OK, you all have been getting off topic here. Time to get back to the Confederate Railroad.
Dr. Frankendiesel aka Scott Running BearSpace Mouse for president!15 year veteran fire fighterCollector of Apple //e'sRunning Bear EnterprisesHistory Channel Club life member.beatus homo qui invenit sapientiam
OvermodA much more interesting idea -- not for the Guns of the South mythos but an alternative way of thinking: what if the South had embraced industrialization with slaves.
It certainly is an interesting idea but I've never read any suggestion that the south wanted to industrialize. The planters were really pretty bright guys. The cotton gin was invented in 1790 and once they saw how it could make short staple cotton profitable they began selective breeding. By 1860 they had greatly improved the quality of the cotton they produced. Britain did try importing cotton from Egypt and India but they could never get the combination of quality and quantity they got from the American south. Of course cotton will not grow in Virginia. Cotton is produced in the lower south. And where cotton could be grown I just don't see any desire to industrialize except for Birmingham, Alabama.
A much more interesting idea -- not for the Guns of the South mythos but an alternative way of thinking: what if the South had embraced industrialization with slaves. Very few differences between how the mills in New England worked and slavery. You can teach slaves language and make them intelligent enough even to do engineering, but use social control and ... what passes for citizenship education for the proles ... to keep them enthusiastically or at least 'willingly' "in their place" -- worked real well in the Soviet Union with engineers from the'20s to the '50s, didn't it?
Industrialization in the South would have vastly superior quality of natural resources than available to the Union (look at sources for metallurgical coal, and remember why Birmingham, Alabame is so called. Recall also that Nickajack was perhaps the strongest of the political Southern 'states' to survive on its own.
Tredegar alone, in the runup to 1860, could (for instance, this being a railroad board) have rivalled or outdone Paterson as a locomotive-producing capital. Cheap labor, relative immunity to financial panics... and Southern interests firmly in control of the national government (as they were from before passage of the Fugitive Slave Act all the way to the end of Buchanan's term). Much abolitionist rhetoric has its feet cut out from under it when the issue of children's working conditions comes up.
Now assume for a moment that CSA secession comes with the South an established industrial power, equipping its troops with the aforementioned helical-feed rifles, and having the capacity both to keep its railroads in good condition (and to make good war damage or rail-twisting parties) and to build locomotives and car hardware on an extended basis, Admittedly Richmond is close to the Union lines (compared, say, to Birmingham) .. but then prior to 1863 so was Pittsburgh close to Virginia.
I;d willingly accept the idea that the British would extend diplomatic recognition to the CSA after that. In that framework much of the high-handed action Lincoln displayed to 'preserve the Union' would have been properly seen for what it was... and resulted in corresponding behavior from European powers. Certainly the British had an established policy of divide-and-conquer in its approach to North American matters... to the extent that they winked at the construction of the Ramsbottom ironclads as late as 1862.
P.S. I think the 'King Cotton' argument has been roundly and rightly drubbed; even if much of the British Industrial Revolution had been predicated on textiles, and the economics benefited by cheap Southern cotton... the experience with transplanting cotton to other places in the Empire had already eliminated that advantage by 1864 or so. (At least so my sources indicated.) On the other hand, an established arms-production capabillity, combined with the kind of American knowhow that was, shall we say, not exclusive to New England Yankees still in New England, would have been a STRONG disincentive for Great Britain to continue 'supporting' the Union. (This being only a few years' more removed from the evil-to-British-pride memory of the Revolution than we are removed from WWII) The only alternative history I have read concerning war with Britain involves an unindustrialized South -- take that out of the equation and results would have been different. The South was essentially fighting only for its right to exist as a sovereign nation (and, as a 12th-generation Connecticut Yankee on both sides of my family, I think they had a right to be one ... what would we have said about Stalin had he objected to one of the states of the erstwhile Soviet Union offering to come over to the 'West'!). With that established, and I doubt it would have taken more than British recognition of the Davis government, that would be achieved at a stroke. (You then have the much more complex and nondeterminate issue of how 'states' rights' would have played out in a CSA with so very different a mix of strengths, interests, and attributes; poorly,, I think.)
I do think, though, that it might be better to redirect the argument back to Southern railroads. We may even be able to tie this into the 'puppet control' discussion; anyone remember J. Edgar Thompson's significant role in what became the Southern Railway? Imagine the fun with the Standard Railroad of the World extending to and developing the Southern ports... and sooner or later doing what Gould and Harriman couldn't quite manage...
RME
The Union's naval blockade strangled the South. The blockade runners ran a sizable amount of military supplies to the Confederates. The strength of the Union blockade increased as the war continued.
Military supplies such as Enfield rifles were a natural priority. Did the Confederate government order much manufactured railroad equipment from foreign suppliers to support its armies?
Isn't that the point of speculative fiction? Suspension of belief? In the book, the main thing that impressed the Rebs was the smokeless powder that the "repeaters" used. Harry Turtledove also has a series about how aliens invade Earth at the beginning of World War two and the allies and axis have to unite to fight them. Speculative- not to be taken seriously!
54light15The reason the Confederates won the war was because they figured out how to make their own AKs at the Tredegar works
If I can suspend belief enough to accept the Confederates making AK 47's I guess I can also accept the idea that Confederates believed plantation slavery was an economic drain.
schlimmLee's wife inherited 196 slaves upon her father's death in 1857.
In 1857 secession and slavery were burning issues in the country. The Custis--Lee plantation was right next to Washington so Lee should have been aware of the debates in Congress. A prudent decision, given the political discord, would have been to follow the terms of the will. Had the estate been sold each of the heirs could have been put in position of his or her portion of the estate. Instead Lee's decision led to the loss of the estate both for himself and his wife's family.
The reason the Confederates won the war was because they figured out how to make their own AKs at the Tredegar works, enough to equip the soldiers who captured D.C. Another point in the book, ( I don't want to give too much away) is that they were planning to manumit the slaves as they realised what an economic drain they were. Read the book, it's a lot of fun!
54light15 If you like alternative fiction, try "The Guns of the South," by Harry Turtledove. The confederates win the war thanks to using AK-47s!
Perhaps the great irony here is that the South had a 40-shot helical-magazine rifle available to it before the War began. Much more utility to have that kind of instant reload capacity than a few avtomats -- it makes fun fiction to talk about hosing down the enemy, but not so easy to do hosing when the enemy has more accurate rifles with several of your clips' worth of ammo pre-loaded. There's a reason modern automatic weapons default to the three-round burst!
What I was waiting for was a steam-driven chain gun -- all the technology for which was easily available and understood by 1862. (Ironically enough the one thing not industrially available yet was the Morse roller chain for the drive -- but remember that Leonardo had actually invented the idea of the chain centuries earlier. You can have fun with vehicles to carry those guns, too. (I chuckled when I saw the scene in the remake of 'Wild Wild West' where Lovelace's 'tank' comes out of the water -- not as much science fiction as you might think!
A few AKs are fun, but scarcely game-changing in the way Harry thought. And what would be truly interesting would be the actual Northern response upon recognizing what the AK47s were and how easily, even with contemporary technology, those things could be made. I do not like to think of the effect on the South of hundreds of thousands of gas-operated quick-firers, especially if the knockoffs and compatible cartridges, New England specialties both, could have proceeded to production and distribution to the regiments by the time of the first battles toward Richmond...
As far as Robert E. Lee goes Reading the Man: A Portrait of Robert E. Lee Through His Private Letters, by historian Elizabeth Brown Pryor reveals his private thoughts as well as clarifies what he did with his slaves.
"Lee really tells us how he feels. He saw slaves as property, that he owned them and their labor. Now you can say he wasn't worse than anyone; he was reflecting the values of the society that he lived in. I would say, he wasn't any better than anyone else, either.
Lee's wife inherited 196 slaves upon her father's death in 1857. The will stated that the slaves were to be freed within five years, and at the same time large legacies—raised from selling property—should be given to the Lee children. But as the executor of the will, Lee decided that instead of freeing the slaves right away—as they expected—he could continue to own and work them for five years in an effort to make the estates profitable and not have to sell the property.
Lee was considered a hard taskmaster. He also started hiring slaves to other families, sending them away, and breaking up families that had been together on the estate for generations. The slaves resented him, were terrified they would never be freed, and they lost all respect for him. There were many runaways, and at one point several slaves jumped him, claiming they were as free as he. Lee ordered these men to be severely whipped. He also petitioned the court to extend their servitude, but the court ruled against him and Lee did grant them their freedom on Jan. 1, 1863—ironically, the same day that Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation went into effect."
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Firelock76 I've actually moved on now to other things, like railroad history, and back to the Revolution.
Have to ever gotten to Trenton, the Gettysburg of the Revolution? If you do come you can go to First Presbyterian Church and visit the grave of the Hessian Commander Johann Ralls. And you can go to Riverside Cemetary and visit the grave of George McClellan. And of course take in the Swamp Angel. And there are other things.
"Manumit" and "manumission" are essentially legal terms referring to the freeing of slaves. It actually was a, well, not complicated process, but a legal process that couldn't be done "one-two-three." Why I don't know, but that's the way it was.
Oh, 54light15, don't feel bad about not paying attention in high school, I don't know any high school that goes into the depth that we've gone into here. I didn't have a great interest in the Civil War until I moved to Virginia 25 years ago. Oh, I knew the big names and the big battles and the weaponry but I was more interested in the Revolution and World War One at the time. But it's hard to live here in "Civil War Central" and NOT get interested! I've actually moved on now to other things, like railroad history, and back to the Revolution.
Oh, I've read parts of "Guns of the South" by Harry Turtledove, just to satisfy my curiosity. Clever, very clever indeed! "Civil War" meets "Sci-Fi"!
Deggesty What would have been the result of immediately telling the slaves. "You're free?" I do not know how many slaves G.W. Custis had, but there would have been a number of unemployed men, women, and children wandering around, looking for shelter and sustenance. I do not know any of the details of what General Lee worked out, but he already had the responsibility of leading an army that was resisting the invading army (remember that most of the people in the Confederate States considered themselves to be in a country that was separate and distinct from the United States), and this task added to his load. Incidentally, Genweral Robert E. Lee never had even one slave himself, and General Hiram Ulysses (those were his given names) Grant did have at least one slave.
What would have been the result of immediately telling the slaves. "You're free?" I do not know how many slaves G.W. Custis had, but there would have been a number of unemployed men, women, and children wandering around, looking for shelter and sustenance. I do not know any of the details of what General Lee worked out, but he already had the responsibility of leading an army that was resisting the invading army (remember that most of the people in the Confederate States considered themselves to be in a country that was separate and distinct from the United States), and this task added to his load.
Incidentally, Genweral Robert E. Lee never had even one slave himself, and General Hiram Ulysses (those were his given names) Grant did have at least one slave.
George and Martha Washington had different views of slavery as time went by. Both were born into a world and society where slavery was an acccepted fact and didn't think much of it. However, as George got older and saw more of the world he became more and more uneasy about it, especially after the Revolution where he'd seen black men in combat, many of whom performed better than some of their white counterparts. Not knowing what else to do, at his death he broke up the Mount Vernon estate, what you see there now is only a fraction of what it was, and freed his slaves. Not a perfect solution to the problem, but it was the best George could come up with. He hoped others would follow his example, but none of the prominent Founders did. Maybe some folks who's names we don't and never will know did, but no big names did.
Martha on the other hand, really didn't see anything wrong with slavery, but here it gets complicated. As her first husband died intestate all his property went to Martha, however on her death by law all the Custis assets were supposed to go to the living male heir, in this case George W. Custis. So it's unlikely she would have legally been able to free her slaves even if she wanted to
As far as R.E. Lee and slaves, as the executor of G.W. Custis' estate Lee was supposed to have educated and freed the Custis slaves within a five year period, which he did, and willingly too. Custis died in 1857, the Custis slaves were all free by 1862. Lee himself only owned one slave in his life, it was an older man he purchased as a manservant when he was a young officer on his way to his first duty assignment. He didn't have him long, the man died within a year, and Lee never replaced him.
Now here's a shocker: did you know Ben Franklin owned slaves? He did, and planned on freeing them at his death, but they all died before he did. He never replaced them, but became a founding member of a Pennsylvania anti-slavery society.
54light15Didn't Lee try to take Gettysburg because there was a warehouse full of boots sitting there?
I've heard the Gettysburg boot factory story but I don't know whether or not it is true.
Lee saw the whole of the whole of the Shenandoah Valley lay waste by all of the fighting and how it impoverished all of the people living there. He believed that if he could march into the north and bring that kind of terror and destruction to the people they would demand that Lincoln make peace. He had hoped to go to Harrisburg but somehow the battle wound up at Gettysburg. The battle did not turn out as he planned.
I am amazed at the depth of knowledge on the Civil War here. I'm learning so much of what I should have paid attention to back in high school. The best book I've ever read about the war is 'The Barefoot Brigade" by Douglas C. Jones. You sure get the impression that while the Rebs fought without boots, they fought with their hearts. Didn't Lee try to take Gettysburg because there was a warehouse full of boots sitting there? If you read Jones' book, it will lead you into his series originating with the novel "Elkhorn Tavern," being about the home front in Fort Smith, Arkansas.
If you like alternative fiction, try "The Guns of the South," by Harry Turtledove. The confederates win the war thanks to using AK-47s!
Johnny
DeggestyGeorge Washington's adopted son (Martha's grandson), did not manumit his slaves, but left the task to his son-in-law, Robert E. Lee--which added to General Lee's worries in, I recall, 1863.
And I have heard that Robert E. Lee did not free the plantation slaves when he inherited the plantation as his father-in-law had provided. He kept them in slavery for some time.
Deggesty As to the Dandridges, I have seen a statement to the effect that the Dandridges were quite possessive. George Washington was willing to manumit his slaves, but Martha absolutely refused manumit hers. George Washington's adopted son (Martha's grandson), did not manumit his slaves, but left the task to his son-in-law, Robert E. Lee--which added to General Lee's worries in, I recall, 1863.
As to the Dandridges, I have seen a statement to the effect that the Dandridges were quite possessive. George Washington was willing to manumit his slaves, but Martha absolutely refused manumit hers. George Washington's adopted son (Martha's grandson), did not manumit his slaves, but left the task to his son-in-law, Robert E. Lee--which added to General Lee's worries in, I recall, 1863.
Why not just say "free" his slaves?
Firelock76That incredible Civil War, it won't EVER go away, will it?
I agree, The Civil War will never go away. But what's the point of living in America if we can't refight the Civil War now and again? Since you're feeling so close to Napoleon no doubt it will give you great insight into his war tactics of seizing interior lines. Perhaps you should be teaching at West Point. Then I could be confident that our Army would understand the importance of Civil War railroads.
By the way did you know that The General which now resides in Big Shanty Museum, Kennesaw, Georgia was built by the Rogers Locomotive Works in Paterson, New Jersey?
Yes, Martha Washington's first husband was a Custis, George I think his name was. (Mind you, I've got two BIG glasses of Corvousier "The Brandy of Napoleon" in me right now and I feel GOOD, good enough to grab a musket and take Vienna, as a matter of fact!)
Martha's maiden name was Dandridge. Anyhoo, she married George Custis at 19, was a widow at 28, lot's of things that could 'carry you off' in those days, as my mother-in-law would say, and married George Washington at 29. Her son by her first marriage fathered George Washington Custis.
The Custis mansion and estate in Arlington was supposed to pass to Mary Custis Lee's son, G.W.C. Lee, but the appropriation of the grounds for Arlington Cemetery obviated that. G.W.C. Lee sued the US government in the 1880's for the property value and won, I believe he was awarded close to $750,000 for it.
Man, are we havin' fun here or what? That incredible Civil War, it won't EVER go away, will it?
Firelock76Well no, it wasn't Lincoln's decision to turn the Custis-Lee plantation into what became Arlington National Cemetary. That decision was made by General Montgomery Meigs who was (I think, could be wrong on this) chief quartermaster for the US Army. It was really an act of spite, ensuring Lee and his family couldn't go home again.
Firelock,
I've known the factoid about Lincoln and the Custis-Lee plantation for so long that I've forgotten where I learned it. And now you tell me it was Meigs and not Lincoln's decision. It does occur to me that the two people involved may have known each others feelings and be in agreement. One thing is clear: Abe Lincoln did not try to talk General Meigs out of it.
I've been to the Smithsonian several times but not recently but I don't recall seeing the tent display. However I believe Martha Washington was a Custis.
John
Well no, it wasn't Lincoln's decision to turn the Custis-Lee plantation into what became Arlington National Cemetary. That decision was made by General Montgomery Meigs who was (I think, could be wrong on this) chief quartermaster for the US Army. It was really an act of spite, ensuring Lee and his family couldn't go home again.
In actual fact, it was Mrs. Lee's home, having inherited it from her father, George Washington Custis. Lee himself didn't own the property, although he did act as the executor of his father-in-laws will.
Here's a fun fact: Ever go to the Smithsonian, or Valley Forge, Yorktown? The sections of George Washingtons tent complex on display were used during the lawn wedding and reception of Robert E, Lee and Mary Custis. They passed into George W. Custis' possesion after Washington's death.
SunnylandThey would have to take valuable time to transfer troops and material from one line to another, so I'm sure that partly contributed to the problem.
It is true that rail lines within a city would not connect and passengers and freight would have to get off one train and move to the other. It seems to me that the change in gauge wasn't all that important. If you have to get off your first train and walk or get a carriage to get to the second one the fact of a gauge change should not make a big difference. This situation was also true in the north. For example, the New York and Erie Railroad used a 6 foot wide gauge in order that no other railroad's equipment could run on its track and its own equipment could not wander onto and other line and get lost. In those days railroads were afraid that other roads would steal there equipment. That was true both in the north and the south. So while lack of connections was a big problem in the Confederacy it was also a problem in the Union.
Of course, the US Military Railroad which the Union built into the Confederacy to supply its troops had no such problems.
Do you mean your Great Grandfather was a cavalry scout for the Union on the Mobile & Ohio Railroad?
I've taken some CW history classes at our public library. Always been interested since my great-grandfather was Union cavalry scout for MO, the other one came from Ireland and laid track for Frisco, starting our heritage with that road.
Anyway, he's very knowledgeable about the war and he stresses the logistics that were a nightmare for the South with many different guages. They would have to take valuable time to transfer troops and material from one line to another, so I'm sure that partly contributed to the problem.
General Lee must have been angry to order someone killed because of his anger. Fortunately for the soldier General Jackson knew his commander well. As well as the soldier Lee would have had killed.
As far as Newton, New Jersey goes I guess some Yankees had another name for that war.
Actually, Abe Lincoln was pretty angry with Lee. The United States gave Robert E. Lee the best education then available in the country and followed that with a career in the Army. Those were opportunities Abe never got. And when Lee's country needed him, well, Lee considered Virginia to be his country. So Abe decided Lee would never ever be able to return to his home. He made it into Arlington Cemetery.
Yes, it is a lot easier to call our recent unpleasantness "The Civil War." But I'm not sure you are convinced.
John what Stonewall was referring to when he said "General Lee is not himself today..." wasn't any kind of neurological disorder.
What it amounted to was this: At Antietam McClellan had shown up where Lee never expected him to and at twice Lee's strength. Lee didn't know about the "missing orders" yet but that's another story. Anyway, Lee saw his invasion of Maryland was about to come apart it the worst possible way, he was going to fight for his army's life, and he was furious! So, when he saw a soldier not doing his duty he reacted as any angry man would. Stonewall knew it would pass in time, so he bent his own rules about desertion in the face of the enemy (you didn't want to do that if you were with Jackson, my God no! Jackson didn't care about polished boots, shiny brass, razor-sharp pressed trousers, or any other military stuff like that, but you WOULD obey orders and do your duty, or else!) just this once.
I've never heard of Lee having any kind of neurological disorder, but in the spring of 1863, April I think, Lee would suffer a mild heart attack. Eventually he developed what some present -day Civil War buff doctors believe was angina pectoris, and which would eventually kill him in 1870
Oh, and EVERONE calls it "The Civil War" now, even most people down South, who didn't like having it called that since it didn't meet the classic definition of a "civil war". It's amazing all the different names they gave it, the "War of Northern Aggression", the "War Between the States", the "War for the Southern Confederacy", the "War for Southern Independence" , and so on. It's a lot easier for all concerned now to call it the Civil War and have done with it.
However, in the center of town in Newton NJ, there's a Civil War monument dedicated to the men who fought in the "Great War of the Rebellion"! Looks like the Yankees had another name for it too!
schlimmThe American Civil War was a conflict based on regional differences. Secession was regarded as an invalid action (dating back to James Calhoun's Nullification Doctrine) by the majority and the original purpose of the war was to prevent dissolution of the United States.
I completely agree. However, had the issue of secession been taken to the Supreme Court I think a strong case could have been made that it was legal and a Taney Court might well have ruled for the Confederacy. Instead of a judicial solution the Confederacy choose a political solution. Ultimately the question was political resolved and we know what the resolution was.
DeggestyIncidentally, the war not a civil war, for a civil war occurs when two factions struggle for the control of the same government. The southern states had their own government, which was in Richmond, and they wanted to be independent of the government in Washington.
This is a fascinating point. I've read more about Lincoln and the Civil war than I have read about anything else except, perhaps, trains. I've never ever encountered your observation before.
What you say is certainly true. I hope you'll excuse me if I continue to call it the Civil War. But you have given me a lot to think about.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.