Course 2, Volume 1A. American Foreign Policy in Growth and Action Page: 22
This book is part of the collection entitled: National WASP WWII Museum and was provided to The Portal to Texas History by the National WASP WWII Museum.
- Highlighting
- Highlighting On/Off
- Color:
- Adjust Image
- Rotate Left
- Rotate Right
- Brightness, Contrast, etc. (Experimental)
- Cropping Tool
- Download Sizes
- Preview all sizes/dimensions or...
- Download Thumbnail
- Download Small
- Download Medium
- Download Large
- High Resolution Files
- IIIF Image JSON
- IIIF Image URL
- Accessibility
- View Extracted Text
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY IN GROWTH AND ACTION
its naval commanders in American waters to ob-
serve a strict neutrality. In main-
Great Britain taining the blockade, the Union
recognizes followed the doctrine of the continu-
the blockade ous voyage. This meant that goods,
whether munitions or other items
helpful to the support of the South, shipped to
islands in the Caribbean or other points where
they could be transferred to Confederate blockade
runners were regarded as originally destined for
Southern ports and therefore subject to seizure
by the Union. The British acquiesced in this
interpretation, although the London government
protested on occasion over the methods used by
the United States in carrying out the policy. Some
observers believe that the British saw in the
blockade and seizure operations a precedent which
Great Britain might herself want to follow at a
future date, so no great issue was made of the
matter.(19)
The United States Supreme Court bolstered
the Federal government's policies in three impor-
tant cases, decided after the close of the war. The
cases of the ships Bermuda1 and the Peterhof2
are substantially the same; the Springboks case
differs in some respects.
THE BARK SPRINGBOK VS. THE UNITED
STATES, DECIDED, WASHINGTON, JANUARY
3, 1867: . . . We have already held in the case of
the Bermuda, where goods, destined ultimately for a
belligerent port, are being conveyed between two
neutral ports by a neutral ship . . . that the ship,
though liable to seizure . . . [for] the confiscation
of the goods, is not liable to condemnation as prize.
We think that the Springbok . . . comes within this
rule. . . . The case of the cargo is quite different
from that of the ship. . . . Now if this cargo was
not to be carried to its ultimate destination by the
Springbok (and the proof does not warrant us in
saying that it was), the plan must have been to send
it forward by transshipment. And we think it evident
that such was the purpose. All these condemnatory
circumstances must be taken in connection with the
fraudulent concealment attempted in the bills of lad-
ing and the manifest, and with the very remarkable
fact that . . . no claim . . . has ever been filed. Upon
the whole case we cannot doubt that the cargo was
originally shipped with intent to violate the block-
ade; . . . that the voyage from London to the block-
aded port was, as to cargo, . . . one voyage; and that
1 Edwin Haigh, Alexander T. Blakeley, and Fraser Trenhoim
and Com pany vs. the United States 3 Wallace, 514.559 (1866).
The Steamer Peterhoff vs. the United States, 5 Wallace, 1-28
e Bark Springbok vs. the United States, 5 Wallace, 28-62
(1867).the liability to condemnation . . . attached to the
cargo from the time of sailing... .
In the Peterhof case, this principle was ex-
tended to cover an instance where the ulterior
destination was deemed to be Texas by means of
overland transportation.
THE STEAMER PETERHOFF VS. THE UNIT-
ED STATES, DECIDED, WASHINGTON, APRIL
15, 1867: The Peterhof was captured near the island
of St. Thomas, in the West Indies, on the 25th of
February, 1863. . . . She was fully documented as a
British merchant steamer, bound from London to
Matamoras, in Mexico, but was seized, without
question of her neutral nationality, upon suspicion
that her real destination was to the blockaded coast
of the States in rebellion, and that her cargo con-
sisted, in part, of contraband goods. We . . . [hold]
that the mouth of the Rio Grande was not included
in the blockade . . . and that neutral commerce with
Matamoras, except in contraband, was entirely free.
. . . an ulterior destination to a blockaded port will
infect the primary voyage to a neutral port with
liability for intended violation of blockade. The ques-
tion now is whether the same consequence will attend
an ulterior destination to a belligerent country by
inland conveyance. . . . We must say . . . that trade,
between London and Matamoras, even with intent
to supply, from Matamoras, goods to Texas, violated
no blockade, and cannot be declared unlawful. . . .
And this brings us to the question: Was any portion
of the cargo of the Peterhoff contraband? . . . We
are obliged to conclude that the portion of the cargo
which we have characterized as contraband must be
condemned.
On May 13, 1861, Great Britain recognized the
belligerent status of the Confederacy. This gave
the Southerners freedom to send out privateers
and commerce raiders as well as to
The try to float loans abroad. Several
Confederacy other European powers, as well as
wins other nations of the world, followed
the status of the British action. But on June 1,
a belligerent 1861, Great Britain forbade the
armed ships of either belligerent to
bring their prizes to British ports. This severely
limited the effectiveness of Confederate privateer-
ing. And Britain's original recognition of belliger-
ency probably lessened the possibility of a later
recognition of Southern independence. The quest
for this latter recognition was one of the primary
diplomatic aims of the Confederacy. The South,
overestimating the coercive power of the discon-
tinuance of the cotton trade with Europe, made
this threat the main theme of her attempt to gain
European recognition. It failed because, at the22
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This book can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Matching Search Results
View 159 pages within this book that match your search.Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Book.
Air University (U.S.). Extension Course Institute. Course 2, Volume 1A. American Foreign Policy in Growth and Action, book, April 1959; Alabama. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth1077937/m1/36/?q=%22~1%22~1: accessed July 16, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu; crediting National WASP WWII Museum.