Civil War History - Secession and PoliticsWas it Slavery, or was it States Rights? Perhaps it was the election of Lincoln? What were the real reasons for Southern Secession and what were the political issues in this time of war? Find your answers here in the Secession and Politics Disussion.
The Confederacy embarked on a voyage of disaster. They had no navy to speak of; had no prospects of having a needed navy; could not defend many areas because it had no adequate navy.
Because it had no navy of any size the Confederacy lost eastern Maryland; lost the Potomac Bay and adjacent Virginia counties; lost Norfolk; watched an unreachable confederate prison camp on the tip of Maryland, that was just across the widest part of the Potomac River from Virginia; lost easy access from important southern ports because of the blockage by Union ships; lost New Orleans; lost Memphis; lost Fort Donelson; lost Fort Henry; lost any chance to control St. Louis; lost much of northern Mississippi; lost western Tennessee including Nashville; lost Kentucky; lost Missouri; lost the U.S. Territory of New Mexico;lost the western counties of Virginia; saw Sherman's March to the Sea in Georgia. All because in whole and part, the Confederacy could not control the waterways adjacent to these areas. Because the Union controlled the water approaches to the above, it had the superiority in getting more supplies and more military logistics to these areas. The Confederacy could never sustain or control land near navigable waterways, except for a few southern ports,late in the war.
All these things would happen because the Confederacy lacked an adequate navy; both an inland brown water navy and a ocean going fleet that was necessary to win the war.
Britannica saw it early. The British saw overwhelming Confederate naval deficiencies early in the war. The British saw well, their own naval deficiencies and kept out of the war. By early 1862, any hope of Great Britain militarily coming to the Confederates aid, was non-existent.
The Confederate States of America, with so much water on its borders and through its states, and no powerful navy to protect that land for long.
***
DEPARTMENT OF STATE,
Richmond, February 8, 1862.
"....No treaty of peace can be accepted which does not secure the in-
dependence of the Confederate States, including Maryland, Vir-
ginia, Kentucky, and Missouri, the States south of them, and the
territories of New Mexico and Arizona..."
R.M.T. HUNTER.
***
The Confederate ship of State had conjured up a flight from reality and a plan for its eventual ruin. The Confederacy could never secure much of Maryland, the western part of Virginia, Kentucky, Missouri, much of the south along the Mississippi River, the Cumberland River, and the Tennessee River, even the territories in New Mexico and Arizona, because the U.S. had naval superiority and could bring supplies to these areas more often and in greater amount than the Confederate states.
You've about said it all, Whitworth. What kind of response were you looking for?
ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
Navy was nice, but more men, gunpowder and completed railroads could have 'won' the war.
Whitworth's fixation on boats does overwhelm "more men, gunpowder and RRs." The rebs had the gunpowder; what they didn't have was boats. All the miles of rail in yankeedom wouldn't have saved the confederacy. Gotta go with Whitworth on this one.
ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
I felt bad about the gundpowder part when I remembered the arsenal at Augusta, GA which remained in Confederate control. As for railroads and manpower, it wasn't yankee railroads that were missing, it was the ones across Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia and South Carolina, that if completed in the proper guages, could have been an intregal part of a supply system sorely lacking on the Confederate side. Manpower simply was depleted. That was the difference in the war, not boats.
__________________ Ancestors in US Army: 13th TN Cav; 10th TN Cav; 3rd NC Inf
Ancestors in CSA Army: 48th VA; 63rd VA, 5th NC Cav; 37th NC
Wife and Grandson's CSA: 15th AL, 51st GA, 41st TN; 36th TN; GA Mil 1197 Dist
I'd say the CSA's lack of ability in procuring a Navy and maintaining a navy, was a nail in the coffin but. In 61 The USN wasn't that big nor as powerful as one might think except when compared to the CS Navy or lack thereof. The USN was also pretty much nil on inland vessels at the out set of the war. What strength they had lay in the exsistance of a sembelence of a blue water navy.
The real achievement was the norths ability to rapidly expand both brown and blue water assests. By purchase of merchant vessels, the 90 day gunboats , wood double enders, 2nd class sloops and the mortar barges.
It was industry and already thriving maritime trade that aided the union.
IMHO I don't think that the USN during the civil war had any effect on the Royal Navy or the British Govorment staying out of the war. A great majority of the USN vessels were hastily built and condemned ethier during or after the war as unserviceable. There were other reasons for the Brit's staying out. But I do not believe the USN was one of them. Considering at the time Britian was the Maritime Power.
The USN was A telling factor in the war. No. The USN was not a factor in keeping England out of it, but the chasm in ability to build a navy and operate it worked to the Union's advantage (and to the diminishing supply of manpower in the Confederacy).
Consider the brown water navy. There wasn't one at the outset, but one year later it had taken Ft. Henry, ran troops down to Pittsburg Landing and kept them supplied when they marched to Corinth. Two years later it was heavily involved in opening the Mississippi.
Meanwhile, the CSN brownwater squadron was ludicrous. It was respectable going downstream, but hadn't the power to beat its way back upstream.
And, although we consider the blockade as mostly a joke, it did reduce imports to what could be snuck in on small boats from Caribbean ports.
The ability to build a navy did indeed play a major role in the defeat of the Confederacy.
ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
Agreed. The USN was an important part of the big picture. I also believe that like many things a naval force was something the CS leaders kinda oooops forgot in all their well laid plans (cough cough).
Even if they had thought seriously about a naval force the south was pretty much berift of ship yards and a population of seamen. The Northeast being the home of the Maritime Industry. They had rivermen but not near enough. The best vessels the CSN had their Commerace Raiders were crewed largely by European crews. I recall reading in I believe it was Divided Waters that that members of the CS Army who were unfit for duty in the field were transfered to the CSN to Crew the coastal and River vessels.
No way to construct enough vessels. Not enough able seamen to crew the vessels. No the CS lost that fight from the beginning.
Ocean commerce and shipping perhaps could have been a factor with more Confederate men and vessels. Inland, the problem was no place to float the boats that they didn't have. The Cumberland was the most nearly navigable river and losing contol of that was the key to Sherman's supply after Atlanta. Yep that one hurt. The Tennessee River also allowed some shipping to occur at least as far as Clifton, TN and more often to New Johnsonville where a rail link was built to Nashville. Confederates simply gave up too much territory, period. Railroads could have made up more than the difference lost to the few waterways. Railroads weren't much if any better and the best link, the Nashville-Chattanooga was lost to Union control early on. As we've often stated, northern agression won the war. That and a puny defense on the Confederate side.
__________________ Ancestors in US Army: 13th TN Cav; 10th TN Cav; 3rd NC Inf
Ancestors in CSA Army: 48th VA; 63rd VA, 5th NC Cav; 37th NC
Wife and Grandson's CSA: 15th AL, 51st GA, 41st TN; 36th TN; GA Mil 1197 Dist
As we've often stated, northern agression won the war. That and a puny defense on the Confederate side.
You have an excellent point, Larry, in that the lack of confederate transportation was the basis of the confederate loss. It was not for lack of enthusiasm or valiant men, but the inability to feed, clothe and arm them.
Nashville and Memphis had adequate communication through much of the south, but they fell to Union gunboats. Memphis supplied Grant in '63. Nashville supplied Sherman in '64. Their supply came from boats and rails. But they fell to the boats.
And this was largely due to the brownwater navy.
ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Confederate Secession and the Naval Question 
Linear Mode
