And of what Military value was Cotton? It certainly had trade value, but would it have won any victories for the South because people of Europe were wearing clothes?
As I have pointed out, they didn't seem to want for guns or powder in those early battles. Certainly they seemed to acquire enough despite the blockade. But what the blockade did do is scare away normal trade, and funnel the vast bulk of the existing trade to New England.
Militarily it served little purpose, but economically, and to prevent the establishment of economic based alliances with Europe, it was very effective.
Idiocy. That's your Marxist whiny baby slight of hand: "They told me it was all about slavery. Waaah. Actually it was all about money." Actually it was neither.
It was pretty much about money. As Charles Dickens noted, Millions acquired by the North and Lost by the South. It was only a question of where those Millions would end up.
Once the fighting started people rallied to one side or the other.
Well especially since the President started throwing Legislators in Jail, and locking up dissidents. Not showing how much you agreed with him could end you up in jail.
Lincoln -- or any president -- couldn't simply collapse before secessionist subversion and Confederate demands.
What demands? That they not have a foreign power commanding cannons overlooking the entrance to their primary port city? That seems a pretty reasonable demand to me, and do not forget that it only became a demand long after numerous "requests" and offers of payment were ignored.
If Davis had thought it was all about money for Lincoln and the North, he had only to resist the impulse to attack and let the Northerners' "real motives" become clear.
I think Lincoln's secret mission played a big role in pushing Davis' hand. One does not engage in secrecy for an effort at resupply, especially after you have informed your opposition that "resupply" is your intention.
The Confederate forces surrounding the Fort did not know at the time what this flotilla of ships and men would do, but I expect their leadership knew full well that it had been given secret orders. For all Confederate military knew, they might soon be in the pincers of an attack from both the Sea and the Fortress, which would have been an untenable military position.
I've seen orders that they were intending to do nothing until they saw another ship rendezvousing with the other ships 10 miles off the coast of the Charleston Lighthouse. At that point, they realized they were in a precarious position with the Guns of the Fort on one side, and the Guns of those ships, however many there might be, and whatever armament they may have possessed, on the other side.
If it were an attack, they would be fools to wait for it. If it were not an attack, then why were there secret orders?
Meaning slavery wasn't a "real issue." Your words.
It wasn't a "real issue" as to why Soldiers were marched across borders.
You've said Southern exports and the money they generated were at the root of the conflict. What do you think those exports were? Cotton. Southern leaders said Cotton was king and it could win them independence and empire. So why is it suddenly not important? If everything secessionists said about cotton over the years was true and everything they expected cotton exports to bring them was possible, any US government at war would be stupid and negligent not to stop the cotton trade. Or do you really expect that the CSA could do whatever they wanted to hurt the USA and the USA couldn't strike back at them? Are you really that thick? You may even be one of those people who thinks we fought WWII because we wanted to destroy our economic competitors.
But what the blockade did do is scare away normal trade, and funnel the vast bulk of the existing trade to New England.
What a blockade does is block trade. What else is a blockade supposed to do? But what would New England have to do with it? Most of America's exports once the cotton trade bottomed out would have been things like grain and maybe metals or timber. Just what we were importing, I don't know, but New York (with its access to the products of the Great Lakes States) would have been the main port. It's confusing. You spend months railing against New York. Now all of a sudden you hate New England more. "Boo, evil New England" pops up all over the place, and New York City is forgotten.
As Charles Dickens noted, Millions acquired by the North and Lost by the South. It was only a question of where those Millions would end up.
Charles Dickens was no economist and he really hated Americans. He wasn't here in the US and was just talking off the top of his head.
First of all, a brief history of naval blockades.
This listing shows dozens of historical blockades going back to ancient Greek & Roman times.
It includes British blockades of American ports during the Revolution and War of 1812.
So by 1860 naval blockades were simply considered a normal part of fighting war or rebellion.
Therefore, the natural question is not "why blockade the Confederacy", but rather, had it been the case: why did the Union not blockade?
Blockades were normal, no blockade would have been surprising indeed.
And, indeed, as a former Secretary of War, Jefferson Davis would have been well aware of such contingency military plans kept in file drawers.
DiogenesLamp: "As I have pointed out, they didn't seem to want for guns or powder in those early battles.
Certainly they seemed to acquire enough despite the blockade."
As I pointed out before, the statistics say 90% of blockade runners made it in 1861.
In 1862 that number dropped to 80% and by 1865 was down to roughly 30%.
Of course, one reason the number was so high in 1861 was that only the lightest, fastest ships even attempted the run, so already Confederate bulk shipping suffered more than these numbers suggest.
DiogenesLamp: "Militarily it served little purpose, but economically, and to prevent the establishment of economic based alliances with Europe, it was very effective."
Like the Anaconda it was named for, blockades do not strangle a country instantaneously, but (economic) death comes slowly, and surely.
DiogenesLamp: "It was pretty much about money.
As Charles Dickens noted, Millions acquired by the North and Lost by the South.
It was only a question of where those Millions would end up."
Dickens had a serious financial beef against Northerners who didn't respect his international copyrights and published his works without paying him.
He also knew nothing specific about either the leaders or motives of Unionists & Confederates.
So his speculations amount to nothing more than picking out a reason which blamed both sides more-or-less equally.
Dickens spoke for nobody except himself.
DiogenesLamp: "Well especially since the President started throwing Legislators in Jail, and locking up dissidents.
Not showing how much you agreed with him could end you up in jail."
By definition of the US Constitution, if you make war on the United States, or give aid & comfort to our enemies, you committed treason.
During the Civil War, punishment for treason related offenses short of murder was normally quite light.
DiogenesLamp: "What demands?
That they not have a foreign power commanding cannons overlooking the entrance to their primary port city?
That seems a pretty reasonable demand to me, and do not forget that it only became a demand long after numerous "requests" and offers of payment were ignored."
Certainly, just as "reasonable" as Communist Cuban demands the US leave Guantanamo Bay.
But regardless of how "reasonable" they might think themselves, if they launch assaults on US troops in a US base, it will be an act of war, just as Fort Sumter was, or indeed, as Pearl Harbor was.
DiogenesLamp: "One does not engage in secrecy for an effort at resupply, especially after you have informed your opposition that 'resupply' is your intention."
But of course they must, and did in this case, since Union ships had been repeatedly fired on by Confederate shore batteries.
Lincoln's mission was to find a way to deliver supplies without opposition, if possible.
DiogenesLamp: "If it were an attack, they would be fools to wait for it.
If it were not an attack, then why were there secret orders?"
Lincoln informed SC Governor Pickens there would be only resupply, not reinforcement, if they met no resistance.
But Pickens had repeatedly demanded Fort Sumter's surrender since December 1860, demands for which Jefferson Davis ordered military preparations in March 1861, even before Lincoln's inauguration.
So on April 12, the Confederacy was fully prepared for war, and did not need Lincoln's ships on the horizon to start it.
They only needed Major Anderson's refusal to surrender, and for that they were prepared to launch Civil War against the United States.
DiogenesLamp: "It wasn't a 'real issue' as to why Soldiers were marched across borders."
But slavery certainly was the "real issue" why Deep South Fire Eaters began declaring their secession in December 1860.
The "real issue" for war was that the Confederacy first provoked war, then started war, then declared war, then sent military aid to Confederates in Union states.
So the "real issue" was Confederate existential threat to the United States of America.