Confederate Superiority

[damYankee]

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.

1, The CSA cavalry had one advantage, the enemy was coming to them, The Union on the other hand had to take the fight to the enemy. This was especially true in the deep south. CSA had no plans to invade and occupy any Northern states, The CSA cavalry units were recruited and initially operated within a few hundred miles of where they grew up.
OTOH, The Union, (except for those units from the border states) were recruited throughout the Northern states, and transferred to areas of operations hundreds if not thousands of miles from their native states, Familiarity with the territory and the advantage of having citizens willing to report every movement of the Union forces operating within the Western Theaters and in Virginia was an enormous boost to the early successes. Which is why they could operate "lighter and faster." However, there were examples of the tables being turned in the early years as in the Cheat Mountain disaster for Lee.
So it really wasn't a wash was it ?
The problem with much of what these myths are based on are Southern news paper accounts which are IMO useless. The Southern press was nothing more than a state run propaganda machine used to keep the truth about the war losses and set backs away from the Southern public. Even after Gettysburg the Southern press claimed that engagement was a Southern victory, in some papers it was claimed that the North was soundly defeated and most Yankee generals were killed. So first rule in my book is to consider the facts.
Every state in the Union was an agricultural based economy, even those states that were producing iron, or coal or had steel mills. There were very few crops that could be shipped from farms Wisconsin or Minnesota, or Kansas, or Indiana or Illinois or up state New York or from any state without spoilage, only wheat of oats. So most vegetable and fruit crops were raised locally.
For example, Harlem was a farming community that catered to the NYC markets until the 1890s. In fact, Long Island was mostly dedicate to farming at the time...Let me ask, did the Northern farms have tractors? If not, that meant they used horse power, just like farmers everywhere else.
How did people move around the large cities in the North? By horse drawn buses or as they were called at the time trolley's. How did freight and dry goods get from farm to market in large cities? By horse drawn wagons. So it would seem to me that that would mean large cities had a large number of draft horses and men who tended to them, trained them, etc.
Ever study the architecture of the early to mid 1800's NYC? Or Philly? Or Boston? Every home had a horse and buggy barn, I don't think they parked Chevy's in there. I'm pretty sure that Carriage Houses in the North were used the same ay they were in the South, to house the horse teams and the carriages owned by the home owner.
Even hotels had livery facilities, why would they need them if Northerners have horses?
Facts,

In 1860, the South was still predominantly agricultural, highly dependent upon the sale of staples to a world market. By 1815, cotton was the most valuable export in the United States; by 1840, it was worth more than all other exports combined. But while the southern states produced two-thirds of the world's supply of cotton, the South had little manufacturing capability, about 29 percent of the railroad tracks, and only 13 percent of the nation's banks. The South did experiment with using slave labor in manufacturing, but for the most part it was well satisfied with its agricultural economy.

The North, by contrast, was well on its way toward a commercial and manufacturing economy, which would have a direct impact on its war making ability. By 1860, 90 percent of the nation's manufacturing output came from northern states. The North produced 17 times more cotton and woolen textiles than the South, 30 times more leather goods, 20 times more pig iron, and 32 times more firearms. The North produced 3,200 firearms to every 100 produced in the South. Only about 40 percent of the Northern population was still engaged in agriculture by 1860, as compared to 84 percent of the South.

Even in the agricultural sector, Northern farmers were out-producing their southern counterparts in several important areas, as Southern agriculture remained labor intensive while northern agriculture became increasingly mechanized. By 1860, the free states had nearly twice the value of farm machinery per acre and per farm worker as did the slave states, leading to increased productivity. As a result, in 1860, the Northern states produced half of the nation's corn, four-fifths of its wheat, and seven-eighths of its oats.

The industrialization of the northern states had an impact upon urbanization and immigration. By 1860, 26 percent of the Northern population lived in urban areas, led by the remarkable growth of cities such as Chicago, Cincinnati, Cleveland, and Detroit, with their farm-machinery, food-processing, machine-tool, and railroad equipment factories. Only about a tenth of the southern population lived in urban areas. https://www.nps.gov/articles/industry-and-economy-during-the-civil-war.htm

Put these statistics into perspective, with only 40% of it's population involved in agriculture the North was still producing more staple agricultural products then the South. 40% of 22 million people involved in agriculture equals 8,800,000 with 1.3 million involved in industrial occupations, mining, forgeries etc. The South had 9 million, with only @ 110,000 involved in industrial pursuits.
The South had concentrated it's agricultural to producing cotton for export, even during the war, the plantation owners balked at converting their farming over to food production.

 

[wausaubob]

The difference was that in the US, the government had to pay for the horses. The middlemen and the brokers made money providing inferior livestock to the army. The army had a lot of work to do to get officers to shop at the retail level and cut the middlemen out of the loop. At least as to cavalry, the Confederate troopers provided their own horses and their own replacements. Initially the Confederate cavalry was mounted on blooded stock that had been well cared for. I don't know how long they lasted while campaigning.
The US always had more artillery horses. Getting the right livestock to the army was not automatic however.

 

[Rhea Cole]

Ed Bearss & numerous other historians cite the spring of 1863 Battle of Milton TN as the tipping point between CSA cavalry & US horsemen. Returning from an ineffectual raid, Morgan encountered an A of the C infantry unit of inferior size. The Milton battlefield is virtually intact northeast of Murfreesboro.

Morgan broke down a significant number of his irreplaceable horses & lost a disproportionate number men in a humiliating defeat. From that point on, Union cavalry only got stronger & CSA cavalry went into permanent decline.

A few weeks after the Milton battle, Wheeler suffered one of the most lopsided defeats inflicted on any cavalry force during the war at Shelbyville. There would be occasional flashes, but CSA cavalry's glory days were over.

That is not my opinion, it is the consensus of CW historians.

 

[wausaubob]

Brandy Station, in the east was probably the turning point in that theater. Stuart tried to circumvent the US army to make for the Brandy Station embarrassment, and was unsuccessful in his adventure.

 

[wausaubob]

Ed Bearss & numerous other historians cite the spring of 1863 Battle of Milton TN as the tipping point between CSA cavalry & US horsemen. Returning from an ineffectual raid, Morgan encountered an A of the C infantry unit of inferior size. The Milton battlefield is virtually intact northeast of Murfreesboro.

Morgan broke down a significant number of his irreplaceable horses & lost a disproportionate number men in a humiliating defeat. From that point on, Union cavalry only got stronger & CSA cavalry went into permanent decline.

A few weeks after the Milton battle, Wheeler suffered one of the most lopsided defeats inflicted on any cavalry force during the war at Shelbyville. There would be occasional flashes, but CSA cavalry's glory days were over.

That is not my opinion, it is the consensus of CW historians.

After MIlton, Forrest successfully collapsed Streight's raid, but that occurred in Alabama. Meanwhile Grierson completed a very disruptive cavalry raid in Mississippi, through great exertions of man and beast.

 

[Rhea Cole]

After MIlton, Forrest successfully collapsed Streight's raid, but that occurred in Alabama. Meanwhile Grierson completed a very disruptive cavalry raid in Mississippi, through great exertions of man and beast.

Where was Forrest when Wheeler was being trounced at Shelbyville? Where was Forrest as the A of the C advanced to the Tennessee? Where was Forrest when the A of the C crossed the TN unopposed? Where was Forrest when the A of the C took Chattanooga?

Forrest had destroyed his horses chasing down Streight. Wheeler then took Forrest's sound horses & destroyed them on his farcical raid into Middle TN. Morgan took 2,500 of the best horses the A of TN had left & lost every single one of them.

CSA cavalry was chi on summit vast quantities of irreplaceable assets without producing any strategic results. The rational thing would have been to dismount the men & give the horses to the suppport elements & artillery. Thst is my notion, not Ed Bearss.

 

[damYankee]

This quote is from The National Park Service web site,

Only about 40 percent of the Northern population was still engaged in agriculture by 1860, as compared to 84 percent of the South.

While factual, it is misleading albeit unintentionally. What the author should have written is 40% of 22 million employed in agriculture compared to 84% of 9 million. Wouldn't that give us a clearer picture? When you read 22% compared to 84% without giving the baseline the impression is misleading.
CSA, 84% of 9 million equals 7,560,000.
USA, 40% of 22 million equals 8,800,000.
Considering the Southern people doing most of the actual work on the farms were slaves, one has to ask which side had the most hands in the army with experience in handling teams of horses, considering most of such work would have been done by slaves in the south, the north would have had more IMO.
Also, statistics tell us that more Northerners were living in urban settings. What it doesn't tell us is what was urban life like in 1860?
I doubt it was anything like what we consider urban today! There were no Walmarts.

 

[major bill]

The Northern states had more horses than the South at the start of the Civil War. The South did have more mules than the North. In the end, I always thought they were about equal in knowledge about horses and mules.

 

[North to South]

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.

And had coffee!!

 

[wausaubob]

1, The CSA cavalry had one advantage, the enemy was coming to them, The Union on the other hand had to take the fight to the enemy. This was especially true in the deep south. CSA had no plans to invade and occupy any Northern states, The CSA cavalry units were recruited and initially operated within a few hundred miles of where they grew up.
OTOH, The Union, (except for those units from the border states) were recruited throughout the Northern states, and transferred to areas of operations hundreds if not thousands of miles from their native states, Familiarity with the territory and the advantage of having citizens willing to report every movement of the Union forces operating within the Western Theaters and in Virginia was an enormous boost to the early successes. Which is why they could operate "lighter and faster." However, there were examples of the tables being turned in the early years as in the Cheat Mountain disaster for Lee.
So it really wasn't a wash was it ?
The problem with much of what these myths are based on are Southern news paper accounts which are IMO useless. The Southern press was nothing more than a state run propaganda machine used to keep the truth about the war losses and set backs away from the Southern public. Even after Gettysburg the Southern press claimed that engagement was a Southern victory, in some papers it was claimed that the North was soundly defeated and most Yankee generals were killed. So first rule in my book is to consider the facts.
Every state in the Union was an agricultural based economy, even those states that were producing iron, or coal or had steel mills. There were very few crops that could be shipped from farms Wisconsin or Minnesota, or Kansas, or Indiana or Illinois or up state New York or from any state without spoilage, only wheat of oats. So most vegetable and fruit crops were raised locally.
For example, Harlem was a farming community that catered to the NYC markets until the 1890s. In fact, Long Island was mostly dedicate to farming at the time...Let me ask, did the Northern farms have tractors? If not, that meant they used horse power, just like farmers everywhere else.
How did people move around the large cities in the North? By horse drawn buses or as they were called at the time trolley's. How did freight and dry goods get from farm to market in large cities? By horse drawn wagons. So it would seem to me that that would mean large cities had a large number of draft horses and men who tended to them, trained them, etc.
Ever study the architecture of the early to mid 1800's NYC? Or Philly? Or Boston? Every home had a horse and buggy barn, I don't think they parked Chevy's in there. I'm pretty sure that Carriage Houses in the North were used the same ay they were in the South, to house the horse teams and the carriages owned by the home owner.
Even hotels had livery facilities, why would they need them if Northerners have horses?
Facts,

Put these statistics into perspective, with only 40% of it's population involved in agriculture the North was still producing more staple agricultural products then the South. 40% of 22 million people involved in agriculture equals 8,800,000 with 1.3 million involved in industrial occupations, mining, forgeries etc. The South had 9 million, with only @ 110,000 involved in industrial pursuits.
The South had concentrated it's agricultural to producing cotton for export, even during the war, the plantation owners balked at converting their farming over to food production.

The difference is that large cities of that time also included large herds of working and personal horses. Though the horses were not kept in large corrals, and in large groups, they existed in large numbers. Most of these horses could not graze in an out lot. They had to be fed hay and oats, which had to come into the city, mostly by railroad. And in the north, there was always a season in which the livestock, of all types, could graze very little in pastures. That means both the men and the livestock are familiar with hundreds of tons of forage that have to be produced and shipped and distributed.
Once that system has been created it can be directed to any endpoint on the railroad network. And the horses and mules also become accustomed to the idea that a railhead means hay and oats.