The numbers don't quite total. maybe the other several hundred thousand tons were retired.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Although lone commerce raiders (CSS Alabama, SMS Emden, Graf Spee, etc.) can and have inflicted significant losses, their real effect was the fear factor, which was out of proportion to what actually occured. Chasing down a lone raider and/or providing convoy protection also tied up a significant amount of the opposing navy's ships and men.
schlimmhe numbers don't quite total. maybe the other several hundred thousand tons were retired.
Frankly, I've pulled together strands from my own memory of things I've read and heard in various sources. Other people (including you) have rather different perspectives. I'm not inclined to go to the mat defending every single statement I've made as precisely accurate. On the other hand this thread includes a discussion of what would the Civil War have been like if AK-47's were available. I hope you will cut me a little slack here.
CSSHEGEWISCHAlthough lone commerce raiders (CSS Alabama, SMS Emden, Graf Spee, etc.) can and have inflicted significant losses, their real effect was the fear factor, which was out of proportion to what actually occured.
This is a fascinating observation. But what would be the rational response to the "fear factor" caused by the CSS Alabama? To a Union ship owner? Or to the officers and men on a Union merchant ship? I have heard Raphael Semmes, Captain of the Alabama, did not kill the men on the ships he captured but put them ashore in some neutral place.
The fear was loss of ship and its cargo and exorbitant shipping insurance rates (Lloyds). The crews captured by the Emden, Graf Spee, See Adler (a sailing ship) and others were treated well and sent to shore often.
That's exactly what I was talking about,. exorbitant insurance rates will keep a ship in port as if it were blockaded. The Seeadler! Now there is a story but for another forum I suppose. It is true about the commerce raiders mentioned, they all let the captured crews free from time to time. They were civilian sailors, not naval personnel. I have to mention this about the Seeadler, captive sailors were permitted to work the ship and were paid the same wages as their own companies would have, and the captive officers drank champagne with their meals. Probably too good to be true but that's what I've heard.
54light15I have to mention this about the Seeadler, captive sailors were permitted to work the ship and were paid the same wages as their own companies would have,
But would this not open them to charges of piracy or treason if the Germans lost the war, or if their government failed to recognize the legitimacy of the ship's commission? (Certainly Idy Waddell thought so... ! )
It may bear remembering that the general politeness observed by surface ships was also extended by submarines... in the early days. U-boats would only attack on the surface, and give the crew a chance to surrender and take to the boats before sinking the ship. The British invention of Q-ships put a close to that method!
I don't think anyone could have criticized Semmes and his (largely British) crew as uncivilized. Northern shipowners didn't care if he was a civilized disaster ... they only recognized the disaster. Often, by using a flag of convenience or some other method that would still provide them some form of profit... or by selling should the availability or cost of insurance for them make business too bad. And that, I think, was one of the principal reasons for the Alabama and the other raiders -- and it was a success.
Perhaps even too much of one: the British became more of a predominant mercantile shipping power after the War; possibly this was by greater exploitation of steam and iron, but I rather agree that the ruination of American shipping by actions on both sides greatly promoted British influence.
Now, returning to the original subject -- was there anything comparable on Confederate railroads to the kinds of activity taken during the wolf-pack attacks on coastal shipping starting in 1941, which led to the requirement for all those oil trains (and building of the pipeline network on an expedient basis)?
Don't forget CSS Alabama wasn't the only Confederate commerce raider. There was also CSS Shenandoah, which was never caught and captured by the way, and presumeably there were a few others. The fact remains Confederate commerce raiders did quite a bit of damage to Northern shipping that took the shipping industry years to recover from. In addition to which the American merchant marine at the time was small compared to the British. As a matter of fact even well into the 20th Century the British merchant marine was the largest in the world.
As far as comperable activity to the oil trains during World War Two I'm not aware of any close examples.
Firelock76There was also CSS Shenandoah, which was never caught and captured by the way
That's why I mentioned Idy. Fact is,though, that if he had not surrendered RIGHT quick in Britain, he thought he would face charges of piracy...
Firelock76As far as comparable activity to the oil trains during World War Two I'm not aware of any close examples.
Keep in mind that I mean specific activity either (1) to get round the problems imposed by the (was it even legal?) blockade, and (2) to supply towns or forces that would otherwise have been supplied or resupplied by sea? I'd also apply this (in lesser respect) to the Union interdiction of Mississippi shipping... except for that little contretemps at Vicksburg ... as far as the Confederates were concerned with it, which I think was slight even by the time of the fall of Memphis.
I wasn't implying the use of railroads to bring in resources that were other
Southern congressmen and senators were blocking legislation for years before the war which was designed to increase our merchant fleet. The result was a declining merchant fleet before Sumter. Confederate raiders and other ships only captured 200 Union merchant ships combined.
Was the blockade legal? It was, but there was a bit of a foul-up on the Lincoln Administrations part when they declared a blockade. A blockade is a legitmate act of war on an enemy power, so by declaring a blockade Lincoln was in fact giving de-facto recognition to the Confederacy as an independant nation. Whoops! This meant that any foreign ship that tried to run the blockade was free to do so, but if it was stopped and the cargo seized the shippers would have to be re-embursed for the value.
What Lincoln should and could have done was declared the Southern ports CLOSED. Then any ship attempting entry would be liable to seizure without compensation. Also, there would have been no recognition by Lincoln, accidental or otherwise, of the Confederacy as anything other than American states in rebellion against the Federal government.
As far as the Union Navy causing Confederate shipping problems that would have had to have been allieviated by railroads, the closest thing I can think of would have been Confederate imports coming through Mexico. The US Navy couldn't do a thing about Mexican ports. Articles recived there were shipped through Texas to the rest of the Confederacy. Once the Mississippi was "blocked", however, that option was out. Since the Mississippi has no places where it can be forded (like the Hudson River for that matter), get control of the ferry points and you've stopped cross-river traffic. Texas and the other Confederate states on the "wrong" side of the river were isolated from the rest.
Firelock76 Was the blockade legal? It was, but there was a bit of a foul-up on the Lincoln Administrations part when they declared a blockade. A blockade is a legitimate act of war on an enemy power, so by declaring a blockade Lincoln was in fact giving de-facto recognition to the Confederacy as an independant nation. Whoops! This meant that any foreign ship that tried to run the blockade was free to do so, but if it was stopped and the cargo seized the shippers would have to be re-embursed for the value. What Lincoln should and could have done was declared the Southern ports CLOSED. Then any ship attempting entry would be liable to seizure without compensation. Also, there would have been no recognition by Lincoln, accidental or otherwise, of the Confederacy as anything other than American states in rebellion against the Federal government.
Was the blockade legal? It was, but there was a bit of a foul-up on the Lincoln Administrations part when they declared a blockade. A blockade is a legitimate act of war on an enemy power, so by declaring a blockade Lincoln was in fact giving de-facto recognition to the Confederacy as an independant nation. Whoops! This meant that any foreign ship that tried to run the blockade was free to do so, but if it was stopped and the cargo seized the shippers would have to be re-embursed for the value.
Actually, it's perfectly legitimate to declare war on a domestic insurgency without ever getting even close to recognizing national sovereignty. The real issue, if I remember correctly from Walter Murphy's Constitutional Interpretation class, was that Lincoln could not enforce the blockade consistently, and that therefore it was invalid. I cannot quote you the precedents without looking them up, but they are there for the reading. If only I had more charge in the battery tonight!
"Declaring the ports closed" would work about as well as provisioning Sumter did -- there's this little thing South Carolina in particular was good at: ignoring anything the Union government said or did. You have to be able to MAKE them closed -- and that would only be possible with blockade, same as with all the other examples of commerce raiders that were bottled up until surrendered, scuttled, or sunk.
Let me make one thing clear: declaring the ports closed certainly wouldn't have meant a thing to the Confederate states. What it would have done was put a "Keep Out!" sign on the ports as a warning to any foreign shipping. "If you're bringing goods to the United States, you better bring them to the open ports, or else!" No one likes to hear "or else", especially if you're going to be hit in the wallet.
Certainly the blockade couldn't be enforced at first, but that hardly made it invalid, only impractical for a time. But as time went on and more ships were aqquired by the US Navy, the blockade certainly became valid. Downright deadly in the long run, like the tightening noose.
Keep in mind at the beginning of the war the Confederates, in addition to having no navy, didn't have much in the way of a merchant marine as well. That meant that imported goods were going to be carried by British ships, French ships, Dutch ships, Scandinavian ships, or anyones ships. If you're one of those ship owners, do you want to take a chance on losing everything, ship included, by running into a closed port? Even pleading "Force Majure" isn't likely to help you. No, you're going to go where it's OK for you to go. Later, as the Confederacy got it's fleet of blockade runners the foreign ships only needed to go as far as the West Indies or Bermuda. The Reb merchant marine could take it the rest of the way and assume the risk.
No, declaring a port closed it a serious matter anyway you look at it, one most shippers will take seriously.
OvermodNow, returning to the original subject -- was there anything comparable on Confederate railroads to the kinds of activity taken during the wolf-pack attacks on coastal shipping starting in 1941, which led to the requirement for all those oil trains (and building of the pipeline network on an expedient basis)?
Returning to the original subject? What are we to think?
I don't know about anything comparable to wolf pack attacks. Confederates attacked Union trains in order to take the supplies they were carrying and tore up a lot of track. The Union tore up as much track as they could and tried to destroy rail junctions. The big difference was that the Union was a lot more successful at repairing torn up track and destroyed bridges.
I wish I was in the Land of Cotton old times there are not forgotten. look away dixie land.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XQmO-WfEkk4
Railroad to Freedom
Overmod- I would think you are right but that is what I've read about it. Blockades are generally considered illegal by the blockade-ee, not the blockader. We were taught in school that British ships would stop American ships "on the high seas" and impressing sailors. We were not taught that American ships were running a British blockade of France, France and Britain being at war at the time. Napoleon and all that. Now, back to our war in progress...
Firelock76Certainly the blockade couldn't be enforced at first
Actually the blockade was never very effective. The Port of Wilmington, North Carolina was open up to February, 1865. At the end of the war there were warehouses full of all kinds of goods that had been shipped in. Among other things were road rails. But Confederate railroads had been destroyed to the point that the Confederates could not get these supplies to the places where they were needed.
Never very effective? Well, I don't know, it was effective enough. Every ship that couldn't get through was a loss to the Rebs in needed articles. The Confederates considered it effective enough to come up with ideas like the ironclad CSS Virginia, popularly known as "Merrimac", the submarine "Hunley" and a small fleet of semi-submersibles known as "Davids" to try and break it.
To say the blockade was a war-winning measure would certainly be wrong, but to call it ineffective would be just as wrong.
Firelock76To say the blockade was a war-winning measure would certainly be wrong, but to call it ineffective would be just as wrong.
But I said the blockade was "never very effective." I didn't say it wasn't effective at all. The ironclads are interesting or at least I think so. As I recall they sunk more than one Union navy ship. They had problems but they were the first generation of their kind of ship. The big issue I see is did the Confederacy use its iron to build them that would have done more good elsewhere (like repairing their railroads and locomotives)? But I don't know what the answer is.
I don't have an over-all answer myself. A lot of what I could say would get into "Monday Morning Quarterbacking" which i don't like to do, especially about something like the Civil War. It's so much easier for us 150 years later to see the big picture that eluded both sides.
I will say one thing. when you go to war remember ANYTHING that hurts the enemy, anything at all, no matter how big or small, helps YOU. Blockades, interdiction of supplies, inflicting casualties with the least possible loss to yourself, mis-or-dis-information, anything you can do or try.
Firelock76I will say one thing. when you go to war remember ANYTHING that hurts the enemy, anything at all, no matter how big or small, helps YOU. Blockades, interdiction of supplies, inflicting casualties with the least possible loss to yourself, mis-or-dis-information, anything you can do or try.
I have to agree. I'm pretty much of a died in the wool Yankee with little sympathy for Confederate war goals. But I have a lot of sympathy for the men who actually did the fighting and even a lot of individual Confederate leaders including Jefferson Davis. I think Davis did a pretty good job given the dissent by he fellow Confederates. He had to deal with states who wanted to secede from the Confederacy.
But I do think the Confederacy should have managed their railroads better. The view of the Confederate government seems to have been that railroads were private enterprise and had nothing to do with government. Lincoln didn't believe that for a minute. He didn't expropriate them for the war effort like Woodrow Wilson did but he make it clear he expected cooperation and he wasn't beyond twisting arms to get it. Although he tended to rely on the carrot of paying the railroads rather than the stick of coercion.
That is why I see the Confederate diversion of so much iron to ironclads as ignoring another important problem, keeping the railroads running.
Had there been no railroads north or south I think the Confederacy would have won. What I wonder is if the Confederates could have won by using their railroads better.
Could the Confederates have won by using the railroads better? Possibly, especially if they'd adopted the Lincolnian policy you mentioned.
But with all that, here's an interesting fact: The Confederates NEVER lost a battle due to lack of guns or ammunition. So, SOMETHING was getting through. Food, clothing, and other ancillarys, yes, that's another matter.
And could the Confederates have won with no railroads at all, North or South? That's another good point to kick around. Howvever, there were secession rumblings from South Carolina as early as 1832, over an import tariff issue I believe. President Andrew Jackson said if they tried it he'd head south with the Army and when he crossed the border into South Carolina he'd hang the first man he got his hands on. Well, that was the end of the secession talk. As everybody knew, "When Andy Jackson start's talkin' about hangings, start lookin' for a rope!"
Did you know the first assassination attempt on a president was on Andrew Jackson? The man's pistol misfired, and Jackson's response? He beat the guy senseless with his cane! "Old Hickory" was one big bundle of walking mad! Not a man to trifle with!
In at least one battle (Second Manassas) some of the men in the Army of Northern Virginia's II Corps were reduced to throwing rocks because they had run out of ammunition. Nevertheless, the Union general, John Pope, who before the battle had said that he was used to seeing the backsides of the enemy, had to counsel his army to retreat. Did the bull run that day?
When the advance group of the II Corps reached the military depot at Manassas, they were overjoyed to find the riches of food and clothing. Some of the soldiers were able to commandeer such supplies as French mustard that they were able to trade their booty for other foodstuffs for several days.
Johnny
Do y'all have any of that there Gray Poupon?
Firelock76But with all that, here's an interesting fact: The Confederates NEVER lost a battle due to lack of guns or ammunition. So, SOMETHING was getting through. Food, clothing, and other ancillarys, yes, that's another matter.
You make a very good point, Firelock. For all of the scarcity and deprivation the Confederates faced they always had weapons and ammunition. They did march barefoot and in rags but now without the means to fight. Christopher Gabel points out that there were 9,000 miles of railroad in the Confederacy. It is true that there were gaps where roads did not connect but that was also true in the north. And while I didn't realize it earlier it is clear that Confederate Generals were quick to see the advantage of using railroads when they needed to as were Union Generals also.
DeggestyWhen the advance group of the II Corps reached the military depot at Manassas, they were overjoyed to find the riches of food and clothing
And there are other examples of Confederate soldiers looting Union food trains. Whatever else I may think about the American Civil War it is hard to object to starving men feeding themselves.
Deggesty, PS
When Lee marched over the mountain wall,—
-- John Greenleaf Whittier
John
Firelock76Did you know the first assassination attempt on a president was on Andrew Jackson? The man's pistol misfired, and Jackson's response? He beat the guy senseless with his cane! "Old Hickory" was one big bundle of walking mad! Not a man to trifle with!
No, I didn't know about the assassination atempt, Firelock. I sure would not wish that on him. But he strongly influenced our ideas about railroads and he still does with his opposition to Federal funds for internal improvements. In his mind all they did was to make the rich richer at the expense of the poor who had to pay the taxes to fund them.
Best regards, John
John, looking out for the little guy so the big guys don't shaft 'em is what the best of Jacksonian Democracy was all about. Certainly Jackson wasn't right all the time, but it's hard to fault his concern for the working man. Indians, sadly, didn't count, hence the "Trail of Tears." Can't excuse that in any way shape or form.
Oh, and I forgot about some of Jackson's men running out of ammunition at Second Manassas and holding their positions by throwing rocks until Longstreet's corps came up and smashed into Pope's flank. But that's the only time the Rebs had an ammunition problem.
AND there's a great Confederate battle cry, almost as powerful as the "Rebel Yell"...
"Come on and let's get 'em boys! They got CHEESE in their haversacks!"
Wayne
Wayne,
I agree about the trail of tears.
And I agree Andrew Jackson saw himself as looking out for the little man. But I don't think his veto of the Second Bank of the United States really helped the little man. Granted, the bank was sort of a shadow government setting financial policy but it also tended to stabilize the economy.
Jackson's pet banks led to a lot of inflation which seemed like a good thing for a while. Then Jackson issued is Specie Circular demanding that all debts to the US Government be paid in gold. That led to the depression of 1837 which was pretty bad for a lot of little men and well as some who were not so little. So on the whole I think Andrew Jackson was pretty misguided.
But at Chalmette battle field he did win the Battle of New Orleans for what ever that is worth. And he still stands guard of the city in Jackson Square.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.