Impassable Rivers...

[5fish]

My simple question: Why did not the Confederacy make the rivers in the west impassable?

IT is said the rivers in the west made it easy for the union armies to invade the confederate states in the west because they flowed from North to South. It was obvious the union navy could move up and down rivers at will making easy to supply the union army and dividing the Confederacy. Grant used the rivers when he attacked Belmont, Ft. Henry and Donelson, and Vicksburg. The Forts like Vicksburg and Port Hudson could not do the job of controlling the rivers so the Confederacy in the west should have made all rivers impassable. You know the Confederacy should have had its own Stone Fleet in the rivers waters of the west.

Impassable river would have taken the union navy out of the picture and force the union army to march inland leaving long unsafe supply lines. Impassable rivers could have given the Confederacy a fighting chance in the west at least prolonging the war in the west( keeping Grant in the west). Impassable rivers could have delayed the fall of Vicksburg, Atlanta and Memphis by months or years.

Why did not the Confederacy make the rivers in the west impassable?


Thoughts...

 

[AndyHall]

Simply put, the Mississippi is far too large, too strong, and too deep for that. We have a hard enough time keeping it in its banks now, 150 years later.

 

[Drew]

There were considerable obstacles blocking the lower Red River near Ft. DeRussey in 1864. Admiral Porter's fleet at the start of the RR Campaign simply removed them. Confederates blew up an old steamer in a narrow portion of the upper river that stopped the fleet, but the Union Army was in retreat at that point so Porter didn't bother to try to open the river and turned south to follow the army instead.

 

[Carronade]

How? Any obstacles one group of men can put in a river, another group can take out. Obstacles can delay an enemy, particularly if tied in with other defensive measures, but you can't just "block" a river and leave it and expect it to stay blocked forever.

 

[Jamieva]

My simple question: Why did not the Confederacy make the rivers in the west impassable?

IT is said the rivers in the west made it easy for the union armies to invade the confederate states in the west because they flowed from North to South. It was obvious the union navy could move up and down rivers at will making easy to supply the union army and dividing the Confederacy. Grant used the rivers when he attacked Belmont, Ft. Henry and Donelson, and Vicksburg. The Forts like Vicksburg and Port Hudson could not do the job of controlling the rivers so the Confederacy in the west should have all rivers impassable. You know the Confederacy should have had its own Stone Fleet in the rivers waters of the west.

Impassable river would have taken the union navy put of the picture and force the union army to march inland leaving long unsave supply lines. Impassable rivers could have given the Confederacy a fighting chance in the west at least prolonging the war in the west( keeping Grant in the west). Impassable rivers could have delayed the fall of Vicksburg, Atlanta and Memphis by months or years.

Why did not the Confederacy make the rivers in the west impassable?


Thoughts...

It's a lot harder to make a river impassable than I think you consider.

 

[5fish]

I understand making rivers impassable is harder then I think but I know it's do able. I know that the union army would remove them but the points of making the river impassable is to slow down the Army movements and take control of the rivers back from the union. If the Army removing an impasse it not shooting at you.

The red river campaign turned into saving the their gun boats and then armies dash to safety. I just saying those impasses on the river disrupted the whole campaign.

I know the Romans build a bridge across the Rhine in days. I know the Vietnamese put river impasse to stop the Chinese. I know that it could have been done easily by the Confederacy...

 

[Drew]

There is a thread/post somewhere in these forums that shows the work necessary to repair a sabotaged rail road was about the same as the work necessary to sabotage it in the first place. It wasn't very efficient.

It would seem the work necessary to block river access would be far greater than the work necessary to remove the obstacle. The later could be blown up or just torn out under steam power, which is what Porter did on the Red River.

 

[ole]

The Mississippi is huge. It is fed by the Ohio and the Missouri and barges could reach as high as Minneapolis. It drained and fed the entire Midwest, or West as it was.

It still does. Bring stuff up; bring stuff down. That was the primary reason for Vicksburg and Port Hudson and New Orleans.

Rivers were, and still are, essential to what is now the Midwest. Bet you can't look on the Mississippi without seeing tows of barges.

 

[Lost Cause]

A massive chain was stretched across the Mississippi River, from Fort DeRussey Ky. to Belmont Mo., to prevent Union ships from traveling the river. The building of the fort which held over 140 cannon and installation of the chain and were ordered by General Leonidas Polk.

Apparently, the chain sunk by the massive weight. A portion of the chain and anchor were later discovered after the river receded after a flood in 1925 and are on display at the Columbus-Belmont state park.

http://www.usgwarchives.net/ky/military/civilwar/columbus_belmont/chain.html

 

[Dilandu]

You know the Confederacy should have had its own Stone Fleet in the rivers waters of the west.

It would take too many resources, and, actually, it would hamper the Confederacy logistic even more. The Confederacy depend greatly of their rivers; they couldn't "just block them" before they actually lost control over them - it would greatly damage their own economy. And the Union have plenty of engineers and explosives to clear the obstacles relatively fast; the Confederacy haven't got neither in sufficient quantites.

In short:

1) The Confederacy couldn't block the rivers quickly enough to do it as "last-minute" defense solution.

2) The Confederacy could not block the rivers before Union take them, because closing the river logistic would worsen the Confederacy economy much more, than it would hamper the North advantages.

3) Any obstcale that South could place, North could remove far quickly.

 

[rebelatsea]

The only way to block a navigable waterway is to control it with a superior naval force, and that the Confederacy failed to do.

 

[War Horse]

I'd have to agree with AndyHall, the Father of Waters has posed a challenge for modern day engineers. I remember reading somewhere that Grant had some sort of a half cocked plan to reroute the Mississippi when he was trying to figure out how to tackle Vicksburg. I don't believe he ever tried it.

 

[War Horse]

Found it;

The Mississippi River has an interesting history near Vicksburg. The city was the last major fortress to holdout on the great river for the Confederate States of America during the Civil War. The city commanded a high view over the river preventing the Union Army from moving past Vicksburg, and the vast swamps in the area prevented the Union Army from flanking the city. General Grant attempted to cut a new diversion canal to reroute the Mississippi River away from the city so it could be bypassed. This effort failed

 

[5fish]

I think building a fort would take as much time as setting impasses along a river. I concede that the Mississippi may be to big to effectively put impasses along it but the smaller rivers the Red, Tennessee, Columbia and any other river that is gunboat friendly.

I remember the union army had a hell of a time with the river impasses along the Red river so they maybe not as easy as we think to remove them. everyone should reread the the Red river campaign sections about the river impasses they faced.

These impasses would have affected the economy but the confederacy was at war. The economy becomes a secondary issues to needs of winning the war.

 

[Mark F. Jenkins]

In all fairness to Grant, he hadn't originated the idea, and appears to have had relatively little faith in it. The detachment of Butler's troops that came north to Vicksburg in the spring of 1862 started a canal to cut off Vicksburg, but it was very poorly placed and was left unfinished. Grant's troops restarted the work in a slightly better location, but it appears to have been driven partly by pressure from above and from the necessity to have the troops doing something; it appears that more hope was held out for a different route via Lake Providence, but that too proved fruitless.

In 1876, the Mississippi River changed its course on its own, leaving Vicksburg nearly high and dry; but it was at a different spot than the attempted canal.

 

[Jamieva]

I think building a fort would take as much time as setting impasses along a river. I concede that the Mississippi may be to big to effectively put impasses along it but the smaller rivers the Red, Tennessee, Columbia and any other river that is gunboat friendly.

I remember the union army had a hell of a time with the river impasses along the Red river so they maybe not as easy as we think to remove them. everyone should reread the the Red river campaign sections about the river impasses they faced.

These impasses would have affected the economy but the confederacy was at war. The economy becomes a secondary issues to needs of winning the war.

South needs those rivers to move troops, material etc just as much as the Union does. You're blocking it from the enemies' use but you're also blocking it from your own use.

 

[Dilandu]

I'd have to agree with AndyHall, the Father of Waters has posed a challenge for modern day engineers. I remember reading somewhere that Grant had some sort of a half cocked plan to reroute the Mississippi when he was trying to figure out how to tackle Vicksburg. I don't believe he ever tried it.

As i recall, he tried to build channel to get fleet around Vicksburg, and thus made the fortress useless. His attempts was twarted by the engineering mistakes... and lack of properly armored power dredges.

 

[Dilandu]

In all fairness to Grant, he hadn't originated the idea, and appears to have had relatively little faith in it. The detachment of Butler's troops that came north to Vicksburg in the spring of 1862 started a canal to cut off Vicksburg, but it was very poorly placed and was left unfinished. Grant's troops restarted the work in a slightly better location, but it appears to have been driven partly by pressure from above and from the necessity to have the troops doing something; it appears that more hope was held out for a different route via Lake Providence, but that too proved fruitless.

Thank you for detailed explanation.

 

[Drew]

A massive chain was stretched across the Mississippi River, from Fort DeRussey Ky. to Belmont Mo., to prevent Union ships from traveling the river. The building of the fort which held over 140 cannon and installation of the chain and were ordered by General Leonidas Polk.

Apparently, the chain sunk by the massive weight. A portion of the chain and anchor were later discovered after the river receded after a flood in 1925 and are on display at the Columbus-Belmont state park.

http://www.usgwarchives.net/ky/military/civilwar/columbus_belmont/chain.html

Thanks for posting this - I had no idea. This was done during the middle ages with varying degrees of success. The Byzantines protected the harbor at Constantinople for 500 years with a chain across the mouth of the Golden Horn.

It was only ever broken once. Everyone else had to pull his navy out of the water and carry it around Galeta to avoid the chain. Talk about a pain in the neck.

Someone should have told Polk the Byzantines floated theirs on logs though, to prevent it from sinking.

 

[ivanj05]

My simple question: Why did not the Confederacy make the rivers in the west impassable?

IT is said the rivers in the west made it easy for the union armies to invade the confederate states in the west because they flowed from North to South. It was obvious the union navy could move up and down rivers at will making easy to supply the union army and dividing the Confederacy. Grant used the rivers when he attacked Belmont, Ft. Henry and Donelson, and Vicksburg. The Forts like Vicksburg and Port Hudson could not do the job of controlling the rivers so the Confederacy in the west should have all rivers impassable. You know the Confederacy should have had its own Stone Fleet in the rivers waters of the west.

Impassable river would have taken the union navy put of the picture and force the union army to march inland leaving long unsave supply lines. Impassable rivers could have given the Confederacy a fighting chance in the west at least prolonging the war in the west( keeping Grant in the west). Impassable rivers could have delayed the fall of Vicksburg, Atlanta and Memphis by months or years.

Why did not the Confederacy make the rivers in the west impassable?


Thoughts...

Short of having the Doctor bring Hoover Dam back in time, how exactly would you suggest that the Confederacy render rivers like the Mississippi, the Cumberland, or the Tennessee unnavigable in such a way that the Union couldn't promptly render them navigable again? The primary way to control passage through a waterway was with either a strong position ashore, such as at Vicksburg or Fort Donelson, or with a fleet, which was a feat that the Confederacy never entirely managed. Of course, the downside to forts is that they can be captured, and fleets can be sunk or driven off. So what other method that the Confederacy didn't try should they have tried, and why would it have been better than what they did try?