GDG- Re: CS supply

[Margaret D. Blough]

>>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<<

I see much less excuse for this on the Southern side than the Northern.  The pressure for secession built pretty steadily in the last decade before the war, but there seemed to be little or no practical thought given for what might happen if the United States government fought secession. Reading pre-war pro-secession materials, including from the critical period between November 1860 and April 1861, this seems to be due to a combination of factors: (1) a total contempt for the US government and the free states that assumed that they would be too weak and/or cowardly to resist; (2) a belief in Southern military elan and skill and a contempt for the average Northern resident, especially the immigrants, so that it was believed that, if the US government did resist, such resistance would be brief and futile; (3) a belief that the common bond of protecting slavery would ensure that the "border" slave states would cast their lots with the Confederacy; (4) a belief, or, at least, a hope t
hat the Midwest states would try to stay neutral due to a lack of common interest with the East and a desire to maintain access to the Mississippi and New Orleans for shipping, and (5) a belief, amounting to an article of faith, that the power of King Cotton was so great that foreign governments, especially the United Kingdom, would disregard their positions against slavery and provide assistance to the Confederacy in order to protect the supply of cotton to their factories.

Regards,

Margaret

-------------- Original message -------------- 
From: Biggsk at aol.com 

> Esteemed GDG Member Contributes: 
> 
> 
> 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. 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------- 
> You may unsubscribe by going to 
> http://mailman.arthes.com/mailman/listinfo/gettysburg 
> 
> You can add yourself to the GDG map at: 
> http://www.frappr.com/gettysburgdiscussiongroup 
> 
> View archived posts from May 2004 - present at 
> http://mailman.arthes.com/pipermail/gettysburg/