Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: jmacusa
One result of the South's ‘’disastrous course of action'' was to launch a war with virtually no navy to speak of. One of the Norths first actions was to blockade Southern ports.

And something you Union apologists never seem to ask yourselves is why blockading the ports was so essential? The vast majority of the fighting would necessarily take place on land, because a Navy cannot hold land, and holding land is what is necessary to win.

So what "military" purpose was accomplished by blockading ports?

Not much of anything.

What economic purpose was accomplished by blockading ports?

A great deal. It prevented the establishment of normal trade with Europe, and therefore prevented the much larger profits which the Europeans would have seen from trading directly with the South instead of going through the New York middlemen.

The Blockade itself was clear proof that the economics was the primary reason for the war. It didn't stop any of the land fighting, all it really accomplished was interference with Trade.

1,408 posted on 10/12/2016 5:55:46 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp ("of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1404 | View Replies ]


To: DiogenesLamp; jmacusa
DiogenesLamp: "So what "military" purpose was accomplished by blockading ports?
Not much of anything.
What economic purpose was accomplished by blockading ports?"

All wars, without exception include both military and economic components.
For example, you may have studied the Napoleonic Wars, the greatest wars in history before the 20th century World Wars.
In those wars armies marched all over Europe "on their stomach" as Napoleon famously quipped.
When they ran out of supplies -- as Napoleon did in Russia -- they soon starved and were quickly destroyed.

That's why in such wars, one of the first things the Brits did was set up a naval blockade of France, in an effort to slow France's economy down as much as possible.
In the short run such blockades had not so much effect, but in the longer run they helped eventually defeat the greatest land-force of the age.

Brits also used naval blockades against the United States in both Revolutionary and War of 1812.

Point is: blockades were always used in war by nations which could afford the Navy necessary to impose them.

If you are interested in the subject of blockades, here is a listing of several dozen throughout history.

Map showing British blockade of Napoleonic Europe:

1,436 posted on 10/12/2016 12:47:06 PM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1408 | View Replies ]

To: DiogenesLamp

Dude, you really are too stupid to be an idiot. You don’t think blockading ports is militarily effective? Check out just how terrified Winston Churchill was in WW2 at the idea of German U-boats successfully blockading all of Great Britain. The Germans came very close to doing just that.


1,440 posted on 10/12/2016 1:03:29 PM PDT by jmacusa ("Dats all I can stands 'cuz I can't stands no more!''-- Popeye The Sailorman.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1408 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson