blockade squadron off charleston for a day or two. which prompted a confederate commander at the time in charleston to declare the blockade had been lifted. though the was back in place again the next day. charleston authorities also tried to use, again, playing the technology card, semisubmersible david boats as thee were known. these have a steam engine plant. they don't generally completely go under water. just a little crest showing above the water so that stack had access to air. the forerunners of modern torpedo boats today. as well as we know, as a working submarine, the hl hundley which did sink a ship in february 1864. all along south-atlantic coast, the confederacy sowed torpedoes, today we would call mines. in the end however these innovative weapons and tactics

while troublesome did not lift or break the blockade. and the union managed a few naval innovations of her own. like this one. more about which of course, later today. by 1863, the blockade was becoming increasingly effective. whatever the perception in the anti-administration newspapers in new york and much of the confederacy, the difficulties of the southern economy were becoming impossible to ignore. to be sure many of the difficulties were the product of a collapsing internal transportation system and another problem was that many in south began to resent the fact that as one contemporary put it, blockade running was fast degenerating into an illicit and unpatriotic trade.

with unconscious irony, i love this passage. confederate planters, planters, complained that the fabulous profits made by blockade runners were enriching a small class of monied men at the top of the income scale. imagine that? small class of wealthy men making decisions for the whole society. what made planters think of that. the richmond enquirer, decried the unbecoming vanity, displayed by the wardrobes of the richest merchants unsuitable for a nation fighting for its survival. the way was for the government to regulate all trade. this of course flew directly in the face of that doctrine of state's rights. state rights i'm told to say. the increasingly desperate

condition of the rebel armies and weakening confederate economy led to a popular clamor for the richmond government off to talk over regulation of trade entirely. in february 1864, jefferson davis got the confederate congress to pass a law that requires all outbound, blockade runners, to reserve half of their space for government owned cotton. a month later he urged on congress, a law, forbidding importation of any high value and profitable luxury goods that had been the common cargos in the first two years of the war. it was a long list. i will share some with you. see if you can catch a hint of the theme here. here's what was banned, ale, beer, rum, brandy, billiard tables, furniture, carpeting, tapestry, carriages, lace, jewelry, dolls, toys, glass, fur, hats, capes, paintings, statues, wallpaper, bricks, roofing slates, perfumes, playing cards, and velvet. as well as any kind of wine including champagne, claret,

madera, port, and sherri. now that is a violation of state rights. and of course there was considerable grousing about all of this. not only from the companies that stood to lose future profits from the importation of these goods. but also from state rights conscious governors like vance in north carolina and joe brown in georgia who believe that richmond was becoming altogether too intrusive in the lives of southern citizens. the key question here of course is, did it work? i promise you i would try to answer this question. and so i shall attack that. most historians who try to answer the question about the-- the legitimacy, the value, importance, impact of the union blockade do so by appealing to statistics. now, you have all heard the old saw, that there are liars and there are damned liars and then

there are statisticians. and as we'll see in effort to answer the question by relying solely on statistics is as likely to breed skepticism about the process as to resolve the question. since numbers can be used to make very different points. for example, let me give you two facts. here is one. during the civil war, a total of 300 different steam powered vessels attempted to run the blockade. including our friend. and those steamers made an average of four successful trips that is two round trips -- two in, two out -- per vessel. that works out to 1,300 attempt to run the blockade, of which over 1,000 were successful. in other words, statistics prove that blockade runners made it through 77% of the time.

fact two, of those 300 steamers, union warships captured 136 of them. and 85 more were destroyed, run into the shore by pursuing vessels or lost at sea, for a total of 221. thus statistics prove that 73% of vessels that tried to run the blockade were destroyed or captured. in other words, both statements are through. three quarters of all attempts to run the blockade were successful. three quarter of all ships that tried it were destroyed. a better way perhaps to measure the impact of the blockade is calculate how much the confederacy was able to up port during the war to sustain its economy. on the whole, it must be acknowledged that the confederacy did indeed manage to import a sufficient number of rifles, cannon, powder, shot to sustain its armies for four years. the south imported at least 400,000 rifles.

3 million pounds of lead, 2.2 million pounds of salt, and statistics from a book, steven wise, undoubtedly correct in concluding that without blockade running the nation's military would have been without proper supplies of arms, bullets and powder. conceded. the fact that rebel armies managed to sustain did not mean effects of the blockade were not felt elsewhere in the confederacy. coffee and tea. became luxury goods. so prized, one atlanta jeweler perhaps as a gag, set coffee beans into pins in place of diamonds. the shortage of these and other goods contributed to hoarding, speculation sh inflation a, inflation and affected civilian moral. more over in assessing the impact of the blockade it is necessary to consider not only what was brought in, but what was sent out.

as a union assistant, navy secretary fox put it in a conversation the rebellion was sustained not by what entered into their ports by what proceeded out. both before and during the war, the southern economy was almost entirely dependent on its production of cash crops for export. especially, of course, cane cotton. measuring how much the blockade affected cotton exports turns out to be simple. in the last year of peace before the blockade was in place. the cotton states exported just under 3 million bales of cotton. and the first 12 months of the war, south exported just over 50,000 bales of cotton. over two years as union forces occupied more and more southern coast, cotton exports fell further. to be sure the price of cotton also went up as exports

declined, but if the price of cotton rose, so too did the price of goods south was trying to buy overseas. railroad machinery, modern breach loading rifles. in the end the south used stock piled bales as armor for coastal gun replacements. the economic historian, david sordham, concludes that the shortfall in revenues from exporting raw cotton rivalled, if not exceeded, the federal government's total expenditur expendituresexpenditures on its navy for the whole war. given that simple cost effective analysis sukts that the union blockade was worth the effort. so, what its the bottom line here? i think it is this. that despite the apparently porous character of the union blockade, the cumulative effect of the reduction in the south

cotton exports, the loss of its coastline, and eventually, the occupation of its major sea ports seriously undermined the confederate government and its war effort. if the blockade was never airtight, which it wasn't, it was constricting enough, the south was constantly gasping for economic breath. i love that phrase. i borrowed it from william roberts in his book. that combined with the reduction in the size of the logistic base from which the confederacy could draw supplies for its armies, so isolated lee's indomitable army in virginia that in the end it had no choice but to surrender. now almost certainly the north could have won the civil war, without the blockade. but almost as certainly the blockade made the war shorter and in doing so probably saved many thousands of lives. now this weekend, of course we observe the attempt southerners made to lift that blockade by employing revolutionary

technology. and the union responds to that effort in producing an even more revolutionary warship. the union not only matched the south, in employing the weaponry. it went on to build more than 80 monitors, and the blockade remained intact. thank you very much. i look forward to your questions. if you will come to the microphone right over here then they can get it on the tape for c-span. yes, ma'am. >> thank you. were all of the blockading ships steam-powered? or were some of them dependent only on sail? >> that is a great question. the short answer is they needed to be steam powered. it took them a while to figure this out. initially, they did send sailing ships to the blockade. remember the union is gathering

together whatever ships it can. sweeping harbors of philadelphia, baltimore, new york for anything that floats that will carry a gun. early on there were many sailing ships that attempted it. sailing ships couldn't hold their position close in shore with the making tide for fear of running aground. by late '62, certainly, '63, all sailing ships out of service on the blockade sent to do a mission overseas, touring the mediterranean, for example and all blockaders were steam powered. most famous sailing power ship was the u.s.s. america. a very years before had won a famous sailing race and won a silver cup that we still compete for called the america's cup, so the america was one of the blockading ships early, but sad to say, wasn't very good at it. yes, sir. >> could you speak to some of the details of the prize money system that would incentivize

union nave navy personnel? >> prize money had a long history back to the age of sail and was a great motivator. the way it worked was that any vessel captured by a united states warship, the value of that vessel sold at auction, the value of its cargo sold at auction, assuming a legitimate prize, the value want to the captain and crew. in late 1862 they kept aside percentage for widows and orphans of sailors lost at sea. as usual, it want to -- any of us who served in the military know how it works. most went to the officers. you know, the captain often got half off the top. then they, the officers

themselves, shared another quarter in the war room. and then the final quarter was shared among the enlisted crew. if you made a cup of pretty good captures off the coast that could set you up for life. there was real money to be made doing this and the rule of thumb was any vessel in sight at the time of capture got to share in the prize, so that was kind of a bummer if you were on the blockade and you captured a ship and made the risks to capture and every other ship, they've got the share, that's no good. but if the ship made it over the horizon, nobody else in sight, that's yours. okay. sailors used to say sit is a shame that bullets and wounds aren't passed out the same way as prize money. so, anyway. that's the way it worked. so. yes.

>> love that prize money. >> see. >> i'm up from florida. kind of wondered, the taking of the port of fernadina, how important was it, should it have been done sooner? >> yeah, fernadina was one of the ports near jacksonville, north florida, atlantic coast, early 1862 efforts by the union to gobble up pieces of the shore. there were several motives involved here. one was to have a safe haven, further south on the blockading squadron. one was to gobble up as much land as possible. part two after the emancipation proclamation and the legitimate prize of war that did not have to be returned to enemy, never mind fugitive slave law, an attempt to recruit sailors for the fleet. so there are several motives involved here. and the squadron that went down as part of dupont's command went to fernadina, pretty much a

pattern we'd seen at ft. clark, hatteras and elsewhere, showed the confederate fort ashore. confederates found they couldn't stand up to heavy artillery, abandoned position and took control of the small village. this was repeated all along the coast. the atlantic coast. the gulf coast as well. simply one of many such forays. whether it should have been done sooner, i'm not sure out could have been. remember the union is building up forces. by the time late 1864, there are more than 30 ships off of charleston and blockade runners are still getting in and out. so dupont was loathe to take a half dozen ships from the blockade and send them off for other operations. so i don't know that he could have done it any sooner than he did. yes. >> the question concerns the profits from the confederate blockade runners. were they typically invested in the south and at the end of the

war, did some build fortunes overseas and the real question here, did any of this contribute to the post war reconstruction of the south? >> that's a complicated question. the short version of -- certainly during the period when entrepreneurs were making decisions about blockade running and what to bring and what to do, it was entirely their money. they did with it what they liked. apparently according to descriptions in the "richmond enquirer" they suited themselves up nicely and pranced around downtown richmond. but there was no fund, early on, that that money should go to the benefit of the war effort. or that it should establish credits overseas for the purchase of -- of weapons and other materiel. which is exactly why the confederate government felt that it needed to get involved in this. not only did it require certain percentages of the cargo to carry government owned cotton to get credits overseas so it could buy material to be brought in. but by late 1864, davis actually took over blockade running, the ships were commanded by confederate officers.

and, all of that money, by then, of course, very late in the war. all of that money did go to the benefit of the confederate government. but by late 1864, the government was already in trouble financially. the great assistance overseas was through the trenholn and prelow exchange company that advanced credits in liverpool, to the confederate government so they could make those purchases. blockade running, especially in the first, 2, 2 1/2 years of the war did not go to the benefit of the war effort it went to the benefit of the entrepreneur whose owned the ships and that of course was the source of the complaints. yes. >> i was wondering if you agree or disagree with the proposition that one of the great hidden effects of the blockade was the way it contributed to the destruction of the confederate railroad system, because of its disruption of the intracoastal trade, quite apart from anything dealing with external trade. >> absolutely true.

no, i actually had that in my talk and took it out. you see anna lurking over here. i am over time. i removed that in interest of time. a very important point. i mention how one of the problems the south had was the breakdown of the internal transportation system, but that in itself was a product of the blockade because much of the trans coastal trade went through what we would call the intercoastal waterway. you saw the map of the sounds and once those sounds are occupied by union naval forces, all of that now has to be moved on to an overburdened confederate railroad system. a lot of those railroads are short lines that have different gauges. this is long before it stabilized at four feet eight and a half inches. so these are little pieces of railroads and in addition to which, the confederacy, a non iron producing generally society, often used railroads known as the strap and stringer.

it was a wooden rail with a little thin layer of iron on the top. so you overburdened those lines with heavier rolling stock stoc carrying three, four, five times as much as they're designed to carry, and they'll break down too. so yes, not only did the blockade interrupt international trade, it interrupted internal trade as well. you're absolutely correct. one more in we're out of time now. we have to stop. i would be glad to talk to anybody who wants to out in the foyer. thanks for your attention. i appreciate i. >> friday on washington journal, social security and medicare public trustee charles blahous on a new study that claims the health care will add at least $340 billion to budget deficits over the next decade. then michael kinsley reacts to politics, social issues and culture. after that patricia hu of the

bureau of transportation statistics and andrew compart of aviation week discuss how u.s. airlines are currently performing. plus, your e-mails, phone calls, and tweets. washington journal live friday morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. our specific mission is to work to see that human rights remain an essential component of american foreign policy, and that when we are evaluating our foreign policy moves globally, human rights can never be the only consideration, but it has to be part of the dialogue. >> katrina lantos swett is president and ceo of the lantos foundation for human rights and justice. >> when we abandon our deepest values, whether we're talking about torture as it relates to the war on terror, or the recent policy with russia, you know, and the upcoming issue of

whether or not the u.s. congress should pass the sergei magnitsky accountability act, which we don't need to go into the details of that policy issue, but whether or not we're going to stay on record as saying human rights matter. they matter in russia. they matter in china. >> more sunday night at 8:00 on c-span's q&a. all this week it's american history tv in prime time. we now return to the mariners museum in newport news, virginia, where a civil war navy conference was held last month to mark the 150th anniversary of the battle of hampton roads. this was the first time ironclads faced off during battle. up next, david alberg of the monitor national marine sanctuary looks at the recovery and identification of human remains from the "uss monitor." that ship faced off with the "css virginia" near hampton roads in 1862. this is about 35 minutes.

>> all right. i think we'll go ahead and get started here. so if you want to find yourself a good seat, we will begin this next very brief section, but dave alberg has something really important to say, and he has brought lisa stansbury with him to help him out. and i think some of you may have met a couple of new faces here at the mariners museum. they're up in the lobby. and that's who dave alberg is here to talk about. i've known dave for i'm not quite sure for how many years now, a lot. and he has been such an incredible partner to this institution while running the monitor national marine sanctuary. their offices may be here, but their sanctuary is 16 miles off the coast of cape hatteras, 240 feet down.

it's a little hard to go there to the visitor's center, so we brought the visitor's center here to newport news. it is my extreme pleasure to bring david alberg up here to the stage. [ applause ] >> it worked. that's always a first test right there. well, good afternoon, everybody, and thank you for coming out. we are here today to talk about the work noaa has been involved with in the last, gosh, since 2002 really to identify the two sailors who were recovered in the turret of the "uss monitor." on tuesday, i don't know if you caught the news, we unveiled the faces of who those two men were. and they are on display in the front lobby of the museum. we brought them down from washington. they are on temporary display in the front lobby as we prepare a permanent display for them here. and i can't think of a more fitting home for them than at the mariners museum where they will be able to tell their own

stories and the stories of their shipmates who were lost the night the monitor sank. as anna said, i work for the office of marine sank wares, which is part of the department of commerce under noaa. we manage 14 sites around the world in u.s. territorial waters that protect the marine environment. this is most notably important because it all began in 1975 with the designation of the "uss monitor" national marine sanctuary off the coast of cape hatteras. and the designation of that one site to protect the remains of the "uss monitor" have now grown into the premier marine protected network in the world. it was done, the monitor was -- in fact we have some people who can tell more about this than i can. the monitor was discovered in 1973 by john newton, doc edger on the and gordon watts as part of a research expedition off the coast of north carolina testing

out new technologies and sonar with the monitor as their target. and lo and behold, they found the shipwreck at the time sitting on the high seas 18 miles off the coast depending how you measure it. about 18 miles off the coast of north carolina. outside of state waters and outside of u.s. territorial waters at the time. in '74, a year after she was found, the governor of north carolina requested that congress establish the monitor national marine sanctuary to protect the site, and the rest is history. it was established on january 30th, 1975. which was the date the anniversary date of the launching of the monitor. and what i want to talk about specifically, we'll be covering much of the history of the ship over the rest of the day. but i want to talk about the two remains. when noaa went out to recover the shipwreck and congress asked noaa after the designation of the sanctuary and after about a decade of monitoring the

monitor, it was noted that the ship was deteriorating, which is a notion that we fight a little bit against today trying to help people ask me what is the condition of the ship. and i will point out that as a ship, it's in terrible shape, obviously. but as an archaeological site, it's in pristine shape. 85% of the wreck is still sitting on the sea bed. we consider it a war grave, as does the navy. it is a national historic landmark, the first marine sanctuary. but congress said what is the plan. do you raise the entire thing? do you raise segments of it? do you leave it alone? and the answer was after a careful study, one that involved in partners, including the mariners museum was that selected pieces would be brought up. between 1998 and 2002 the navy working with noaa, and of course the navy was the workhorse in this effort, bringing their professionalism and expertise and ten cal abilities, began to

recover those pieces of the wreck. and as noaa worked with the military, we acknowledged from the beginning that there was the likelihood that human remains would be found. and lo and behold, in july of 2002 while the navy was removing overburden, if you know the story, the monitor sank upside down with the turret upside down filled with coal and material and artifacts. but the roof of the turret, you have to understand how it was constructed was just railroad rails. so it was known from the beginning if an attempt was made to lift that with all that material many there, there was a high likelihood that the roof would give way, spilling the contents of the turret, which is something nobody wanted to have something. navy divers working 24 hours a day began removing all that coal and sediment, which is tougher than you think. it was not soft silt. this material was the equivalent of concrete. as they worked down in july of

2002, they hit a layer and found the first human remains. if you talk to the navy on board, that was a benchmark moment for them. for years working on this project, the challenges were technical. and it was very much an engineering challenge, an archaeological challenge, and suddenly became very personal. and in talking with folks on the barge that were working that day, they have described it very much it went from being an engineering feat to being one of recovering their shipmates. and even though the uniforms may have been different by 111 years this was -- or, gosh, 130 years at that point, this was very personal. so excavation continued around them, as much as it could be. but at that point, the decision was made to raise the turret. the turret came up, excavation continued on the surface. and shortly after that, a second set of remains were found lying just underneath -- oh, what did i just do? oops. there we go. a second set of remains were