Gun manufacturing & the Industrial Revolution

[gary]

In the forty-six years between the Napoleonic Wars and the American Civil War, the Industrial Revolution facilitated firearms technology’s progression.

Come to think of it, the Industrial Revolution did make a lot of things possible. The simple production of percussion caps for instance through machine stamping (ever try Tap o' Cap for an evening?), rifling bores (I've pulled the cutter on the Brockway Rifling Machine at Friendship and it's an all day affair), making stocks (thanks to the Blanchard Lathe). Economical breechloaders could be made and pressed into service. It had been done before first by the Piedmontese and later Patrick Ferguson. Both those guns required extensive hand fitting and were very slow and expensive. Cartridge weapons were also made possible too. Thoughts?

[Dred]

Throughout history, war has facilitated the need for updated technology, but I think in the Civil War the technology had outpaced the developement of warfare. It would be interesting to see, if the war was delayed even 3 years, how the more common use of breach loaders and the gatling gun would have effected the direction of the war.

[larry_cockerham]

John Gatling could have cured much Napoleonic idiocy. No more Forrest charges to the center of the line. Many of the descendents of Pickett's division would still be alive today, as that silliness wouldn't have happened either.

[whitworth]

and necessity means better weapons.

The U.S. was basically hidebound with its military procurement at the start of the Civil War.
It previously expected its government armories to produce its musket rifles. By the time private enterprise got involved the U.S. was supplying repeating arms, particularly the Spencer rifle, to its cavalry, at Gettysburg.
By 1865, most of Wilson's cavalry that rode into Alabama had Spencer carbines, and were unstopable.

The north had the advantage in powered sewing machines for making shoes, sewing machines for uniforms, a horseshoe making machine, many more foundries making iron rails, cannon, revolvers and rifles.

The South was no more ready for war in 1855, 1861 or 1868. It could never catch up with a United States determined to keep its borders, as they were before secession.

One of the great overlooked fact was the northern ability to make steamers, freshwater iron rams, and steam engines.
Great Britain recognized early in 1862, the Confederate problem in militarily holding states and territory it thought part of the Confederacy.
In fact the war was lost in the first year of the war, because of steamers and logistical superiority on the part of the U.S.
Virginia aside, the Confederacy lost too much territory to peacefully end the war early. Ego had far exceeded the Confederate ability to protect a good deal of their "territory", even by mid-1862.

Many historians fail to realize that Virginia was only one of the stars in the thirteen star, Confederate battle flag, and even then, a good slice of Virginia's western counties was already lost in 1861.

[Dred]

This is why I beleive the south lost when it fired on Ft Sumter. If the southern fire-eaters had actually sat down and thought about what they were doing... what it would cost, financially, socially, it would not have been hard to figure out who would come out on top. IF they expected the north to give over peacefully, they lost any notion of that once they Attacked Sumter, and it wasn't a fargone conlusion that the north was superior in manpower, money, and industry. The rest of the war was just a delaying action. The south was just too proud to admit to the mistake. (and still is)

[Freddy]

If you ever get up here to MA be sure to visit the Springfield Armory. It has a fine gun collection, pre and post Civil War, and they have films and tours for visitors. I found it very interesting.
http://www.nps.gov/spar/

[whitworth]

"If the southern fire-eaters had actually sat down and thought about what they were doing.."

Good observation.
Unfortunately, that was an oxymoron. The southern fire-eaters were incapable of understanding the industrial implications and their effect on the war.

We still hear "fire-eater" arguments about the showing of the Confederate Battle Flag. I think it should be shown and explained. The modern fire-eater would have an excellent opportunity to explain the stars in the flag and their meaning.
Then explain how soon each of those states - 1. lost significant amounts of territory for the Confederacy in what year. 2. was fairly well lost by the Confederacy in what year.

The Confederate Battle Flag is really a history of Conferate States failure. Some of those "stars" were actually lost in some significance in 1861 and 1862. By late 1863, the Confederacy was limited to perhaps half those stars, the Confederate Battle Flag represented.
Within two years that flag was showing a lot of failure.

We get an overdose of information on the importance of the Battle of Chancellorsville in Virginia, but that battle did little to gain back the counties the Confederacy lost in western Virginia.
One-third of that Virginia star was already lost. Even the native son Stonewall Jackson, could do nothing about retrieving.