 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
Member
| Joined: | Mon Mar 30th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 434 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |   |
Mark
| View single post by Mark | |||||||||||||
| Posted: Fri Nov 25th, 2011 06:47 pm |
|
||||||||||||
|
Mark Member
|
Gary Gallagher once pointed out to me that the British were also concerned about the precedent of breaking blockades in a legal sense. According to the laws of international war at the time, once a blockade was proclaimed neutral nations simply stopped trading with the blockaded nation. It DID NOT have to be physically enforced. Now, one of the chief weapons in the British arsenal was the use of a blockade. If they announced that they were going to "break" the Union blockade and trade with the south, they could expect that the United States would do the same to them the next time the British went to war. Just something else to think about. Mark
|
||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||