GDG- Re: CS supply

[Biggsk at aol.com]

Jack writes:

>>>Of course, the whole point was the arrogance of the South  to think they 
could beat a tecnologically superior  foe.>>>>
There was some level of arrogance - but they also had very valid reasons  for 
championing a home-grown buying base with their citizens too as well as  
their war machine.
 
But you miss some important points here.  First of them, and maybe  most 
important, is that while they did undergo a huge industrialization from  1850-1860 
and even more during the war, one reason why it was not as large as it  was 
up North was the simple factor of cost per item in production.  This is  basic 
Econ and Business 101 stuff here.
 
Tredegar could, and did, make locomotives up to right before the war.   Why 
did they stop making them?  Because they could not compete with the  much 
larger locomotive plants in Pennsylvania and New Jersey who not only made  more of 
them, but because they could make more of them their per unit cost was  much 
lower.  So if the Western & Atlantic railroad of Georgia is  shopping about for 
10 new engines, they could get a much better deal buying from  up North than 
Nashville or Tredegar could give them.  So, like any  industry, even today, if 
you cannot make enough profit making something - you  stop making it or move 
where your tax costs and labor costs are low enough to  continue to make 
whatever!  If you stop, then you look for something that  you can make a profit on 
and go with that - and that's what Southern industry  did.
 
Southern industry was not built up in anticipation of any war (neither was  
Northern industry).  So both sides went with whatever they had and both  sides 
expanded what they had.  If you have more investment capital then you  stood a 
much better chance to build more factories during the war than the other  
side, and that was certainly also the case in North versus South.
 
Lastly, there are a number of times in military history where outnumbered  
nations defeated bigger nations or where inferior technology beat superior  
technology.  While having a big industrial base and superior technology  certainly 
helps, it is no guarantee of victory for you will also have political  and 
military things to consider as well.


The ancient Greeks ultimately defeated Persia and both sides had about  
equivalent technology.  The Persians even performed amazing logistics and  
engineering feats - they built the longest military pontoon bridge in history  across 
the Dardenelles!!!!!  But their military system was inferior to the  Greek 
phalanx and their troops not as well-armored.  This was a  technological draw.
 
The Italian states in the 1500's, defeated the massive Islamic Turkish  fleet 
at Lepanto (the most important naval victory in history perhaps) because  
they had the uber-capitalists and industrialists of Venice on their side, who  
built a small number of massive battleships armed with far superior  cannons.  
Some 50,000 Turks died that day.  Technological superiority  to the Italians.
 
On the flip-side of that, the western Roman Empire fell to hordes of  
barbarians despite having arguably the finest war machine in world history  defending 
them and the full economic power of the Empire to support them.   
Technological superiority to Rome.
 
The Civil War was, therefore, not necessarily a foregone  conclusion.  Our 
win over Britain in 1783 comes right to mind.

>>>>They Couldn't.  They didn't.  They  lost.>>>>


See the above for the "they couldn't" portion.  Ultimately they lost -  but 
you can find much bigger reasons for this than lack of industrial  power.   
Lack of political will; lack of a coherent all-fronts  military strategy instead 
of the bogus Virginia-first planning; lack of common  sense by Jeff Davis to 
emplace the proper people and then, if they did not work  out, fire them and 
get someone who could.  Keep in mind he had 6  Secretaries of War!!!!  There's 
more - and they all are higher up the  reasons tree than lack of industry.
 
 

>>>What you stand in awe of as technological advances arev  really despeate 
measures to catch up. They had no choice. It's kind of like  Airbus v Boeing. 
They never made it.>>>
 
They were desperate measures to create a war machine and keep it in the  
field for as long as possible.  By the way, the North did the exact same  thing!  
Neither side was prepared for this war on a host of levels.
 
And I do stand in awe of what the South did because they had a lot less to  
bring to the table than the North.  I would expect the North to pull this  
massive mobilization off - no big surprises there at all.
 
Airbus seems to have taken a few shots out of Boeing's hide over the years  
too - there's a lot of Airbus planes being flown across the world - even though 
 I much favor Boeing (has to do with my WW2 bomber pilot father who adored 
Boeing  aircraft!).  Airbus is still around and still selling airplanes - even 
if  their huge airbus is going to be a sales flop!

>>>As I said in  my original post, they lacked the technoloy.>>>
 
The South did not lack that much technology - what technology they did lack  
was along the lines of critical tooling and the manufacture of intricate 
things  like Henry and Spencer repeating rifles - although the South did make some  
breech-loading cavalry carbines in North Carolina that Wade Hampton liked.   
Overall, what they lacked was just not having enough of what they did  have.  
You might try reading a few books on the Confederate supply  system.  They 
might give you a better understanding of this topic.   Start with Goff and then 
go to Wilson.
 
Greg Biggs

 



************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.