NF Engineering Victory: How Technology Won the Civil War

Non-Fiction

chellers

Lt. Colonel
Retired Moderator
Honored Fallen Comrade
Joined
Apr 20, 2013
Location
East Texas
engineecwt.jpg


Thomas F. Army, Jr. (author)
Johns Hopkins University Press (April 29, 2016)

Engineering Victory brings a fresh approach to the question of why the North prevailed in the Civil War. Historian Thomas F. Army, Jr., identifies strength in engineering―not superior military strategy or industrial advantage―as the critical determining factor in the war’s outcome.

Army finds that Union soldiers were able to apply scientific ingenuity and innovation to complex problems in a way that Confederate soldiers simply could not match. Skilled Free State engineers who were trained during the antebellum period benefited from basic educational reforms, the spread of informal educational practices, and a culture that encouraged learning and innovation. During the war, their rapid construction and repair of roads, railways, and bridges allowed Northern troops to pass quickly through the forbidding terrain of the South as retreating and maneuvering Confederates struggled to cut supply lines and stop the Yankees from pressing any advantage.

By presenting detailed case studies from both theaters of the war, Army clearly demonstrates how the soldiers’ education, training, and talents spelled the difference between success and failure, victory and defeat. He also reveals massive logistical operations as critical in determining the war’s outcome.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1421419378/?tag=civilwartalkc-20

Disclaimer: This post is neither a recommendation nor solicitation by CivilWarTalk or Chellers. It is solely for informational purposes.
 
Army finds that Union soldiers were able to apply scientific ingenuity and innovation to complex problems in a way that Confederate soldiers simply could not match.

With no ill will to the poster, this premise is unfair and untrue. Confederates engineered as best they could. They built submarines, ironclad ships, even introduced coal torpedoes and other technological "advances" during the war. They were no less clever than their Union counterparts.

I will have to order and read the book to critique it fairly. but again, the claimed premise has got me on guard with respect to who was smartest.
 
View attachment 83971

Thomas F. Army, Jr. (author)
Johns Hopkins University Press (April 29, 2016)

Engineering Victory brings a fresh approach to the question of why the North prevailed in the Civil War. Historian Thomas F. Army, Jr., identifies strength in engineering―not superior military strategy or industrial advantage―as the critical determining factor in the war’s outcome.

Army finds that Union soldiers were able to apply scientific ingenuity and innovation to complex problems in a way that Confederate soldiers simply could not match. Skilled Free State engineers who were trained during the antebellum period benefited from basic educational reforms, the spread of informal educational practices, and a culture that encouraged learning and innovation. During the war, their rapid construction and repair of roads, railways, and bridges allowed Northern troops to pass quickly through the forbidding terrain of the South as retreating and maneuvering Confederates struggled to cut supply lines and stop the Yankees from pressing any advantage.

By presenting detailed case studies from both theaters of the war, Army clearly demonstrates how the soldiers’ education, training, and talents spelled the difference between success and failure, victory and defeat. He also reveals massive logistical operations as critical in determining the war’s outcome.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/14...&tag=civilwarbooks-20&linkId=UM2GJMRV44ODEFBN

Disclaimer: This post is neither a recommendation nor solicitation by CivilWarTalk or Chellers. It is solely for informational purposes.
I cannot wait to read this book! Thanks for sharing the title.
 
I was working on the uniforms worn by Michigan Engineers tonight and added some information to the Chadwick Engineers. Michigan at the time was trying to add an engineer company or detachment to each Infantry Regiment. The Federal government did not much care for the idea.

Chadwick’s Engineers. The Chadwick’s Engineers were muster in on November 1 1861 and mustered out of federal service on December 5 1861 after only spending 30 days in federal service. They were a very small unit and more of a platoon size than a company. There is no known uniform information for them, but some type of uniforms was worn. Because they were recruited so soon after the Howland’s Engineer Company and both were from Calhoun County, it is possible they were uniformed from Henry Brown of Battle Creek who had made the uniforms for Howland’s Engineer Company. The also may have been issued standard engineer uniforms.
 
Bailey's dam is a pretty good engineering accomplishment. Of course, he and General Banks were being chased by Taylor's Texas Cavalry. They were in a hurry, understandably.

We'll have to read this book and figure it out.
 
With no ill will to the poster, this premise is unfair and untrue. Confederates engineered as best they could. They built submarines, ironclad ships, even introduced coal torpedoes and other technological "advances" during the war. They were no less clever than their Union counterparts.

I will have to order and read the book to critique it fairly. but again, the claimed premise has got me on guard with respect to who was smartest.
Hi @Drew ,

No ill will to this poster, at all. I don't pre-judge or have any bias either way. My purpose is just to help members stay up to date on what is in the pipeline; upon reading, they can make their own judgments.:smile:
 
With no ill will to the poster, this premise is unfair and untrue. Confederates engineered as best they could. They built submarines, ironclad ships, even introduced coal torpedoes and other technological "advances" during the war. They were no less clever than their Union counterparts.

I will have to order and read the book to critique it fairly. but again, the claimed premise has got me on guard with respect to who was smartest.


The point seems to be that the Yankees had more engineers and better trained at lower ranks than the Confederates. For example the Yankees had brass cartridge firing rifles and ammunition while the Confederates were unable to replicate that. The Hunley is nice, but a 1000 repeating rifles might be better. The fact that the Confederates came up with a few advanced projects does not refute this point. Sounds like a good book for someone to read and report back on.
 
With no ill will to the poster, this premise is unfair and untrue. Confederates engineered as best they could. They built submarines, ironclad ships, even introduced coal torpedoes and other technological "advances" during the war. They were no less clever than their Union counterparts.

I will have to order and read the book to critique it fairly. but again, the claimed premise has got me on guard with respect to who was smartest.

Yes, you, know if I was given a few moments in time to go back to, swear I'd pick being able to see that pontoon bridge Lee's engineers built out of air and spit, the retreat post-Gettysburg? Have bored the forum with this before, sorry! Have read descriptions, every boat imaginable, buildings taken apart- an entire pontoon bridge constructed sturdy enough for an army? And under horrific time constraints. There's some engineering for you! Am a little nutty on the engineering required to run the war anyway- Lee's engineers and that bridge, top five. ( Sorry, Red River Dam, #1 )
 
Hope this isn't off thread, Chellers If it is, feel free to say so. You know how Union and Confederate veterans would get together post war and talk over battles? Who was where and what happened, who whipped who- heck, reading those letters veterans posted in papers, the back and forths sometimes there was greater animosity between Union veterans over what transpired than between ex-enemies. ( " Battles and Leaders " ). Makes me wonder if the engineers from both armies ever put their heads together post war? Boy, there would be some conversations! My grandfather was a Civil Engineer who cured us as children of any impression we had there was anything ' boring ' about engineering. Blood curdling stories of bridge failings, the investigations- it went from there.
 
Yes, you, know if I was given a few moments in time to go back to, swear I'd pick being able to see that pontoon bridge Lee's engineers built out of air and spit, the retreat post-Gettysburg? Have bored the forum with this before, sorry! Have read descriptions, every boat imaginable, buildings taken apart- an entire pontoon bridge constructed sturdy enough for an army? And under horrific time constraints. There's some engineering for you! Am a little nutty on the engineering required to run the war anyway- Lee's engineers and that bridge, top five. ( Sorry, Red River Dam, #1 )
I believe it is safe to say that the Confederate Engineers did some excellent things. I think the point though, was that the preponderance of the achievements- and the ability to swing the war- were the results of Federal engineering skills across a wide variety of endeavors. Creating many things beyond the bridges, Federals were able to develop production, transportation and communication solutions to a myriad of problems. Its not as though the South had lousy ones- its that the Union had more skilled ones.
 
This thread and a separate post of a picture (possibly from Murpheesboro and a redoubt) made me do a little googling.

I too hope this will not be off topic, but I learned something I did not know before about the Union Army, at least in one case. A very large Union Pioneer brigade was formed by Rosecrans to do the very things that this thread highlights.

They were engineers and pioneers formed to overcome the logistical problems. 3,000 or so men who not only did construction duty but also fought in the ranks as well.

They also got paid more! I did not know that.
"so far as I can say for the Pioneer Corps so far as I like it very well we do not have near so much duty to do as we had when we was with the regiment. .we don't have any picket duty to do nor any scouting to do as far as that is concerned. .I am one of the mechanics and wont have to do much chopping or any of the hard labor all mechanicks gets from 40 to 75 cents extry per day for every day that they work....
...August 21, 1863. I would far rather be a pioneer than to be with a regiment of infantry and have to Drill all the time for Drilling is a great Deal harder for me than work and then it is not near so healthy in a regiment as it is to be pioneering. I would not wish myself back to the regiment for I have got just as good friends as I had when I was in the regiment.

Raub noted some of the perks enjoyed by the Pioneers such as better food, "healthy" work, no picket duty, no drilling under manual of arms and additional pay. Most likely it was these "extrys" that helped shape a more positive outlook for pioneering under General Rosecrans than what these men were used to under any other commander.
"

http://www.thecivilwargroup.com/pioneer.html


I have not read the Book 'Engineering Victory' but I will look for it if it becomes available within my budget.
I think I do see that this played a very large role in the Union victory of the Civil War.
...possibly for 40 to 75 cents a day.
 
Army finds that Union soldiers were able to apply scientific ingenuity and innovation to complex problems in a way that Confederate soldiers simply could not match. Skilled Free State engineers who were trained during the antebellum period benefited from basic educational reforms, the spread of informal educational practices, and a culture that encouraged learning and innovation.
The author may not have had complete control over this language. Based on this Union engineers were better than Confederate engineers and we will have to see how Army makes his case. There was a recent thread on this topic and there are many measures. Was it engineer for engineer? Who had more engineers? Who did the most with the least? Army seems to raise the issue that the North had more and better engineering schools. That makes sense.
 
The author may not have had complete control over this language. Based on this Union engineers were better than Confederate engineers and we will have to see how Army makes his case. There was a recent thread on this topic and there are many measures. Was it engineer for engineer? Who had more engineers? Who did the most with the least? Army seems to raise the issue that the North had more and better engineering schools. That makes sense.

More engineering schools implies more engineers and the most common Union engineer would be better than the most common Southern engineer.

In addition more schools in general in the North implies that the average soldier would have more abilities in figuring out how to tackle engineering issues than the Southern.


But yes the book needs to be read and reported back on.
 
Hi @Drew ,

No ill will to this poster, at all. I don't pre-judge or have any bias either way. My purpose is just to help members stay up to date on what is in the pipeline; upon reading, they can make their own judgments.:smile:

The point seems to be that the Yankees had more engineers and better trained at lower ranks than the Confederates. For example the Yankees had brass cartridge firing rifles and ammunition while the Confederates were unable to replicate that. The Hunley is nice, but a 1000 repeating rifles might be better. The fact that the Confederates came up with a few advanced projects does not refute this point. Sounds like a good book for someone to read and report back on.

The Yankees were unable to bring their brass cartridges in any meaningful way to battle, just like their Gatling Gun. Doesn't take away from the engineering but Yankee Ingenuity is lacking for sure if the stuff can't actually be brought to bear.

I am intrigued by the book in the OP, but the asking price is fifty bucks. That's too rich for me.

A quick look at Abe.com for a used copy turns up Philip Katcher's work on Union engineering for $3.59. On the same page there is a copy of "The Complete Idiot's Guide to the Roman Empire," for $5.56

The latter is probably the best investment for me.

If there's a rich millionaire among us who can buy and share Thomas Army's work, that will be great.
 
Back
Top