Manpower advantage.

[wausaubob]

@DaveBrt has often theorized that the US manpower advantage was behind the US continued strategic dominance.
In his little book on The Business of Civil War, Mark R. Wilson provides some examples. On p. 74 he listed several expanding federally owned military supply operations. However the expansion of the workforce at the federally owned armory at Springfield from 800 workers in 1860 to over 2,500 by the middle of the war best illustrates what the US could accomplish.

 

[Old Soldier]

It was never how many you had, but how you used them. Thermopylae is a good example. The Prussians too, had a small force in 1866 and 1870 compared to their opponents, but they still won at Königgrätz and Sedan.

 

[Bruce Allardice]

It was never how many you had, but how you used them. Thermopylae is a good example. The Prussians too, had a small force in 1866 and 1870 compared to their opponents, but they still won at Königgrätz and Sedan.

Actually, the Prussians were close to equal numbers at Koniggratz, and superior numbers at Sedan.
Overall, Germany/Prussia had a larger population than France in 1870, and in 1866, Germany and Italy (both were at war with Austria) had a larger population than Austria/Saxony.

 

[wausaubob]

The explanation had little to do with results on the battlefield. While the US was organizing its large armies, it was also building and deploying multiple navies. The military-industrial complex already present from Delaware up to Boston expanded. The Midwest agricultural economy was growing and Chicago took over being the commodities capital of the US. The railroad industry did not recover immediately in 1861-62. But by July 1863 it had recovered and I believe the RR men thought a US victory was the quickest path to peace and getting back to business. If those things were happening its difficult to see how any political armistice that permitted the Confederacy to exist temporarily would be stable.

 

[Old Soldier]

Actually, the Prussians were close to equal numbers at Koniggratz, and superior numbers at Sedan.
Overall, Germany/Prussia had a larger population than France in 1870, and in 1866, Germany and Italy (both were at war with Austria) had a larger population than Austria/Saxony.

At Koniggratz an advance party held off the Austrian Army mainly due to weight of fire. The Austrians lined up in front of them and shelled them before sending all their army in - in line - as they always had done. The Prussians had their needle rifles and a better concealed position and most of the damage was done before the main force arrived. They could shoot prone which the Austrians could not. Many of the casualties were caused after the frist volley as they reloaded - standing up.

Sedan was, again, just the first step as the Prussians were held up by the border fortresses. France had a far bigger army but not all available at once. The Prussians again caused three times as many killed simply because of their tactics and their superiority in cavalry and, decisively, their artillery, once again causing the French to lose four times their losses, dead, wounded and captured.

 

[archieclement]

Strategically one can not overestimate the advantage of manpower. As its what allows growth of labor force, infrastructure, and military manpower and its replacements over time.

The north had a manpower base of almost 22 million with another 425,000 slaves. In comparison to the south's almost 6 million with another 3.5 million slaves.

That's over a 2-1 advantage in overall manpower, and over 3-1 in manpower to draw military strength from............With such a disparity the smaller side isn't going to win a numbers game, though they can sometimes win by the larger sides morale/resolve breaking.

 

[damYankee]

Strategically one can not overestimate the advantage of manpower. As its what allows growth of labor force, infrastructure, and military manpower and its replacements over time.

The north had a manpower base of almost 22 million with another 425,000 slaves. In comparison to the south's almost 6 million with another 3.5 million slaves.

That's over a 2-1 advantage in overall manpower, and over 3-1 in manpower to draw military strength from............With such a disparity the smaller side isn't going to win a numbers game, though they can sometimes win by the larger sides morale/resolve breaking.

Just how did the 425K slaves you accredit to the North benefit the North?

 

[archieclement]

Just how did the 425K slaves you accredit to the North benefit the North?

The same as the south, slaves still provided agricultural labor to the respective sides war efforts. As well could be leased to build fortifications. Labor remains a source of labor, regardless of side. Actually it was 432,622 by 1860 census, I just used an approximate round number for simplicity.

 

[uaskme]

Plus the Federals recruited or forced probably 150k Southern Blacks into the ranks. Used another sizable population of blacks to build fortifications, grow Yankee Cotton, Sugar. Used Southern Blacks to drive wagons, cook valets for Officers. On and on.

Theory that Labor/manpower had nothing to do with it is Beyond Silly. Historian here who is Nationally recognized says the Federals had a 7 to 1 Force Advantage. That s just Militarily. Federals used southerners as they gained territory. They did civilian jobs that supported the Federal effort. NOLA, Memphis, Nashville, Chattanooga and other places.

Northerners were Blackphobic. But the made exceptions for those who would die in their place or do the dirty work they wanted done.

 

[wausaubob]

What author Wilson was describing was that in at least 3 major military supply categories the infrastructure existed on the US side. All the facilities had to do was expand and hire more people. He could have added a fourth category essential to industry and logistics.
With respect to ocean going naval vessels he mentions the 5 east coast naval yards: Washington, D.C., Philadelphia, Brooklyn, Charleston, MA, and Portsmouth, NH. And there was a 6th located at Mare's Island in California. The workforce had been reduced during the economic contraction, but the wharves and warehouses and mills still existed.
The same situation existed with respect to gunpowder. The industrial producers before the war merely expanded their output once the supply of nitre was guaranteed.
In artillery it was about the same thing. The Parrot works was a pre-existing supplier located at Cold Spring, New York located near Troy, NY, which was an intellectual center of artillery research before the war. The Fort Pitt factory near Pittsburg was experimenting in the Rodman casting method of producing large caliber weapons. Cyrus Alger and Company was located near Boston, and the Hotchkiss and Sons was in Connecticut. The US had four competing artillery and munitions suppliers, and they had been created before the Civil War began. Wilson specifically mentioned that the Fort Pitt plant had purchased steam driven cranes to move the products even before the war began. Wilson, pp. 117-118.
I suspect he could have added the locomotive manufacturers to his list. In no previous war had the combatants been able to funnel their logistical output to the operational zone which was contiguous to their nation by means of their existing railroad network. Locomotives were the necessary power units that made this possible. The existing manufacturers were in Philadelphia, Patterson, NJ and Taunton, MA. By the middle of the war the industry supplied about 150 locomotives just to McCallum's USMRR in Kentucky and Tennessee.

 

[wausaubob]

Tactically the Confederates could win. They did win several land battles. They got the jump on the US with respect to forming and properly equipping their land armies. But they could not achieve strategic results. That meant that the weight of the US logistical effort was increasing throughout the war, like boulders resting on newly poured concrete, they would sink and destroy the new concrete as more stones were piled on. Similarly the US naval operations would be swirling around the Confederacy eventually closing off even the well fortified places like Vicksburg, Port Hudson, Mobile, Charleston, SC, and Fort Fisher. Without strategic victories, the Confederacy was just setting the baseline for the next war.

 

[damYankee]

The same as the south, slaves still provided agricultural labor to the respective sides war efforts. As well could be leased to build fortifications. Labor remains a source of labor, regardless of side. Actually it was 432,622 by 1860 census, I just used an approximate round number for simplicity.

From the limited research I did this afternoon on the topic of slaves living in Union states after 1860, all were in border states of Maryland (87,189), Kentucky (225,483) Delaware ( 1,798) New Jersey (18) Nebraska (15) and Kansas (2). Interesting data, however misleading, and intentionally so.
Kentucky, Delaware and Maryland were Southern states which traditionally practiced slavery but remained loyal to the Union (with some arm twisting). Those in Kansas were brought with slaveholding families from Southern states about 200 at the high point, mostly engaged in farming and domestic work. Slavery ended in Kansas January 29, 1861, except for two who I know they may have been a large threat to the Confederates operating in the Kansas area as those two made it possible for two while men to serve.
Nebraska has a similar situation;
"It is not generally known, but it is a fact, that there were from 1856 to 1858 more slaves in Nebraska than in Kansas. Most of the Kansas slaves were conveyed to the North Star section [the Underground Railroad] soon after. The first attempt to cross the Missouri River by the new route was made by the Massachusetts party, under the charge of Martyn Stowell, of which I was a member. We were the advance guard in July, 1856, of Jim Lane's hastily gathered command. The Nebraska City ferry was a flat boat worked by a Southern settler named Nuckolls, who had brought slaves there and who declared we should not cross. Three of us, who were mounted, rode down, called, and got the ferry over on the Iowa or eastern side of the river with Nuckolls himself in charge, and we held him there until our little company of sixty-five young men, with three wagons, were ferried over. These incidents are only mentioned to show the nature of the obstacles. Mr. Nuckolls yielded to our persuasive force, aided by that of his neighbors, many of whom were free state in sympathy, and perhaps even more by the profit he found by the large ferriage tolls we promptly paid."
I don't know how those few decimated the hopes of the South and doomed it's Antebellum Glory, but I have little doubt I am in for an educating session provided by certain some ones

 

[archieclement]

From the limited research I did this afternoon on the topic of slaves living in Union states after 1860, all were in border states of Maryland (87,189), Kentucky (225,483) Delaware ( 1,798) New Jersey (18) Nebraska (15) and Kansas (2). Interesting data, however misleading, and intentionally so.
Kentucky, Delaware and Maryland were Southern states which traditionally practiced slavery but remained loyal to the Union (with some arm twisting). Those in Kansas were brought with slaveholding families from Southern states about 200 at the high point, mostly engaged in farming and domestic work. Slavery ended in Kansas January 29, 1861, except for two who I know they may have been a large threat to the Confederates operating in the Kansas area as those two made it possible for two while men to serve.
Nebraska has a similar situation;
"It is not generally known, but it is a fact, that there were from 1856 to 1858 more slaves in Nebraska than in Kansas. Most of the Kansas slaves were conveyed to the North Star section [the Underground Railroad] soon after. The first attempt to cross the Missouri River by the new route was made by the Massachusetts party, under the charge of Martyn Stowell, of which I was a member. We were the advance guard in July, 1856, of Jim Lane's hastily gathered command. The Nebraska City ferry was a flat boat worked by a Southern settler named Nuckolls, who had brought slaves there and who declared we should not cross. Three of us, who were mounted, rode down, called, and got the ferry over on the Iowa or eastern side of the river with Nuckolls himself in charge, and we held him there until our little company of sixty-five young men, with three wagons, were ferried over. These incidents are only mentioned to show the nature of the obstacles. Mr. Nuckolls yielded to our persuasive force, aided by that of his neighbors, many of whom were free state in sympathy, and perhaps even more by the profit he found by the large ferriage tolls we promptly paid."
I don't know how those few decimated the hopes of the South and doomed it's Antebellum Glory, but I have little doubt I am in for an educating session provided by certain some ones

You left out over 100,000 in Missouri, and 3000 in DC. It remains labor is labor regardless of sides, and contributes to each sides available labor force. And being border states, most had fortifications built early in war for defense, requiring labor, often including leased local slaves.

Would seem odd to consider 430,000 few, it's over twice the numbers of USCT. Certainly if looking at black contributions to US labor during the war it's rather significant number, as free black population in North wouldn't have been but maybe 15% higher then the slave population. Think the numbers usually gave would be 500k compared 430k.

Its indeed misleading to refer to Northern states as Southern during the ACW I agree. As there was only two sides. United States often referred to as North, and the Confederate States often referred to as South. If one counts Confederate states totals for the South, any legitimate comparison would then count the US states totals for the North...........One can refer to Union states as New England states, Upper Midwest states, or Border States if they wish.......it remains they all are indeed part of the Union or United States, and included in its totals. Tacking a geographic or cultural description to US states, doesn't change they are US states.

 

[Old Soldier]

A civil war divides the country. That division is not always geographical. We 'conveniently' divide the two sides as 'North' and 'South'. We therefore assume that ALL the Northern states were slave free and that all the Southern states had slaves.

 

[johan_steele]

Labor/manpower, like statistics. as a part in victory can be easily manipulated. As a prime example there have always been members on this site that can't decide if black people are human or just a number for labor statistics.

The reality is that any, competent, historian will tell you that numbers are only one factor. The Greeks, Romans, Mongols and many more proved that over and over again.

The US had strategic depth which the CS lacked. CS industry was considerably less than that of the US. The CS was losing territory from very early in the war. The CS attempts to retake territory were… poorly planned and orchestrated at best.

If labor was such a deciding factor from the very beginning the CS politicians who pushed for war failed to account for it from the very beginning. There were no attempts to court the non slave states… which had even only the agricultural states of the Midwest joined the CS would have added to the labor pool and strategic depth of the CS. But as the cornerstone of the CS was slavery it isn't difficult to ascertain why the CS wasn't interested in any of the upper Midwest states.

The CS gambled that the US would fold and was weak… she proved otherwise.

 

[wausaubob]

Another example from page 194: during demobilization the number of Quartermaster employees in Nashville working primarily in the railyards and stockyards fell from 13,000 in April 1865 to just 2,000 by December. Considering that the pre-war population of Nashville was slightly more than 20,000 people, it gives some indication of the size and mobility of the US work force.

 

[archieclement]

As a prime example there have always been members on this site that can't decide if black people are human or just a number for labor statistics.

A prime example of that indecision would be those only wishing to count them for one side, then ignore them on the other........

Any legitimate comparison would include same categories for both sides. As would reflecting black experience for both sides, in that over 40% of blacks in the North were actually enslaved. It's always seemed baffling some wish to downplay that as insignificant. Doubt it was to those 40+%.

 

[wausaubob]

Why did this manpower problem become so severe?
When the British came close to ending the trans-Atlantic slave trade in the 1850's decade, the southern states were burdened by the slow rate of natural increase among the enslaved which was only about 22% per decade.
The natural increase of the white population was the fastest in paid labor section of the US commonly called the free states, and it was being supplemented by an open immigration policy favored by both northern political parties.
Immigration resumed while the US Civil War was fought. By 1863 about 80,000 working age men were arriving in the US every year to supplement the navies, the longshoremen, the factory workers and the farm economy.

 

[wausaubob]

While immigration was supplementing the US economy, many people were leaving the south. White people left to get away from the anarchy and get away from Confederate conscription. Some moved the least possible distance to Indiana, Illinois and no Missouri. Others took the long Summer journey to the Yellowstone country and to Oregon and California. Enslaved southerners left Confederate controlled territory to take a chance on freedom in areas controlled by the US army, or by crossing over to a paid labor state.
Since the population of the Midwest states, the plains states and Far West states was growing throughout the Civil War, while the arms industry was growing along the east coast in the US, the stage was being set for the eventual return of an even more savage war party to gain power in the US. Such a party would have renewed the war with a bigger economy, more modern ships and boats, a better railroad/telegraph system, and more lethal weapons.

 

[damYankee]

So we are in agreement, the CSA was so flawed, even the North did slavery better.
Of course this is my cynicism surfacing because at its core, this OP and those posted along this line are little more than neo-Confederates crying foul because of the out come of the war.
My take? If you can't afford a war, don't start one.
Confederate leaders were so blind with the desire for political power they ignored that fact that the North had more men, more resources and greater infrastructure making it nearly impossible for the South to conduct war on equal footing.
Sorry if that sounds gruff. But the slaves in the border states that were slave states before the war should not even count as union states with slaves as the South still considered those states Southern states specially in the case of Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, even Delaware was split.
As for the advantage in food production as most of the grain was produced in Minnesota and Wisconsin, and at the time NY was the leader in dairy production there would be no advantage. As for the production of iron, copper, coal, I doubt there was much affect.
That leaves commercial fishing, train operations, building of boats, trains, etc. manufacturing of weapons, textiles and fashions, books binders etc.
If there were evidence that in Kentucky, Maryland, Delaware and Missouri the labor provided by slaves allowed their masters to enlist in great numbers to serve in the Union so they wouldn't have any slaves after the war I'd like to see it.