There's a story of a captured Johnny Reb talking to one of the Yankees that grabbed him. Looking at Billy Yank he said:
"Dang! Your horse is so healthy, your uniforms' new, your boots are fine, and you look like your bowels is so regular!"
I'll say one thing: Whether you like, dislike, or flat-out hate the cause he fought for, in my opinion Johnny Reb was a real American hero. He did so much with so little, and in the end he had to be pounded into the ground to be defeated. Now who can't admire that?
Firelock76When Fort Fisher fell Wilmington fell with it, and the last "door" to the outside world was closed.
Yes, you are right. But I think by that time (February, 1865) it didn't much matter. The Confederate railroads were so run down nothing much could have left Wilmington anyway.
The previous November Union forces had a Thanksgiving feast shipped to them by rail from Washington, DC. The Confederates were starving. There was plenty of food in Richmond but Richmond was 30 miles away and the railroads were too deteriorated to get any food to the troops.
The southern troops must have been hungry for well over a year at least.
Absolutely, John. Wilmington NC was the last seaport the Confederates had open to the blockade runners. The fort the landing force "boarded" was Fort Fisher. When Fort Fisher fell Wilmington fell with it, and the last "door" to the outside world was closed.
Firelock,
Harpers Weekly reports that Wilmington NC was captured by the Union on February 22, 1865 and that when captured it was held by Confederate troops. There were also a number of Yankee prisoners released in the capture. If that is correct it would seem that the port was controlled by the CSA prior to being captured.
I assume you are at work as I write and I hope you had had a chance to get some rest.
John
With a little net surfing I found Embattled Confederates: An Illustrated History of Southerners at War by Bell Irvin Wiley published in 1964. Wiley is the first or one the the first social historians. He died in 1980. At the time of his retirement he taught at Emory University. His book is on Amazon and other selling sites but I cannot find a review of it.
Just briefly, it's been a long day, the info I got on the Wilmington warehouses came from a book I read years ago called "Embattled Confederates." Certainly, it was one of the nails in the Confederate coffin when the US Navy and Marines captured and closed the port of Wilmington in 1865, it was the last port open to the blockade runners.
The sailors and Marines in the landing force were sent ashore with the command "Board the fort in a seamanlike manner!" OOH-RAH!!! Gotta love it!
Firelock76Oh, and those warehouses in Wilmington, North Carolina? Those were supplies for North Carolina troops! NC refused to share them with the other Confederate states and there was nothing the Confederate central government could do about it, so lack of rail transport didn't have much to do with those supplies staying in Wilmington.
I have different information Firelock. Thomas Boaz in Guns for Cotton writes that the Confederate Government issued cotton bonds payable in the future with cotton at very favorable prices. The bonds were quite popular in Britain. The Port of Wilmington, North Carolina was not closed until 1865 and was used by the Confederate Government.
The bonds were issued by Emile Erlanger & Company, a Paris bank. They were called Erlangers. Although their value did tend to fall the Confederates were able to buy a lot of war supplies with them even after Gettysburg fell in July of 1863. There was a rumor (and many British and Europeans seem to have believed it) that the bonds would be honored no matter who won the war. Bond holders must have been disappointed.
So that is what I have learned for what it is worth.
Getting back to Confederate Railroads, actually a lot of Confederate generals used them. The below web site has a long list of generals who did. Copy and pasted the link and then scroll down to "Confederate Uses of the Railroad:"
http://www.csa-railroads.com/Essays/Essays_and_Documents.htm
On the above site 26 different Confederate troop movements by various generals are listed. Other military uses of the railroads are also indicated. The troop movements begin in 1861 and do not end until 1865. This list indicates that Confederate field commanders used the railroads despite their increasingly run down condition and despite other disputes about them. The commanders themselves must have believed the railroads were important to the war effort despite the fact that the Confederate government did not maintain them provide for the railroad companies to maintain them.
Paul_D_North_JrSherman was just about 150 years ahead of his time - I know some construction people who don't mind being in places where cell phone reception is nil - they're pretty self-sufficient types, and claim they can get a lot more done without constantly being interrupted, harassed, second-guessed, etc.
But today cellphones and e-mail are not going to go away. We really have become more productive because of them although they can be a pain at times.
I bet Joe Boardman gets a lot more e mailed complaints that passenger rail presidents got mailed to them in the past.
erikem [snipped - PDN] . . . Sherman apparently hated the telegraph as well, one of tehe points of his March to the Sea was being unreachable by telegraph. - Erik
- Erik
- Paul North.
samfp1943 dmoore74 "...You might also want to read Dixie Betrayed: How the South Really Lost the Civil War by David Eicher. While not concentrating on railroads it does shoe a rather disfunctional Confederate leadership. Here's a brief review:...." http://www.brettschulte.net/CWBlog/2009/06/25/review-dixie-betrayed-how-the-south-really-lost-the-civil-war/ The following quote from the link provided by dmoore74 pretty much sums up the problematic political situation in the South, and why the defeat of the South was more or less preordained by the political infighting, at Richmond and later in THe Capital of the Confederacy at Montgomery,Al. Souther Politics failed to utilize its physical assets to win in "The Civil War ". FTL:"...Congress and the state governors engaged in opens a window into a world that most histories ignore. Jefferson Davis often bears this alone. The book shows how much help he had from Stephens, Wigfall, Cobb, Brown and a legion of others. Their preference for obstructing, debating and endless obsession with “State’s Rights” ended whatever small chance the South had for victory. The war plays out in the background as Richmond and the states fight it out on center stage. The “CSA government” often is the President vs. the Vice-president with congress back stabbing both. The other option is the CSA congress unable to produce anything but endless debate. The sovereign state governors, see little reason for a central government and bicker with it over everything, until a Union Army appears on their borders..."
dmoore74 "...You might also want to read Dixie Betrayed: How the South Really Lost the Civil War by David Eicher. While not concentrating on railroads it does shoe a rather disfunctional Confederate leadership. Here's a brief review:...." http://www.brettschulte.net/CWBlog/2009/06/25/review-dixie-betrayed-how-the-south-really-lost-the-civil-war/
"...You might also want to read Dixie Betrayed: How the South Really Lost the Civil War by David Eicher. While not concentrating on railroads it does shoe a rather disfunctional Confederate leadership. Here's a brief review:...."
http://www.brettschulte.net/CWBlog/2009/06/25/review-dixie-betrayed-how-the-south-really-lost-the-civil-war/
The following quote from the link provided by dmoore74 pretty much sums up the problematic political situation in the South, and why the defeat of the South was more or less preordained by the political infighting, at Richmond and later in THe Capital of the Confederacy at Montgomery,Al. Souther Politics failed to utilize its physical assets to win in "The Civil War ".
FTL:"...Congress and the state governors engaged in opens a window into a world that most histories ignore. Jefferson Davis often bears this alone. The book shows how much help he had from Stephens, Wigfall, Cobb, Brown and a legion of others. Their preference for obstructing, debating and endless obsession with “State’s Rights” ended whatever small chance the South had for victory. The war plays out in the background as Richmond and the states fight it out on center stage. The “CSA government” often is the President vs. the Vice-president with congress back stabbing both. The other option is the CSA congress unable to produce anything but endless debate. The sovereign state governors, see little reason for a central government and bicker with it over everything, until a Union Army appears on their borders..."
Except for the President vs. Vice President - that pretty much describes what we are seeing in Congress nowadays.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
samfp1943Jefferson Davis often bears this alone. The book shows how much help he had from Stephens, Wigfall, Cobb, Brown and a legion of others. Their preference for obstructing, debating and endless obsession with “State’s Rights” ended whatever small chance the South had for victory
Jefforson Davis himself observed that the Confederacy "died of a theory," that "theory" being state's rights. And certainly there was a lot of divisiveness in the Congress. Yet Abraham Lincoln faced similar problems. He had to contend with peace Democrats in the Congress Abolitionists could be even worse; they opposed the war because letting the Confederate states go will result in a Union that was free of slavery. And within the society there were Copperheads working for a Confederate victory. Some newspapers excoriated Lincoln for the losses of life in the war. And yet Lincoln managed all of this. James McPherson believes his ability with the spoken word enabled him to persuade some and neutralize the criticisms of other. Despite his third grade education Lincoln was far more persuasive with the Congress and the people in general that Jefferson Davis was with his West Point education.
Davis might have acted more forcefully with some of his critics. Lincoln did not hesitate to suspend habeas corpus and hold people in prison without charging them. When Chief Justice Taney sent his man to Lincoln demanding that the Army produce one such man for trial Lincoln responded that Taney could send his own military men. And when confronted with the Constitutional issue Lincoln responded "Shall every law be broken in order that this one may be enforced?"
I would hardly consider it to be pay since the labor force was considered property.
CSSHEGEWISCH The rebel states sought to preserve a primarily agricultural economy based heavily on unpaid involuntary labor. In such an economy, the railroads in those states were aptly suited for their role. One should note the similarity of the rail routes in those states with the rail routes in many third-world countries, also oriented to hauling raw materials to tidewater.
The rebel states sought to preserve a primarily agricultural economy based heavily on unpaid involuntary labor. In such an economy, the railroads in those states were aptly suited for their role. One should note the similarity of the rail routes in those states with the rail routes in many third-world countries, also oriented to hauling raw materials to tidewater.
Johnny
CSSHEGEWISCHThe rebel states sought to preserve a primarily agricultural economy
I would only add that what the Confederate railroads did do was to open up land which could be used to raise crops, especially cotton. In order to raise commercial crops it is necessary to have a way to ship them to market. Before the railroads came only land near navigable water could be used for plantations; after the railroads arrived any land anywhere could be used for plantations.
Before the Civil War large fortunes were made by plantation owners. Railroads made many plantations possible. However, the cotton gin was even more important. In 1860 80 per cent of the cotton used in British textile mills was grown by American slaves.
Deggesty Are you referring to the change at West Point, Georgia, from five foot to standard gauge as you went from Atlanta to Montgomery? The line between West Point and Montgomery is the only one that I know of in the South built to standard gauge.
Are you referring to the change at West Point, Georgia, from five foot to standard gauge as you went from Atlanta to Montgomery? The line between West Point and Montgomery is the only one that I know of in the South built to standard gauge.
Yep ! wonder if Montgomery could have gotten supplies quicker to Atlanta what the outcome of the battle of ATLANTA would have turned out ?
I don't have a number, either an absolute number or a per centage. Conventional wisdom is that that there were more changes of gauge in the south but I have also read the opposite, that there were many changes of gauge in the north too.
In 1860 there were about 30,000 miles of railroad track in the U. S. Of that about 7,000 miles were in the Confederate states and the rest (23,000 miles) was in the Union states in both the east and the west. There was a north south transcontinental. The Illinois Central ran from Chicago to the Ohio River and the Mobile and Ohio ran from Mobile Bay to the Ohio River. The Confederates had the only route connecting the Atlantic Ocean (at Charleston) with the Mississippi River (at Memphis). The line ran through Atlanta, a city that was created by railroads. I've also read that Union Railroads were generally built to higher standards with 30 or 60 pound T rail. In the Confederacy there was strap rail, U rail and 30 pound T rail. However, Confederate railroads were used mainly for shipping cotton to ports while Union railroads were used for shipping things like coal and iron ore which are much heavier.
Certainly, the Union had a lot more miles of railroad than the Confederacy. Christopher Gabel argues the Confederacy had enough miles of railroads for its needs.
I too first learned of my interest in Lincoln and the Civil War from stories my father told me. However, no one in my family was remotely involved in the war.
blue streak 1 Wasn't there more instances of rail guage changes in the south than the north ? I know there was one close to where I now live.
Wasn't there more instances of rail guage changes in the south than the north ? I know there was one close to where I now live.
Early in the war (spring of 1862) General T.J. Jackson used railroads to move his men from the Shenadoah Valley to help stem General McClellan's advance on Richmond.
As to the failure of McClellan's Peninsula Campaign, his spies in Richmond gave him exaggerated accounts of General Johnston's force, and he thought that he would be overwhelmed--and retreated in the Seven Days' Battle (as the victors called it). That battle was my father's father's first major encounter with the invaders, and my grandfather (joined by his younger brother) went on through the war, first in General Jackson's II Corps and then in General A.P. Hill's III Corps after the battle of Chancellorsville. (there was another General Hill, D.H. Hill, who had married General Jackson's sister-in-law).
I never knew my paternal grandfather, as he died, 84 years old, nine years before I was born.
John WR greyhounds t wasn't that the Confederacy didn't have the rail resources. It was that they didn't understand the importance of using the rail resources to the full advantage. In those two short sentences I think you sum up the railroad situation in the Confederacy. And much of the advantage of interior lines was negated by the railroads. The only other thing I have to ask about is your Great Grandfather. Did he make it back from Chickamauga? I sure hope so. He must make the Civil War a lot more real to you.
greyhounds t wasn't that the Confederacy didn't have the rail resources. It was that they didn't understand the importance of using the rail resources to the full advantage.
t wasn't that the Confederacy didn't have the rail resources. It was that they didn't understand the importance of using the rail resources to the full advantage.
In those two short sentences I think you sum up the railroad situation in the Confederacy. And much of the advantage of interior lines was negated by the railroads.
The only other thing I have to ask about is your Great Grandfather. Did he make it back from Chickamauga? I sure hope so. He must make the Civil War a lot more real to you.
Yes, my great grandfather came home alive. The stories my father told me about him did make the Civil War more real to me. As did my being born and raised in the "Lincoln Country" of central Illinois.
Victrola1A brilliant engineer and highly capable organizer, George B. McClellan just wasn't an army commander.
Was it that he wasn't an army commander or was it that at heart he was a peace Democrat, a man who believed that the war was not worth all of the lives that were taken? There were a lot of northerners who, while they did not agree with secession, did not think it was worth fighting a war over.
Victrola1 Would legal research and representation of railroads have given Lincoln a better understanding of the railroads importance in war. How many of the Confederacy's top leaders could claim prior experience with railroads?
Would legal research and representation of railroads have given Lincoln a better understanding of the railroads importance in war.
How many of the Confederacy's top leaders could claim prior experience with railroads?
If anything gave Lincoln an understanding of the importance of railroads during war time I think the fact that he regularly rode on them as a passenger would. When he became a lawyer he started riding circuit on horseback along with his fellow lawyers. The court would be in session many weeks; the lawyers would share beds and bad food while they were away from home. When the railroads came Lincoln was able to get home to Springfield every weekend. That must have impressed him with the speed railroads made possible.
When he was Secretary of War Jefferson Davis was in charge of the surveys made for a transcontinental railroad. While in Washington I would think he would use railroads when he went home to Brierfield Plantation at Davis Bend on the Mississippi River. He certainly could have taken a train to the Ohio River and then traveled by steamboat the rest of the way. In the summer of 1860 he went to Maine to recover from a painful bout of neuralgia. Much of his travel would have been by train. All of this would have shown him the speed that was now possible with the railroad.
You might also want to read Dixie Betrayed: How the South Really Lost the Civil War by David Eicher. While not concentrating on railroads it does shoe a rather disfunctional Confederate leadership. Here's a brief review: http://www.brettschulte.net/CWBlog/2009/06/25/review-dixie-betrayed-how-the-south-really-lost-the-civil-war/
A brilliant engineer and highly capable organizer, George B. McClellan just wasn't an army commander. In that position he proved the weakness of West Point in its early years; the academy was simply geared to the production of engineers and company officers for a small, pre-Civil War regular army.....
He worked for the Illinois Central-as chief engineer and vice president and just before the Civil War became a division president for the Ohio & Mississippi. Despite his success in the private field he was happy to reenter the military in 1862.....
Initially appointed by Ohio's Governor William Dennison, he was soon made second only to Scott by a former attorney for the Illinois Central-Abraham Lincoln.
http://www.civilwarhome.com/macbio.htm
McClellan may have known how to build and run a railroad better than a battle. Credited with building up the army that went onto victory under Grant, what role did McClellan play creating the understanding of using railroads to support an army in the field?
As stated, McClellan's Commander in Chief had some legal expertise when it came to railroads. Would legal research and representation of railroads have given Lincoln a better understanding of the railroads importance in war.
schlimm Some of the worst officers were the political appointees, often with no previous training or experience.
I agree that Lincoln appointed some officers for political reasons. One example of a political appointment is General Alexander Schimmelpfennig. Lincoln was looking to bolster support in the German community. I have also seen these appointments defended, notably by James McPherson, as necessary to the national strategy.
greyhoundsI think it's quite a stretch to blame the Confederacy's lack of understanding of the importance of logistics on the fact that Lee and Davis went to West Point.
I don't suggest that all Confederate generals failed to see the importance of railroads or that Dennis Mahan taught that technological advances should be ignored. However, I do think that both Davis and Lee were so focused on the importance of interior lines that they failed to see how railroads modified that theory.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.