Confederate Superiority

[Reconstructed Rebel]

The following is quoted from https://dan-masters-civil-war.blogspot.com/2021/05/bullets-for-union-manufacturing-small.html
This seems to me another good reason for why the Confederacy was able to hold out for as long as it did.

An interesting contrast in the differences in how the Union and Confederate armies expended their ammunition in the field was noted by Captain Samuel Fiske of the 14th​ Connecticut. In the Federal army, soldiers "have been taught to load and fire as rapidly as possible; three or four times a minute; they go into the business with all fury, every man vying with his neighbor as to the number of cartridges he can ram into his piece and spit out of it. The smoke arises in a minute or two, so you can see nothing where to aim. By and by, the guns get heated and won't go off and the cartridges begin to give out. Meanwhile the Rebels, lying quietly a hundred or two hundred yards in front, crouching on the ground or behind trees, answer our fire very leisurely as they get a chance for a good aim, hitting about as many as we do and waiting for the mild tornado of our ammunition to pass over their heads. When our burst of fighting is pretty much over, they have only commenced. If I had charge of a regiment, I'd put every man in the guardhouse who could be proved to have fired more than 20 rounds in any one battle. I wouldn't let them carry more than their cartridge box full of 40 rounds."

 

[dlofting]

Just wondering how Captain Fiske could see what individual Confederate soldiers were doing with all that smoke around.

 

[Philip Leigh]

The following is quoted from https://dan-masters-civil-war.blogspot.com/2021/05/bullets-for-union-manufacturing-small.html
This seems to me another good reason for why the Confederacy was able to hold out for as long as it did.

An interesting contrast in the differences in how the Union and Confederate armies expended their ammunition in the field was noted by Captain Samuel Fiske of the 14th​ Connecticut. In the Federal army, soldiers "have been taught to load and fire as rapidly as possible; three or four times a minute; they go into the business with all fury, every man vying with his neighbor as to the number of cartridges he can ram into his piece and spit out of it. The smoke arises in a minute or two, so you can see nothing where to aim. By and by, the guns get heated and won't go off and the cartridges begin to give out. Meanwhile the Rebels, lying quietly a hundred or two hundred yards in front, crouching on the ground or behind trees, answer our fire very leisurely as they get a chance for a good aim, hitting about as many as we do and waiting for the mild tornado of our ammunition to pass over their heads. When our burst of fighting is pretty much over, they have only commenced. If I had charge of a regiment, I'd put every man in the guardhouse who could be proved to have fired more than 20 rounds in any one battle. I wouldn't let them carry more than their cartridge box full of 40 rounds."

I enjoyed the article. Thanks for sharing it.

I am, however, surprised at the claim that a muzzleloader could be fired three or four times a minute.

 

[Yankeedave]

Not sure if the 14th Connecticut sets the example for all troops.

 

[Reconstructed Rebel]

Not sure if the 14th Connecticut sets the example for all troops.

For sure. I'm hoping for some discussion on this. Other threads have picked up on the advantages of Confederate troops given their familiarity with firearms. This seems like a case of doing what works as opposed to how you may have been trained.

 

[Reconstructed Rebel]

Just wondering how Captain Fiske could see what individual Confederate soldiers were doing with all that smoke around.

I rather got the impression it was what he saw after the smoke had cleared. I guess it would depend on the position taken by an officer and how much of the "big picture" he could take in.

 

[Reconstructed Rebel]

I enjoyed the article. Thanks for sharing it.

I am, however, surprised at the claim that a muzzleloader could be fired three or four times a minute.

Again, hoping for some insight on that. Perhaps being ordered to fire at will verses following commands (and enough adrenaline?) this isn't out of the range of doable.

 

[Yankeedave]

Longstreet was shot at the wilderness. His command group said the yanks were down in the leaves. They road up on them in the woods. Not sure what unit shot them. Maybe nutmegers.

 

[GwilymT]

I wonder when the comments of Captain Fiske were written? 1862 was a much different war than 1864.

 

[Yankeedave]

Self hating winner?

 

[Philip Leigh]

Again, hoping for some insight on that. Perhaps being ordered to fire at will verses following commands (and enough adrenaline?) this isn't out of the range of doable.

An experienced shooter with a muzzleloader on a practice range could indeed fire as many as three rounds a minute, an unlikely rate under combat conditions.

"On the field of Gettysburg [after the battle] more than 24,0000 [muzzleloader] muskets and rifles were found. Six thousand had one load apiece, 12,000 had two loads each, and 6,000 had from three to ten loads. (Any muzzleloader with more than one round in it was unusable.)

"The Sharps [breechloading carbine] could be fired eight to ten times a minute . . . three times as fast as a muzzleloader."* (Breechloaders could not hold more than one load at a time in the breech.)

Robert Bruce, Lincoln and the Tools of War, (Champaign, Ill., University of Illinois Press, 1989), 100, 111

 

[Yankeedave]

An officer said you can make new troops do that one thing one time. After that they l new better.

 

[wausaubob]

That probably happened at times. But shooting skill usually meant less than marching speed and stamina. The Confederates had that advantage up until Gettysburg.
Grant's soldiers won at Vicksburg because: 1. the outmarched previous performances, and 2. the out camped the Confederates during the siege.

 

[Yankeedave]

I have read those that couldn't see loaded. Others said the round was ran home by a rock on the ramrod or the weapon was flipped and the boot tip was used to drive it home.

 

[damYankee]

If Capt. Fiske had observed battles in which the Rebel forces advanced upon entrenched Union forces the observations would have been the opposite.
When advancing upon an entrenched enemy, suppressing fire would be a prerequisite for the forces advancing exposed toward enemy breast works.
I'm going to open a can of "say what?" here, but I have never bought into the myth that northern soldiers were (1) poor horsemen, and (2) had little experience with weapons.
Sure, the few who lived their entire lives in New York city may have fallen into that definition,
However, before the war, most of the northern states were agrarian economies. Until the early 1900s New York State was the leader amount all states in dairy production. Most citizens of that state lived outside of any city, they hunted, they rode horse's, unless someone can provide solid evidence of mass transit being in use in the North at the time, it can only be assumed that even Yankees used horse's for transportation of goods to the market6of NYC. Therefore considering that NYC was the busiest seaport in the nation, there would have been more horse teams being employed in NYC than any other US city .
There were no subways, no interurban railroad systems, those were decades away. In fact, considering the fact that the North didn't have slaves doing all the dirty work for them, wouldn't it be more logical to assume the North had more experienced horsemen at least as it applies to operating teams of horse's?

 

[JeffFromSyracuse]

If Capt. Fiske had observed battles in which the Rebel forces advanced upon entrenched Union forces the observations would have been the opposite.
When advancing upon an entrenched enemy, suppressing fire would be a prerequisite for the forces advancing exposed toward enemy breast works.
I'm going to open a can of "say what?" here, but I have never bought into the myth that northern soldiers were (1) poor horsemen, and (2) had little experience with weapons.
Sure, the few who lived their entire lives in New York city may have fallen into that definition,
However, before the war, most of the northern states were agrarian economies. Until the early 1900s New York State was the leader amount all states in dairy production. Most citizens of that state lived outside of any city, they hunted, they rode horse's, unless someone can provide solid evidence of mass transit being in use in the North at the time, it can only be assumed that even Yankees used horse's for transportation of goods to the market6of NYC. Therefore considering that NYC was the busiest seaport in the nation, there would have been more horse teams being employed in NYC than any other US city .
There were no subways, no interurban railroad systems, those were decades away. In fact, considering the fact that the North didn't have slaves doing all the dirty work for them, wouldn't it be more logical to assume the North had more experienced horsemen at least as it applies to operating teams of horse's?

Yeah, I don't buy the idea that the pre-war experiences of Northerners vs. Southerners somehow made one more natural soldiers than the other on a macro level. Even crack shots had never practiced shooting with someone else shooting back at them.

 

[jackt62]

but I have never bought into the myth that northern soldiers were (1) poor horsemen, and (2) had little experience with weapons.
Sure, the few who lived their entire lives in New York city may have fallen into that definition

Still true today about the New Yorkers!

 

[Reconstructed Rebel]

If Capt. Fiske had observed battles in which the Rebel forces advanced upon entrenched Union forces the observations would have been the opposite.
When advancing upon an entrenched enemy, suppressing fire would be a prerequisite for the forces advancing exposed toward enemy breast works.
I'm going to open a can of "say what?" here, but I have never bought into the myth that northern soldiers were (1) poor horsemen, and (2) had little experience with weapons.
Sure, the few who lived their entire lives in New York city may have fallen into that definition,
However, before the war, most of the northern states were agrarian economies. Until the early 1900s New York State was the leader amount all states in dairy production. Most citizens of that state lived outside of any city, they hunted, they rode horse's, unless someone can provide solid evidence of mass transit being in use in the North at the time, it can only be assumed that even Yankees used horse's for transportation of goods to the market6of NYC. Therefore considering that NYC was the busiest seaport in the nation, there would have been more horse teams being employed in NYC than any other US city .
There were no subways, no interurban railroad systems, those were decades away. In fact, considering the fact that the North didn't have slaves doing all the dirty work for them, wouldn't it be more logical to assume the North had more experienced horsemen at least as it applies to operating teams of horse's?

You could also mention that some Union regiments, like the Pennsylvania Bucktails at Gettysburg, didn't fire unless they were aiming someone:

"....the 151st Pennsylvania....The 467 soldiers moved from near Seminary Ridge to the eastern edge of the copse, where they suddenly encountered an enemy line of battle.... The 151st prided itself on its marksmanship, so instead of being ordered to volley fire, the ranks were instructed to fire at will. The regiment's commander would afterward remark that his men "coolly waited until they saw an exposed enemy and then brought him to the ground."
Source: Gettysburg: A Testing of Courage by Noah Andre Trudeau

It's not as if the South had the only soldiers who could shoot straight. Plenty of Union marksmen came from the Western states and plenty of New England farmboys knew how to shoot because they hunted. On the issue of who could ride a horse better, I'm still inclined to give the Confederates the edge there, at least in the beginning. The explanation for that is the North had better roads, maintained by taxes, and most people drove a wagon, buggy, or carriage to their destinations.The South, by and large, did not have good roads and individuals, male and female, knew how to "sit a saddle." In the beginning of the war the Confederates were better riders just because that was their usual mode of transportation. But it doesn't take that long to learn to ride a horse.

So what, if anything, were the Confederates superior at? My vote is Leadership. All those West Point men, educated by Uncle Sam and taking an Oath of Allegiance to the same, who joined the South at the outbreak of the war. Officers who were already battle tested made a difference. That was the South's superiority IMHO. If the Southern troops were firing at will it was because they, like the 151st Pennsylvania, were instructed to do so.

 

[Rhea Cole]

When categorical things like Southern soldiers across the board being better than Yankees comes up the won / loss record of the Army of the Tennessee is the first thing that comes to mind.

A good friend of mine was a freshly minted Marine who had just arrived at his individual trading base. It was a joint facility with the Air Force. He knew that any Marine was a better fighter than ten airmen.

At a local bar he discovered that five Marines were completely helpless when they provoke a fight with two A. F. PJ's. He didn't know exactly what happened because the first punch he took literally knocked him out of his shoes. Turns out shock causes your feet to curl & can literally leave your shoes sitting where you stood. The PJ's kindly gave medical attention & bought them a beer. As my buddy says, life lesson learned on many levels… many, many levels.

 

[wausaubob]

If Capt. Fiske had observed battles in which the Rebel forces advanced upon entrenched Union forces the observations would have been the opposite.
When advancing upon an entrenched enemy, suppressing fire would be a prerequisite for the forces advancing exposed toward enemy breast works.
I'm going to open a can of "say what?" here, but I have never bought into the myth that northern soldiers were (1) poor horsemen, and (2) had little experience with weapons.
Sure, the few who lived their entire lives in New York city may have fallen into that definition,
However, before the war, most of the northern states were agrarian economies. Until the early 1900s New York State was the leader amount all states in dairy production. Most citizens of that state lived outside of any city, they hunted, they rode horse's, unless someone can provide solid evidence of mass transit being in use in the North at the time, it can only be assumed that even Yankees used horse's for transportation of goods to the market6of NYC. Therefore considering that NYC was the busiest seaport in the nation, there would have been more horse teams being employed in NYC than any other US city .
There were no subways, no interurban railroad systems, those were decades away. In fact, considering the fact that the North didn't have slaves doing all the dirty work for them, wouldn't it be more logical to assume the North had more experienced horsemen at least as it applies to operating teams of horse's?

I think the Confederate infantry was initially superior. The horses used to mobilize the initial cavalry regiments were superior in the south.
But the US had the advantage in artillery from the beginning. They had more West Pointers, more German trained officers, more standardized guns, and gradually more horses.
The initial advantage of the Confederate cavalry was diminished as they suffered livestock losses, and the US purchasing program slowly became less corrupt and more productive of quality livestock. The US, especially with Missouri and Kentucky attached was the larger agricultural economy and it wore down the Confederates.
Shooting, killing and dying are very dramatic. But camping efficiently, caring for quartermaster and commissary supplies, and marching ability also count. The Confederates were initially able to travel lighter and faster, but the US infantry drew even. First they out marched the Confederates in the Vicksburg campaign and then the US infantry out marched the Confederates in the Appomattox campaign.
In that war there was still a very substantial physical component to the campaigning. The odds favored the army that ate better.