A question of logistics

[Major Problem]

This is my first thread, ever, so be gentile.
Shelby Foote said that the Union fought with one arm tied behind it's back. Which is a fair assessment.
It can also be said that the South did also.
Through cronyism, mismanagement, and shortsightedness glaring problems were ignored and the whole southern war effort particularly in logistics, seemed...chaotic.
My question is what could the South have done to get the most bang for their war effort buck?
(On an another AH site I was reading about the Nazis war effort under Spear an wondered if such could have been accomplished in the ACW.)

 

[Mark F. Jenkins]

Well, gently speaking, the gentlemanly Shelby Foote wasn't quite right about that, in the sense that it implies that the Union was holding back-- which it wasn't. (There was another thread that touched on this a year or so back, I think.) Now, it is quite true that the Union did not have to dig as deep into its available resources as did the Confederacy, and that the Union could have (materially) hung on and kept fighting for a much longer period, whereas the Confederacy was pretty much tapped out by mid-1865. They had been forced to eat their seed corn to keep going, so to speak, and they were coming up against real material limits.

 

[favedave]

The CSA was certainly hampered by its philosophical aversion to a strong centralized government. Sentiment in the Union may have started out just independently minded, but that very rapidly turned to an attitude which generally accepted the need for federal control to supersede that of the states or local governments. I dare say that "cronyism, mismanagement, and shortsightedness," and graft where probably more evident in the North, simply because there were so many more opportunities for them all to thrive.

The surprising outcome of the South's lack of manufacturing facilities and sporadic importation of foreign made goods once the war began, was how effective the Confederate government was in mobilizing the home front population. These were 'cottage industries" for the most part, which might only equip the units from the local area, generally organized on a volunteer basis to provide for all their soldiers' needs in the field. This ranged from ladies' aid societies making gun powder, and bandages, and uniforms, to the establishment of major war industries like Tredegar, which by war's end provided virtually all the manufactured goods the soldiers of the Army of Northern Virginia carried into battle from its central location in Richmond.

 

[7th Mississippi Infantry]

IMO, transportation was the largest logistical problem for the Confederacy.

While everything that has been posted is true, at the end of the day. . . the problem was railroads or lack thereof.

All things considered, once the CSA established the depot system they actually worked wonders in manufacturing supplies. Although the depot warehouses were full, there was no way to adequately get those resources to the field.

 

[FZ11]

This is my first thread, ever, so be gentile.
Shelby Foote said that the Union fought with one arm tied behind it's back. Which is a fair assessment.
It can also be said that the South did also.
Through cronyism, mismanagement, and shortsightedness glaring problems were ignored and the whole southern war effort particularly in logistics, seemed...chaotic.
My question is what could the South have done to get the most bang for their war effort buck?
(On an another AH site I was reading about the Nazis war effort under Spear an wondered if such could have been accomplished in the ACW.)

The simple answer is,usually,the best answer. Never swing on the biggest kid on the block. The South did that and the result is Civil War History. Also,it's spelled Speer,not,Spear.

 

[reading48]

Hello and Greetings from Penna.

 

[John Winn]

I'm new here, too, Problem, but can say that folks in this forum seem to be a good bunch so I doubt you'll get pummeled. It's good to have more company.

I agree that Foote wasn't really on the money on this one. The previous posts address that nicely I think. I'd point out that the Union had to resort to a draft, bounties, and to using black soldiers which is one measure of how manpower, anyway, had been tapped. I also don't think it was just a contest of materiel. The Union had to invade over a large front and was opposed by strongly-motived defenders, initially with interior lines, who in the first year or two also had better military leadership (at least in the eastern sector).

No, I'd say the Union gave it their best.

 

[bankerpapaw]

If the Union held one arm behind it's back, then why did it take 4 years to "whoop" us?