Talk:Union blockade

message: I changed the map here and elsewhere. Blue and gray are more appropriate colors for Civil War maps--using blue and red would unneccessarily link the Civil War to the culture war and detract from WIkipedia's neutrality.----Ampersand
Ampersand, while I'm not particularly concerned about the color change itself and am not even sure what map you are referring to, battlemaps of the ACW (at least as in the Official Military Atlas) use red for the CSA and blue for the Union.  (It is probably only accidental that the current political alignments roughly correspond to this as well.)  My concern is that depending on context this could result in the "tail wagging the dog" in the pursuit of neutrality. Red Harvest 20:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

message: Should something be included regarding the controversiality or that this was the first time a President had ordered a blockade?
Worldthoughts 23:16, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Legal Implications

message: The article's characterization of the British as being hostile to the blockade is at odds with recognition and support they provided for it.  See, e.g., http://www.essentialcivilwarcurriculum.com/the-union-blockade-of-the-southern-states.html  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:300B:7F5:6000:39C8:42D1:14D0:47DF (talk) 21:53, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The yankees faced a much longer coastline and did a better job than the Brits had done. The steam technology helped the blockaded party: it allowed very fast blockade runners to be built--that was a new challenge, but they were captured at the 50% rate by 1864. Rjensen 18:24, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This makes it sound like the blockade was entirely responsible for this decline in trade, but didn't the South burn the cotton in attempt to bring Britain into the war?  I know nothing about this but I am reading this out of a textbook so just thought I would make a note here.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.140.95.135 (talk) 21:11, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutral point of view? 

message: I added new historical details and a bibliography, and shifted the lists of ships to the end Rjensen 06:03, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also deleted this sentence as it contradicted the entire preceeding paragraph. The Confederate States of America did not generally undertake major action to break the Union blockade systematically, leading some historians to question the effectiveness of the Union measure. 
Thatcher131 23:54, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New details 

message: Since when is a 62' tug considered a ship?  (Listed under Northern Atlantic Blockading Squadron Ships)  The other listed was a store and receiving ship.  Yet could the 141' USS Commodore Hull be listed since she was a gunboat?  And wouldn't the USS Monitor have been part of that Squadron?  You'd think she would be worth mentioning.  I'm not sure what that section was trying to accomplish, so I'm putting this here instead of editing.--J Clear 00:35, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ship? 

message: Cape Henry is in Virginia, not North Carolina. Since the North Atlantic Blockading Squadron's area of coverage was Virginia and North Carolina, I suspect its southern limit of coverage was actually Cape Fear, the southernmost point in North Carolina. Frankwomble 14:38, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cape Henry or Cape Fear? 

message: In the section "End of the blockade and its impact," the word "perhaps" is used ("In the final accounting, perhaps half the investors took a profit, and half a loss."). I don't want to remove the word, because that might make the sentence even more inaccurate, but it certainly shouldn't be there. I'm thinking remove the sentence entirely. --zenazn 16:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of "perhaps" 

message: The article itself looks good but entire sections are missing citations.  If anyone that made extensive edits here can go back and tag some refs it would be much appreciated.  Kelvinc (talk) 04:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone had actually vandalized portions of the article to reverse the result of major engagements.  Two of the sections listed as having no references actually had some, so I've removed those tags.  There are of course other sections that should have references added.  Upon inspection the underlying material in them appears to be generally correct, just uncited. Red Harvest (talk) 15:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some sections unreferenced 

message: ...do the direct quotations and amounts come from? I'm thinking of removing them if they can't be easily discovered to be accurate or not... 76.117.247.55 (talk) 01:55, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where exactly... 

message: 'After 1862, only three ports—Wilmington, North Carolina; Charleston, South Carolina; and Mobile, Alabama—remained open...'
I read a story about a blockade-runner entering Savannah after Sherman had occupied it, and trying to hand in his contraband, not noticing the Union flag flying over the harbourmaster's office. Valetude (talk) 09:33, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Savannah? 

message: Once again an attempt to rewrite history in the Infobox with the "Blood-stained Banner", without any sources. Confederates served under one banner, so history articles at WP should picture the flag of its time, the "First national flag with 13 stars", 1861-1865. 
David Sansing, professor emeritus of history at the University of Mississippi at “Mississippi History Now”, online Mississippi Historical Society observes in his Brief history of Confederate flags, that the “Bood stained banner” was “unlikely” to have flown over “any Confederate troops or civilian agencies”. He quoted the author of “Confederate Military History”, Confederate General Bradley T. Johnson, “I never saw this flag, nor have I seen a man who did see it.” -- the BSB. 
In contrast, Ellis Merton Coulter in his The Confederate States of America, 1861-1865, published in LSU’s History of the South series, on page 118 notes that beginning in March 1861, the First National Flag was used “all over the Confederacy”. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:28, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox. First National Flag for CSA  

message: There must be some record of which Union vessel destroyed the greatest number of blockade-runners, or captured the highest tonnage of contraband. Valetude (talk) 00:35, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Record numbers or quantities? 

message: In the Wiki page on Gideon Welles, it says he argued vociferously against the blockade when first appointed Secretary of the Navy. No explanation is given for this, even after a question was logged on his Talk Page. Any enlightenment? Valetude (talk) 16:12, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opposition to Blockade by Gideon Welles  

message: Should this be merged with Anaconda Plan?  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 04:34, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I am still new enough to not know exactly how mergers work (i.e. would some information be lost in the transition?) but I am otherwise in favor of merging. I don't see enough of a distinction between the two subjects, despite there being a large difference in information given, to justify two separate articles. Amscheip (talk) 01:24, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge?