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.
"But chiefly, the terms of the President's proclamation instituting [67 U.S. 635, 641] this so-called blockade, are important to be considered upon this question of intent. The condition of things was unprecedented. From the nature and structure of our peculiar system of government, it could have had no precedent. The co-existence of Federal and State sovereignties, and the double allegiance of the people of the States, which no statesman or lawyer has doubted till now, and which this Court has repeatedly recognized as lying at the foundation of some of its most important decisions; the delegation of special and limited powers to the Federal Government, with the express reservation of all other powers 'to the States and the people thereof' who created the Union and established the Constitution; the powers proposed to be granted and which were refused, and the general course of the debates on the constitution; all concurred in presenting this to the President as a case of the first impression. Assuming the power to close the ports of the seceded States, he evidently did so with doubt and hesitation. If the power be conceded to him, it cannot be denied that he might modify the strict law of blockade, and impose a qualified interruption of commerce. He might well have doubted whether, under the Constitution which he had sworn to support, a state of war could exist between a State, or States, and the Federal Union; whether, when it ceased to be insurrection, and became the formal and deliberate act of State sovereignty, his executive powers extended to such an exigency. Certainly, the words of the Acts of Congress authorizing him to use the navy did not embrace such a case. It was not quite certain that it had assumed this imposing shape. The President, so late as his message of July, was confident that it had not. He believed that the State sovereignties had been usurped by discontented leaders and a factious and inconsiderable minority. With the information laid before him, he declared that these seceded States were full of people devoted to the Union. Well, therefore, might he hesitate to exercise, even if he supposed himself to possess, the power of declaring or 'recognizing' a state of war. His powers in cases of insurrection or invasion were clear and undoubted. He had the army, the navy, and the militia of [67 U.S. 635, 642] the States (the United States having no militia except in the federal territories) confided to his command, sub modo.
"But insurrection is not war; and invasion is not war. The Constitution expressly distinguishes them, and treats them as wholly different subjects. But this belongs to a subsequent question in the argument. It is now referred to as bearing upon the construction of the proclamation, and consequently upon the question of intent to break a blockade. It is true that the proclamation calls it a blockade. But the message speaks of it as proceedings 'in the nature of a blockade.' And the proclamation itself, by its terms and provisions, substantially conforms to the latter description. It founds itself upon the existence of 'an insurrection.' It ronounces the disturbance to be by 'a combination of persons.' It proceeds upon the Acts of Congress provided for ' insurrections' by 'combinations of persons.' It declares that the executive measures are provisional and temporary only, 'until Congress shall have assembled and deliberated upon the said unlawful proceedings.' It requires the seceded States to disperse, and return peaceably 'to their respective place of abode in twenty days."
The Supreme Court finds:
(1) The rebellion is an insurrection and not a war betwenn countries,
(2) The "so-called blockade" was not a blockade under international law, and
(3) Closing the ports was a valid exercise of executive authority.
I would call you proof "sophistry" - but it isn't that good - except maybe for your fellow "true believers."