Download the free Kindle app and start reading Kindle books instantly on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required.
Read instantly on your browser with Kindle for Web.
Using your mobile phone camera - scan the code below and download the Kindle app.
Follow the author
OK
Starving the South: How the North Won the Civil War Hardcover – Bargain Price, April 12, 2011
- Print length304 pages
- LanguageEnglish
- PublisherSt. Martin's Press
- Publication dateApril 12, 2011
- Dimensions6.48 x 1.1 x 9.4 inches
Book recommendations, author interviews, editors' picks, and more. Read it now
Frequently purchased items with fast delivery
How the South Won the Civil War: Oligarchy, Democracy, and the Continuing Fight for the Soul of AmericaPaperbackFREE Shipping on orders over $35 shipped by AmazonGet it as soon as Wednesday, Jun 18
How the South Won the Civil War: Oligarchy, Democracy, and the Continuing Fight for the Soul of AmericaHardcoverFREE Shipping on orders over $35 shipped by AmazonGet it as soon as Wednesday, Jun 18
Confederate Reckoning: Power and Politics in the Civil War SouthPaperbackFREE Shipping on orders over $35 shipped by AmazonGet it as soon as Wednesday, Jun 18
Lincoln's Peace: The Struggle to End the American Civil WarHardcoverFREE Shipping on orders over $35 shipped by AmazonGet it as soon as Wednesday, Jun 18
Battle Cry of Freedom: The Civil War EraHardcoverFREE Shipping by AmazonGet it as soon as Wednesday, Jun 18Only 8 left in stock (more on the way).
Myth of the Lost Cause: Why the South Fought the Civil War and Why the North Won (Civil War Collection)PaperbackFREE Shipping on orders over $35 shipped by AmazonGet it as soon as Wednesday, Jun 18
Editorial Reviews
From Publishers Weekly
(c) Copyright PWxyz, LLC. All rights reserved.
From Booklist
About the Author
Excerpt. © Reprinted by permission. All rights reserved.
Lincoln’s Humbug of a Blockade
Abraham Lincoln was elected the sixteenth president of the United States on November 6, 1860. He opposed the extension of slavery into new territories, and his election convinced many Southerners that it was time to leave the Union. By the time of Lincoln’s inauguration on March 4, 1861, seven slaveholding states had seceded, immediately expropriating as much Federal property as they could, including arsenals, forts, military camps, and the United States Mint in New Orleans. Eight other slave-holding states remained in the United States, but any precipitate action by the new administration might tip them into seceding as well.
The Lincoln Administration confronted many crises, but the most volatile was what to do with a few remaining Union-held forts in states that had seceded. Fort Sumter was the flashpoint: It controlled the entrance to Charleston, South Carolina’s largest port. The fort was garrisoned by a small army detachment commanded by Major Robert Anderson, a pro-slavery, former slave owner from Kentucky. Anderson attended West Point, where he met Kentucky-born Jefferson Davis and tutored a Creole from Louisiana named Pierre T. G. Beauregard. In 1861, the commander of the Confederate troops stationed in Charleston was Beauregard, who under orders from Jefferson Davis, then the provisional president of the Confederacy, refused permission for Anderson’s garrison to buy food and supplies in Charleston. Instead, Davis and Beauregard demanded that Anderson surrender the fort. Anderson refused. By early March 1861, the fort began to run out of provisions. Anderson told the War Department that “unless we receive supplies I shall be compelled to stay here without food, or to abandon this post.”1
All Loyal Citizens
Lincoln’s cabinet was divided about whether to send provisions to the garrison. William Seward, the U.S. Secretary of State, favored withdrawal, as did Simon P. Cameron, the Secretary of War, and Gideon Welles, Secretary of the Navy. Relieving the fort, they argued, would require an army and a navy that the United States just did not have. Others disagreed. Salmon P. Chase, Secretary of the Treasury, and Montgomery Blair, the Postmaster General, thought that surrendering the fort would be treason, and any such action would dampen the morale of the many Unionists who lived in the slave-holding states. Others feared that withdrawal would be tantamount to official recognition of the Confederacy.
Lincoln concluded that if the Union troops evacuated Fort Sumter, the nation would be irrevocably split in two. At a cabinet meeting on March 28, 1861, he made the decision to send provisions to the Union garrison at the fort. A small flotilla of vessels loaded with supplies left Northern ports on April 5. When the ships arrived off the coast of South Carolina six days later, Beauregard gave Anderson a choice of immediately surrendering or facing bombardment. Anderson declined to surrender, and at 4:30 a.m. on April 12, 1861, batteries fired on the fort.2 The cannonade continued through the following day, until Anderson agreed to a cease-fire. On April 14, Anderson and his men lowered the American flag, boarded the ships that had come to supply the fort, and headed north. Thus ended the first military engagement of the Civil War.
Even before the Confederate artillery fired the first shots of the Civil War, various proposals were circulating in Washington on how best to encourage the South to return to the Union. Winfield Scott, the General-in-Chief of the U.S. Army and a Virginian by birth, is credited with the proposal to blockade the Confederacy’s Atlantic and Gulf ports and then to take control of the Mississippi River. Such actions would prevent war materiel from coming into the Confederacy from abroad and would split the Confederacy in two. After the South stagnated commercially, it would then peacefully rejoin the Union, or so proponents believed. The plan was leaked to the press, where it was disparagingly referred to as the “boa-constrictor,” the “anaconda,” or “Scott’s Great Snake.”3 The press and the public wanted no part of it. Northern newspapers demanded the immediate conquest of Richmond and a speedy end to secession.
On April 15—one day after Fort Sumter surrendered—Lincoln issued a proclamation calling for the mobilization of 75,000 volunteers to suppress the rebellion. In the North, the proclamation generated widespread support and unity. In the South, four states responded to Lincoln’s call by seceding from the Union, and strong secession movements pressed the remaining four slave-holding states to follow their example.
Within the Lincoln Administration, debate ensued about whether to declare a blockade of the Confederacy. It was Jefferson Davis’s action that tipped the debate in favor of doing so. Two days after Lincoln’s call for volunteers to suppress the rebellion, Davis invited applications for “Letters of Marque” authorizing Confederate agents to seize and destroy American merchant ships. On April 19, Lincoln responded by declaring a blockade of Southern ports with the intent of preventing cotton, tobacco, and sugar from being exported and military equipment and supplies from coming into the South from abroad.4
Declaring a blockade was easy; enforcing it was another matter. The South had nine major ports and more than 3,500 miles of coastline, and it would be impossible for the North to prevent small ships from landing goods along thousands of bays, inlets, rivers, and islands. The Federal navy had only ninety ships at the beginning of the war, and more than half of these were outmoded sailing ships, many of them unseaworthy. As soon as Lincoln declared the blockade, the Navy Department recalled naval ships from foreign waters, purchased merchant ships, which were quickly converted into gunboats, and launched a major shipbuilding program. Within weeks, the United States had 150 ships ready for duty, and construction had begun on another 50 ships.
As ships returned from abroad and new ships came on line, the blockade became more effective. By December 1861, the navy had 264 ships on line, and the effects of the blockade were “severely felt” in the Confederacy.5
The Provision Blockade Is Nothing
Most Southerners did not see the blockade as a serious threat. Some, in fact, welcomed it. Jefferson Davis called it “a blessing in disguise,” believing that the blockade would force England and France “to a speedy recognition of the Confederacy, and to an interference with the blockade.” Even if the blockade became effective and England and France were not drawn into the conflict, Southerners concluded that “Lincoln’s humbug of a blockade” would still not succeed because of the South’s abundant food supply. As one Confederate officer in Nashville proclaimed, “The provision blockade is nothing; we shall have wheat, corn, and beef beyond measure, besides tobacco, sugar, and rice.” No one imagined that the blockade of the Atlantic and Gulf ports would have much of an impact on the availability, distribution, or cost of food in the Confederacy.6
Although the Anaconda plan was never officially approved, a modified version of it shaped Union strategy after the Northern defeat at Bull Run in July 1861. Southerners were well aware of the supposed “anaconda” strategy of the North, and many called it a “starvation policy.” This Anaconda strategy was well understood in both the North and South, and regular mention of the serpent—“contracting coils of the anaconda,” the “embraces of the Northern anaconda,” “the great anaconda has begun to enfold,” or “strangulation by the great anaconda,”—appeared in both Northern and Southern newspapers and magazines as the war progressed.7
An assistant to Jefferson Davis accurately foretold Union strategy, which was “to take our chief sea-coast cities, so as to cut off all supplies from foreign countries, get possession of the border States of Kentucky, Missouri, and Tennessee, which are the great grain-growing States, properly belonging to the Confederacy; cut the railway connections between Virginia and the cotton States, and cut the cotton region in two divisions by getting full possession of the Mississippi River by getting possession of the sea-coast cities on the one side and the principal grain-growing region on the other; by separating the cotton region of the Confederacy from Virginia and cutting it into two separate divisions; by commanding completely the Mississippi River, they expected to starve the people into subjection.”8
Severely Felt
The U.S. Navy needed coaling and supply depots in the South to resupply blockading ships. On August 28, 1861, Federal forces captured Fort Hatteras and Fort Clark on Cape Hatteras Inlet on North Carolina’s Outer Banks, and later captured Roanoke, New Bern, Elizabeth City, and Plymouth. In South Carolina, U.S. Army and Navy units seized Fort Walker and Fort Beauregard, guarding the entrance to Port Royal Sound. On November 24, 1861, the North seized Tybee Island in Georgia near the Savannah River estuary and immediately began constructing long-range batteries to fire on Confederate-occupied Fort Pulaski, which surrendered months later. From forts and fortified positions on offshore islands, Federal gunboats prevented coastwise trading. These conquests also gave the United States access to the South’s food production areas, among them the fertile strip of land along the coast of the Carolinas and Georgia; raiding parties ventured far into the hinterland confiscating commodities, dismantling the dikes, and flooding the rice fields. As a result, rice and other food production in these areas nosedived.9
From the beginning, the blockade reduced food imports into the South. Coffee, tea, spices, and wine quickly became difficult to acquire...
Product details
- ASIN : B00A1A0NMY
- Publisher : St. Martin's Press
- Publication date : April 12, 2011
- Language : English
- Print length : 304 pages
- Item Weight : 1.05 pounds
- Dimensions : 6.48 x 1.1 x 9.4 inches
- Best Sellers Rank: #3,864 in U.S. Civil War History
- Customer Reviews:
About the author

Andrew F. Smith has taught food studies at the New School since 1996. His various courses have included food controversies, food history, food writing and culinary luminaries. He is the author or editor of twenty-eight books, including the award-winning Oxford Encyclopedia on Food and Drink in America (OUP, 2013), Sugar: A Global History (Reaktion, April 2015) and Savoring Gotham: A Food Lover's Companion to New York City (Oxford University Press, November 2015). He is currently under contract to write a three-volume reference work on food controversies related to the environment, health and the economy. He serves as the editor for the "Edible Series" and the "Food Controversies Series" at Reaktion Books in the United Kingdom. He has written more than five hundred articles in academic journals, popular magazines and newspapers, and has served as a consultant to several television series, including the six-episode series, "Eat: The Story of Food," that aired on the National Geographic Channel in the fall of 2014. Formerly, he directed the Center for Teaching International Relations at the University of Denver, and has directed several national and international non-for-profit organizations. For more about him, visit his website: www.andrewfsmith.com
Andrew F. Smith has delivered more than fifteen hundred presentations on various educational, historical, and international topics, and has organized seventy-three major conferences. He has been frequently interviewed by and quoted in newspapers, journals and magazines, such as the New York Times, New Yorker, Reader's Digest, Los Angeles Times, Atlanta Constitution, Chicago Tribune, Fortune Magazine and The Wall Street Journal. I have been regularly interviewed on radio and television, including National Public Radio and the Food Network.
Customer reviews
- 5 star4 star3 star2 star1 star5 star71%25%4%0%0%71%
- 5 star4 star3 star2 star1 star4 star71%25%4%0%0%25%
- 5 star4 star3 star2 star1 star3 star71%25%4%0%0%4%
- 5 star4 star3 star2 star1 star2 star71%25%4%0%0%0%
- 5 star4 star3 star2 star1 star1 star71%25%4%0%0%0%
Customer Reviews, including Product Star Ratings help customers to learn more about the product and decide whether it is the right product for them.
To calculate the overall star rating and percentage breakdown by star, we don’t use a simple average. Instead, our system considers things like how recent a review is and if the reviewer bought the item on Amazon. It also analyzed reviews to verify trustworthiness.
Learn more how customers reviews work on AmazonTop reviews from the United States
There was a problem filtering reviews. Please reload the page.
- Reviewed in the United States on October 10, 2013Format: KindleVerified PurchaseI've read a lot of fascinating books about the Civil War but this is one of the most interesting of them all, as the author looks at the role of food during the Civil War. I expected to read about the Northern blockade of the South (and blockade runners) and also about armies pillaging the countryside for food but it was much, much more than that.
Acquiring food and/or withholding food from the enemy was a key element of military strategy, including whether an army had long supply trains or just "lived off the land."
What I didn't expect: The Civil War transformed local markets into national food suppliers and also led to the development of the Northern canning industry. The author talks about Borden and Van Camp, for instance.
As a morale booster, Northern businesses and individuals raised money for and prepared and delivered huge dinners for Yankee soldiers on Thanksgiving, 1864.
My only gripe with the book is that the author didn't go into much detail at all on what all the pillaging and other devastation inflicted on Southern farms/families meant. No doubt people starved but, beyond some discussion of Confederate bread riots, there wasn't much coverage.
Nonetheless, an absolutely fascinating book, one that I'd highly recommend!!
- Reviewed in the United States on April 27, 2011I am a civil war reenactor who specializes in period cooking and the history of commissary and supply. Starving the South reads like a breezy magazine article (that's a compliment btw), but don't let that fool you. It is chock full of good information for both reenactors and casual students of the Civil War. Understanding commissary, supply, and logistics is an overlooked but absolutely critical part of understanding the Civil War, and this book does a great job of laying it all out for you. It will also give the casual reader insight into some of the ways the Civil War influenced the logistical infrastructure of the U.S. today. Clocking in at just over 200 pages, you can knock this out in a couple days and be much more knowledgable for your minimal investment in time. The End Notes and Bibliography are extensive for those that want to carry their research further.
A couple of minor criticisms...
- Although the book does touch on the supply advantages of the Union side, I would have liked to have had more detail about that. Perhaps that will be a topic for a sequel, Eating to Yankee Victory.
- There isn't much on the day-to-day meal preparation of the common Confederate or Union soldier, i.e. what they cooked, how they cooked it, the equipment they used. However, that is a minor nit given since that topic has been explored in numerous texts and memoirs.
One final word of praise, the author does an excellent job of maintaining his objectivity. If he favors north or south, you won't be able to tell it from his writing. While he clearly sees the material advantages of the North as being a decisive factor in the conflict, you will find no "Lost Cause" mythology here.
All in all, bravo Andrew Smith for a job well done!
- Reviewed in the United States on April 29, 2020Format: PaperbackVerified PurchaseGot this to help me with my paper on the Richmond Bread Riot of 1863, was very helpful.
- Reviewed in the United States on September 29, 2016Format: KindleVerified PurchaseLoved this book. But i am a genealogist and history buff. This was one of the best non-fiction reads i have had in some time.
- Reviewed in the United States on April 6, 2014Format: KindleA good summary of how Union policies and military strategy destroyed the agriculture of the South and brought defeat to the government of the Jefferson Davis.
Poor Southern policy such as planting cotton and tobacco, along with conscripting agricultural workers resulted in the South producing less food than it should. Poor payment for food impressed resulted in farmers restricting the supply of food to be grown and sold. A poor distribution plus the plantation aristocracy used and misused additional supplies. Southern policy of guerrilla warfare resulted in the North emulating this policy and making the South howl. Finally, the slave population just left their posts. The Army of Northern Virginia just melted away and were easily defeated because they were on starvation allowances.
Another reason that the policy pursued by Lincoln won the war.
- Reviewed in the United States on March 12, 2015An outstanding and highly informative book, part of the growing literature that documents how the Civil War was won in large part by making war on Southern civilians.
- Reviewed in the United States on November 29, 2013Very interesting book if you like the Civil War. Which I do, but not a whole lot... Still, well written, easy to understand.
