Skip to main content

The Prize Cases

Image result for Richard Henry Dana

My recent reading includes a review, by friend Henry, of SLAVISH SHORE, a new book from Harvard University Press about the life of Richard Henry Dana Jr.

Dana argued the Prize Cases before the US Supreme Court in February 1863.  At issue: when is a war a war? when is a blockade a blockade? was Lincoln's action in pursuing a war through the imposition of a blockade lawful?  As Henry explains it: "A blockade is a war measure, and a President is authorized under his war powers to impose a blockade only when Congress has declared war against another nation....Lincoln denied that the Confederate states were a nation, he insisted that they were mere insurrectionists and traitors. No one questions that Lincoln could have closed the ports, as opposed to blockading them, but Britain had 'made it clear that it would not accept American "closure" of Southern ports that would expose British shippers to arrest as common smugglers.'"

In that last half sentence, Henry is of course quoting Jeffrey L. Amestoy, the author of the book under review.

So to avoid war with England, Lincoln had to call his closing of the ports a blockade, without calling the CSA a foreign country.

The owners of the seized shipping and cargo wanted it back, and the government wanted to sell it under the Prize law.

Dana persuaded a majority of the court that war is "a state of things, and not an act of legislative will." There plainly was a war underway, whether it be called a war, declared as such, or fought against a sovereign power, or not. And this meant that the closing of the ports was a blockade, whatever the President might do in his diplomatic capacity to avoid another war (properly speaking!) with a foreign power.

Good job, Dana. Good job, Jeffrey and Henry too.

Comments

  1. Christopher,

    Thank you for your compliment. You assume that a closure and a blockade are the same thing. Are they? I don't know, and Amestoy does not make this clear. If they are different, then what is the physical difference between them? Amestoy writes:

    "[A] government engaged in the suppression of an insurrection could 'close' its domestic ports but could not, according to accepted tenets of international law, 'blockade' them." Does Amestoy mean merely that a government could call it a closure but could not call it a blockade?

    Secretary of the Navy Gideon Welles, Amestoy continues, said "that a port closure would be 'legally ... impregnable' but a blockade was unlikely to be sustained by a federal court." But, if the distinction between closure and a blockade were a fiction, then wouldn't a court see through it?

    Amestoy writes, "Her majesty's government made clear that it would not accept American 'closure' of Southern ports that would expose British shippers to arrest as common smugglers. A 'blockade,' on the other hand, would enable England to exercise the rights of a neutral nation." What rights are those? I find it hard to believe that these rights depended upon the label that that Lincoln applied to his action, but Amestoy's quotation marks around "closure" and "blockade" suggest that they did. Is there a maritime lawyer in the house?

    ReplyDelete
  2. This question may be simpler than I thought. To close a port is to allow no one in; that's why it would have exposed British shippers to arrest as common smugglers. To blockade a port may be to prevent enemy shippers, but not neutral shippers, such as the British, from entering it.

    ReplyDelete
  3. If my simple explanation is correct, then I blame Amestoy for misleading me with his unnecessary quotation marks around "close" and blockade" in the second paragraph of my first comment, and around "closure" and "blockade" in the fourth. The quotation marks wrongly implied that he was referring to words, not things.

    ReplyDelete
  4. My guess is that the distinction was just what the scare quote marks suggests: it was a legalistic one without reference to what physically happened on the relevant ports. The importance to the Brits arose out of their domestic politics: the textile industry was very unhappy about the need to get their cotton from distant India (requiring arduous trips all around the continent of Africa) given the closure/blockade of Confederate ports. Those interests would have loved to have Britain go to war with the US, secure the CSA's independence, and resume the easy cotton flow. The notion that Lincoln's blockade was illegal was as good a pretext as any, even if much had to be made of a word. On the other hand, the British govt realized that there was considerable anti-slavery sentiment in their public, and open support of the CSA would not be politically palatable. So dithering over words came about as a way of expressing deeper sentiments that dared not speak their names.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Christopher, don't you mean, "the textile industry WOULD HAVE BEEN very unhappy about the need to get their cotton from distant India (requiring arduous trips all around the continent of Africa) IF LINCOLN HAD CLOSED THE Confederate ports"? But, because Lincoln merely blockaded the ports, England, being a neutral nation, could use them and did not need to go to war.

    ReplyDelete
  6. No, I'm pretty sure the closing/blockade had the effect of sharply limiting cotton shipments from getting out of the Confederacy, although to a certain extent risk-taking blockade runners could slip through. I'll link you to an article on "Cotton and the Civil War." Skim down about half way to the paragraph beginning, "Nevertheless, the Confederacy was able to use...." http://mshistorynow.mdah.state.ms.us/articles/291/cotton-and-the-civil-war

    ReplyDelete
  7. Christopher,

    The gist of the paragraph beginning, "Nonetheless, the Confederacy was able to use cotton as a bartering tool to fund the purchase of weapons" is that the blockade didn't work as well as the Union had hoped it would. But it did, to a degree, prevent the British from using the ports. Perhaps, then, a blockade and a closure were physically the same thing, and the only difference in the name applied was that calling it a blockade would not subject British shippers to arrest. If we'd had this discussion before, then, in my review of Amestoy's book, I would have criticized the book for leaving this matter unclear. But I will drop it for now.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

A Story About Coleridge

This is a quote from a memoir by Dorothy Wordsworth, reflecting on a trip she took with two famous poets, her brother, William Wordsworth, and their similarly gifted companion, Samuel Taylor Coleridge.



We sat upon a bench, placed for the sake of one of these views, whence we looked down upon the waterfall, and over the open country ... A lady and gentleman, more expeditious tourists than ourselves, came to the spot; they left us at the seat, and we found them again at another station above the Falls. Coleridge, who is always good-natured enough to enter into conversation with anybody whom he meets in his way, began to talk with the gentleman, who observed that it was a majestic waterfall. Coleridge was delighted with the accuracy of the epithet, particularly as he had been settling in his own mind the precise meaning of the words grand, majestic, sublime, etc., and had discussed the subject with William at some length the day before. “Yes, sir,” says Coleridge, “it is a majestic wate…

Great Chain of Being

One of the points that Lovejoy makes in the book of that title I mentioned last week is the importance, in the Neo-Platonist conceptions and in the later development of the "chain of being" metaphor, of what he calls the principle of plenitude. This is the underlying notion that everything that can exist must exist, that creation would not be possible at all were it to leave gaps.

The value of this idea for a certain type of theodicy is clear enough.

This caused theological difficulties when these ideas were absorbed into Christianity.  I'll quote a bit of what Lovejoy has to say about those difficulties:

"For that conception, when taken over into Christianity, had to be accommodated to very different principles, drawn from other sources, which forbade its literal interpretation; to carry it through to what seemed to be its necessary implications was to be sure of falling into one theological pitfall or another."

The big pitfalls were: determinism on the on…

Philippa Gregory

My recent reading includes large helpings of Philippa Gregory's latest, THREE SISTERS, THREE QUEENS (2016), another of her fictionalized takes on love and betrayal among the royals of Renaissance Europe.

In this book, the focus is on the early Tudor dynasty, and especially on Margaret Tudor, the eldest daughter of Henry VII, founder thereof, and the older sister of the future Henry VIII. Margaret became Queen of Scotland with an arranged marriage to James IV. She reigned and ruled under the title of Dowager Queen after James' death at the Battle of Flodden in 1513.

So who, you ask, were the other two sisters of the novel's title? One is Margaret's blood sister, Mary Tudor, who was known as one of the great beauties of the age. Mary was the inspiration for the name her brother Henry gave to his older daughter. More important for Gregory's story, she wed the King of France (Louis XII) in 1514, and Anne Boleyn served as her maid of honor at that ceremony.

The third &…