This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Military history: Maritime / British / European / North America / United States This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Maritime warfare task force British military history task force European military history task force North American military history task force United States military history task force British Empire Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject British Empire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of British Empire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.British EmpireWikipedia:WikiProject British EmpireTemplate:WikiProject British EmpireBritish Empire articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. United States Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Africa This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 August 2018 and 8 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jake.meuse, Sarahbp16.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 15:57, 16 January 2022 (UTC) reply

This page needs massive help. [[ PaulinSaudi 16:26, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)]]

Needs some assistance from someone who knows facts about the British Navy from 1841 to 1866. 12:05, 18 Nov 2004

The formal name of U.S. warships always leads off with the letters USS, which stands for United States Ship. Since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, formal names ought to be used throughout it. The oldest ship in the United States Navy is the USS Constitution, which is also called "Old Ironsides." January 4th, 2005. 9:07 P.M., GMT.

It is fitting to rewrite the text of a page to avoid the repeating of the letters USS, but it is always wrong to refer to a U.S. warship without including the letters USS.

The word "she" is the standard word that is absolutely proper as a substitute for the complete name. For example, instead of repeating the formal name, USS Constitution, insert the word "she" if it fits. January 4th, 2005, 9:38 P.M., GMT.

Actually, no. It is entirely appropriate to refer to a U.S. Navy ship without the letters USS. In fact, prior to 1907/9, USS was not part of the official name of such ships. (Although we do use the prefix in articles about ships, which is a different discussion.) Thousands of articles in Wikipedia follow this convention.

See Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(ships)#Referring_to_ships; "You need not give the prefix at all if it is obvious from the context". See also 1 for the official U.S. Navy publication that rarely uses "USS" when refering to ships in the narrative of their histories.

Please either revert the changes or, if you disagree, let's move the discussion to the ship naming conventions page. Thanks. Jinian 21:55, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

When I was in the Navy in the 1950s and the 1960s, no females served aboard warships. No beards and long hair were allowed until Admiral Zumwalt permitted them after I had left the Navy.

Things have changed radically over the last 40 years, so it may be okay to eliminate the USS from the name of a U.S. Navy warship at this time.

The main purpose of the letters USS is to clearly identify a warship as being a warship and not something other than a warship. Should two ships be named after New York City, you would know that the USS New York is a warship, and that the New York is not a warship.

I believe that the Navy taught me that USS is proper, but that may well not hold true any more. Things change. Females pilot fighter planes onto aircraft carriers, nowadays. When I as a sailor, a female aboard a ship at sea was called BAD LUCK!

I prefer USS Constitution over Constitution. It's a Navy rule, I believe.

I can accept the informal method, though. January 5th, 2005 2:05 A.M. GMT.

Since you seem interested, the U.S. Navy rule is "Do not use "USS" for ships before 1909". See 1. Of course, Wikipedia isn't the U.S. Navy, so we're not bound by their rules.

This is not a new rule, but you were probably used to using "USS" for the ships in commission at the time you served, when the rule is that you do use "USS" for the first reference, and then not after. Jinian 12:59, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

(April 19, 2005 15:22 GMT) I read in an encyclopedia that the names of ships are preceded by the definite article "the." The Constitution was launched on October 21, 1797, but was not completed and equipped until the following year. She put to sea under Captain Nicholson, for service against the French.

On August 19, 1812, she fought her famous battle with the Guerrière. On December 29, she captured the Java.

On February 14, 1814, she captured the Picton, and on February 20, 1815, she captured the Cyane.

The Constitution was reported unseaworthy between 1828 and 1830, and was ordered to be dismantled. Following the appearance of Holme's poem "Old Ironsides," she was rebuilt in 1833. She went out of commission in 1855 at Portsmouth, New Hampshire. She was again partially rebuilt in 1877, and crossed the Atlantic for the last time in 1878. The Constitution was stored at the Boston Navy Yard in 1897.

15:52 GMT April 19th, 2005

Please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ships#"The"_before_the_ship's_name and Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(ships)#Referring_to_ships. The bottom line: "The" is not needed before the name of a ship (but neither is it wrong). No need to rewrite this. I've reverted to the original.

And by changing the links from USS Constellation to Constellation you accidentally changed the link from the ship to the arrangement of stars. Jinian 00:34, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have here a number of references that seem to paint a rather different picture thatn "the US blockaded africa and then the British joined them". It seems that Britian was taking the lead from 1807 onwards, and maintained a much larger naval presence off Africa. Meanwhile the US refused to allow the British Navy to search its ships for slaves. Here are some of the references: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] DJ Clayworth 17:24, 25 August 2005 (UTC) reply

I made a start on changing the article. DJ Clayworth 17:41, 25 August 2005 (UTC) reply

When I started this article, I put out a plea for help from anyone who knew of the role played by the British Navy. I am interested in those activities. I am on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean from England. Generally speaking, from what I have seen, American history books ignore the subject, almost entirely. Americans were very pro-slavery at that time. U. S. Presidents Pierce (1853-57) and ("Buck") Buchanan (1857-61) were Pro-slavery Democrats because the majority of the voters were pro-slavery people.

141.151.178.248 12:39, 3 September 2005 (UTC) reply

And they were Northerners to boot, not Southerners. Southerners were only about 30 to 35 Percent of the voters. 141.151.178.248 13:36, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Is the reference to an American ship join the blockade in 1813 right as wasn't the war of 1812 happening then? 203.220.52.83 13:06, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply

I wrote my undergraduate dissertation on the Suppression of the Slave Trade,

ukcmilhist.freeforums.org/dissertation-navy-suppression-slave-trade-1808-50-t2647.html

it will be able to provide narrative background, unfortunately this link has not been referenced properly yet (however I have the original word doc, so will be able to help with any referencing enquiries)

( Fdsdh1 ( talk) 12:44, 24 February 2016 (UTC)) reply

References can be aded per WP:GENREF and WP:INLINECITE. Whizz40 ( talk) 19:37, 24 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Blockade of Africa. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091210021701/http://www.royalnavalmuseum.org/visit_see_victory_cfexhibition_infosheet.htm to http://www.royalnavalmuseum.org/visit_see_victory_cfexhibition_infosheet.htm
• Added {{ dead link}} tag to http://www.history.navy.mil/danfs/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{ Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{ source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:56, 4 November 2016 (UTC) reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Blockade of Africa. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110608085027/http://www.history.navy.mil/danfs/s15/somers-ii.htm to http://www.history.navy.mil/danfs/s15/somers-ii.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{ Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{ source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:00, 11 November 2016 (UTC) reply

I think we will need a conclusions section. The blockade of Africa was the first step in increased European attention concerning the African continent, and for the first time its interior. The Suppression of the Slave Trade is linked to the colonisation of the continent, and was often used as a vehicle to usurp the local authorities and replace it with European influence (particularly in the case of Britain). However I am not really an expert so I am not sure I would be able to do it justice.

( Fdsdh1 ( talk) 18:38, 31 December 2017 (UTC)) reply

We could add a heading for conclusions with a link to Scramble for Africa as a start? Whizz40 ( talk) 19:07, 1 January 2018 (UTC) reply

These two matters were not very closely and directly related. During the decades of blockade the European powers paid little attention to colonization. Exceptions include the far north, the far south, and the settlement of freed slaves "back to Africa". Suppression became pretty much complete in the early 1860s when the importing countries banned the trade (the USA ban was incompletely effective until the Civil War). Twenty years later there was indeed a scramble for Africa, and yes that was the next stage of exploiting the continent. Drat; in writing this I'm coming to think more deeply and see your side of it, so yes, there should be a mention and a link or two. Jim.henderson ( talk) 18:21, 5 January 2018 (UTC) reply