, the start of the war. Those three causes included economic and social divergence amongst the North and South, state versus national rights, and the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Dred Scott case. Each of these causes involved slavery in some way, but were not exclusively based upon slavery.

    Read More

  • Confederate States Of America

    1476 Words  | 3 Pages

    When looking at economic factors in the Civil War, we find that the war had a devastating effect on the South and a converse effect on the North. Because of the Northern blockade and the disconnection of Southern farmers from markets in the North, sales of cotton became nearly impossible. In the North, the war produced the same suffering as in the South, but "it also produced prosperity and economic growth by giving a major stimulus to both industry and agriculture," says Brinkley (Brinkley 384). Since all Southern products were out of reach for Northern Americans, the North enacted a completely natio...

    Read More

  • Book Analysis of Stephen W. Sears’ Landscape Turned Red

    963 Words  | 2 Pages

    Sears’ thesis is the Union could have won the war faster. McClellan was an incompetent commander and to take the initiative to attack an defeat the Confederate army. The Army of Northern Virginia, under...

    Read More

  • Why the Southern States Believed they Could Win the Civil War

    724 Words  | 2 Pages

    ...f wearing down the north's patience. The south's idea of northerns as "city slickers" who did not know how to ride or shoot was wrong. Many of the men who formed the Union forces came from rural backgrounds and were just as familiar with riding and shooting as their southern enemies. Finally, the south's confidence in its ability to fund through sales of export crops such as cotton did not take into consideration the northern blockade. France and Britain were not willing to become involved in a military conflict for the sake of something they had already stockpiled. The help the south had received from France and Britain turned out to be a lot less than they expected. In conclusion, while all the south's reasons for confidence were based on reality, they were too hopeful. The south's commitment to a cause was probably what caused their blindness to reality.

    Read More

  • Key Factors That Led to Union Victory in the Civil War

    2114 Words  | 5 Pages

    The Civil War that took place in the United States from 1861 to 1865 could have easily swung either way at several points during the conflict. There is however several reasons that the North would emerge victorious from this bloody war that pit brother against brother. Some of the main contributing factors are superior industrial capabilities, more efficient logistical support, greater naval power, and a largely lopsided population in favor of the Union. Also one of the advantages the Union had was that of an experienced government, an advantage that very well might have been one of the greatest contributing factors to their success. There are many reasons factors that lead to the North's victory, and each of these elements in and amongst themselves was extremely vital to the effectiveness of the Northern military forces. Had any one of these factors not been in place the outcome of the war could have been significantly different, and the United States as we know it today could be quite a different place to live.

    Read More

  • Analysis Of What They Fought For

    1044 Words  | 3 Pages

    More confederates than unions were illiterate due to the fact that most held professional or white-collard jobs (36). To make the Union soldiers sample fair sense most blacks couldn’t read or write, 2 who could were included in the sample (36). The levels of patriotism differed from the upper and lower south given to the fact that the upper south were mainly cotton states. The confederates felt as if it was a “rich mans woar but the poor man has to do the fifting” (16). The confederates were mainly fighting for “independence, property and way of life” (27). Some characteristics the soldiers had in common were McPherson’s calculations for the Union. He came to seeing that out of 562 Union soldier’s letters read only 67 percent voice strong patriotic motives. This is the same as the two-thirds of Confederates. As a result from reading McPherson’s book, research showed that the Union and Confederate soldiers expressed about the same degree of patriotic and ideological convictions. Even though they both had different reasons for fighting the levels of sincerity and dedication in their notes were

    Read More

  • Slavery as the Cause of the American Civil War

    1746 Words  | 4 Pages

    The American Civil War was the bloodiest military conflict in American history leaving over 500 thousand dead and over 300 thousand wounded (Roark 543-543). One might ask, what caused such internal tension within the most powerful nation in the world? During the nineteenth century, America was an infant nation, but toppling the entire world with its social, political, and economic innovations. In addition, immigrants were migrating from their native land to live the American dream (Roark 405-407). Meanwhile, hundreds of thousand African slaves were being traded in the domestic slave trade throughout the American south. Separated from their family, living in inhumane conditions, and working countless hours for days straight, the issue of slavery was the core of the Civil War (Roark 493-494). The North’s growing dissent for slavery and the South’s dependence on slavery is the reason why the Civil War was an inevitable conflict. Throughout this essay we will discuss the issue of slavery, states’ rights, American expansion into western territories, economic differences and its effect on the inevitable Civil War.

    Read More

More about Dialectic of the Union Blockade during the Civil War

Open Document