A breath-taking display of ignorance and internally inconsistent thinking!! Even the droller couldn't back you up on this load.
A "civil war" is fought in one country. That's why it is a "civil war." That's why southerners don't like to use the term "civil war." But I am glad to see you recognize it for what it was.
If a "civil war" is fought within one country, an outside, neutral country, certainly can recognize that there exist belligerent parties to that conflict. A belligerent party to a "civil war" is not recognized as an independent nation among the family of nations. If you don't believe me, just ask any Biafran you happen to run into.
A blockade is considered an act of war when one country does it to another country. But there are not two or more countries in a "civil war." In fact, your compatriots have been belly-aching about Lincoln's blockade of port "before they seceded!" Lincoln's blockade was not an act of war, but (to use a more modern term) it was an internal "police action."
Have you been reading the Kennedy's book again? That would account for your comprehension problems.
What a breathtaking display of ignorance. Can you please cite your source for this display of ignorance?
Lincoln goofed. However unintentionally, he proclaimed the international act of a blockade. The international community responded with a chorus of declarations of neutrality. By definition, a declaration of neutrality applies to the relations of the declaring state relative to two or more other states. In this case, the two states were the USA and the CSA.
Lincoln declared "a blockade of the ports" and referred to "the blockading vessels." The British government immediately declared neutrality. These proclamations were performed under international law as it existed at the time of declaration. By definition, a declaration of neutrality does not apply to purely internal conflicts (civil wars) but only between states.
Belligerency. In international law, the status of de facto statehood attributed to a body of insurgents, by which their hostilities are legalized. The international status assumed by a state (i.e. nation) which wages war against another state. Quality of being belligerent; status of a belligerent; act or state of waging war; warfare.Belligerent. In international law, as an adjective, it means engaged in lawful war. As a noun, it designates either of two nations which are actually in a state of war with each other, as well as their allies actively co-operating, as distinguished from a nation which takes no part in the war and maintains a strict indifference as between the contending parties, called a "neutral."
Black's Law Dictionary, 6 Ed., 1990.
NEUTRALITY, international law. The state of a nation which takes no part between two or more other nations at war with each other.Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 1856 Edition
Now observe how that internationally accepted definition of "neutrality" changed duiring the century and a half following the release of that edition of Bouvier's Law Dictionary.
NEUTRALITY, The state of a nation which takes no part between two or more other nations at war.Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Ed., 1990
And here is an up-to-date source on International Law and Neutrality
http://www.eda.admin.ch/sub_dipl/e/home/thema/intlaw/neutr.html1. Definition and characteristics
The term "neutrality" is defined by the international community as non-participation in armed conflicts between other states. A distinction must be made however between the law of neutrality and the policy of neutrality.
The law of neutrality is the area of international law that contains the provisions that must be observed by the neutral states in times of international armed conflict and the provisions that the parties of the conflict must observe in the same context. For the most part these concern the right of the neutral states to be left undisturbed during such conflicts and their obligations of impartiality and non-participation. In practice such obligations do not interfere greatly with the freedom of action of neutral states. The sources of the international law of neutrality are customary international law on the one hand, and the 1907 neutrality agreements of the Hague on the other (SR 0.515.21). The law of neutrality is applicable only in conflicts between states, and not in purely internal conflicts (e.g. civil wars). Neither does the law of neutrality apply when the United Nations decide on coercive measures against a lawbreaker in order to maintain international peace and security.
"The law of neutrality is applicable only in conflicts between states, and not in purely internal conflicts (e.g. civil wars)." That just about sums up what Secretary of the Navy Gideon Welles said in 1861.
When the war was almost over, the U.S. Government essentially admitted its diplomatic error and corrected it by announcing a closing of the ports -- on April 11, 1865. At the time of this proclamation, Secretary of the Navy Gideon Welles said: "This was a step which I had earnestly pressed at the beginning of the rebellion, as a domestic measure, and more legitimate than a blockade, which was international, and an admission that we were two nations."
The British declaration of neutrality (and all other such declarations of neutrality declared by other nations) recognized the CSA as an independent nation, flowing from Lincoln's proclamation of a blockade which proclaimed to the world that the CSA was a separate nation. In international parlance, a nation can close its own ports but cannot blockade itself.
A "civil war" is fought in one country. That's why it is a "civil war."
Oh, really? According to Grier,
'The Government of the United States has recognized the existence of a civil war between Spain and her colonies, and has avowed her determination to remain neutral between the parties.'
Bingo, you're not totally clueless.