Steamboats in the Civil War

Joined
Apr 25, 2019
Location
Chicago, IL
We all know about the famous railway chases and the primitive technology that ran on them. They were responsible for hauling tons of supplies, supplying iron when torn up and moving troops faster then a supply train could. However, on rivers like the Mississippi, the steamboat prevailed. To what extent did the riverboat serve in the ACW?

It should be noted that they peaked around the 1850's, when government regulation was subtle and most (if not all) boats (and their owners!) forced the passengers (and people owning cargo) to sign outrageous waivers....
 
They were vital for both sides. In a lot of place in the deep South the railroads were not complete. Here in Demopolis the Tombigbee was navigable year round and before the CW it was they only way to get cotton to Mobile and goods backup the river.
 
We all know about the famous railway chases and the primitive technology that ran on them. They were responsible for hauling tons of supplies, supplying iron when torn up and moving troops faster then a supply train could. However, on rivers like the Mississippi, the steamboat prevailed. To what extent did the riverboat serve in the ACW?

It should be noted that they peaked around the 1850's, when government regulation was subtle and most (if not all) boats (and their owners!) forced the passengers (and people owning cargo) to sign outrageous waivers....


Holy cow would that be a lengthy answer! I'm not the one to take it on but will mention their use as part of the hospital transport and floating hospitals. Have the numbers used by just the Sanitary Commission somewhere and it's staggering.Type ' steamer ' or ' hospital ship ' in the search engine here, around a million threads will come up.

Interesting, didn't know passengers signed wavers. Given the number of disasters involving boiler explosions, seems unsurprising albeit chilling. Just re-read Twain's account of his brother's death, a casualty of one ( although an over helpful doc was the final cause, dosing too much morphine ).
 
Riverboats were (especially on the Western waters) the pack mules of the Civil War with them being the most efficient way to move troops and supplies as railroads were spotty and roads difficult.
 
Holy cow would that be a lengthy answer! I'm not the one to take it on but will mention their use as part of the hospital transport and floating hospitals. Have the numbers used by just the Sanitary Commission somewhere and it's staggering.Type ' steamer ' or ' hospital ship ' in the search engine here, around a million threads will come up.

Interesting, didn't know passengers signed wavers. Given the number of disasters involving boiler explosions, seems unsurprising albeit chilling. Just re-read Twain's account of his brother's death, a casualty of one ( although an over helpful doc was the final cause, dosing too much morphine ).

Oh yeah, they signed waivers. It would be a long list! I mean, the 'steerage' or the large holdings were places where commoners would sit and waste away.

I think the fact that steamboat captains were mainly motivated by profit was another factor.....I mean, take a look at the Sultana that was over three times capacity! Over a 1000 casualties but it was only after the war that the government started to truly regulate steamers.

But, I mean, how much of the South's profit was shipped northward to factories by river instead of train? So what happened when those were cut off? Did captains try to find a way around the blockade between North and South?
 
One advantage of rivers over railroads - people like Nathan Bedford Forrest couldn't burn or destroy them!

TRUE-- but to what extent did riverboat sabotage affect the outcome of the war? And why were railroads glorified instead of the riverboat, even if one was much more reliable then the other?
 
The boilers are what scare me. I was reading, about the prewar Pulaski, exploding and everyone thought that was the latest and greatest and safest. I'm not sure the riverboats ever overcame over the boiler explosion issue. Someone, I think @DBF mentioned Albert Sidney Johnson's son being killed on a smaller steamboat in California because people panicked, moved to one side and the boat listed.

I know they were the workhorses of both sides but man they were dangerous when combined with greed and drinking.
 
The boilers are what scare me. I was reading, about the prewar Pulaski, exploding and everyone thought that was the latest and greatest and safest. I'm not sure the riverboats ever overcame over the boiler explosion issue. Someone, I think @DBF mentioned Albert Sidney Johnson's son being killed on a smaller steamboat in California because people panicked, moved to one side and the boat listed.

I know they were the workhorses of both sides but man they were dangerous when combined with greed and drinking.
Think Sultana.
 
TRUE-- but to what extent did riverboat sabotage affect the outcome of the war? And why were railroads glorified instead of the riverboat, even if one was much more reliable then the other?

I don't think riverboat sabotage had much effect overall, although as @piratehunter noted there were instances of Confederate forces capturing or destroying riverboats. Destruction of railroads, especially wooden trestle bridges, was far more significant; also of course the Union made considerable effort to repair or replace them promptly.

As for glorification, one factor may be that river transport was more significant in the west - "west" in Civil War terms meaning west of the Appalachians - while much of the public, press, and subsequent historians' attention focused on the eastern theater.
 
I don't think riverboat sabotage had much effect overall, although as @piratehunter noted there were instances of Confederate forces capturing or destroying riverboats. Destruction of railroads, especially wooden trestle bridges, was far more significant; also of course the Union made considerable effort to repair or replace them promptly.

As for glorification, one factor may be that river transport was more significant in the west - "west" in Civil War terms meaning west of the Appalachians - while much of the public, press, and subsequent historians' attention focused on the eastern theater.
The Confederates developed a coal torpedo which was a hollow cast iron shell designed to look like a lump of coal and filled with black powder which would explode when placed in the steamboat or locomotive's firebox, but except for the unsupported claim that this is what did in the Sultana, I don't think that it was ever used.
15284035_1131247573618986_1139278738005322304_n.jpg
 
The boilers are what scare me. I was reading, about the prewar Pulaski, exploding and everyone thought that was the latest and greatest and safest. I'm not sure the riverboats ever overcame over the boiler explosion issue. Someone, I think @DBF mentioned Albert Sidney Johnson's son being killed on a smaller steamboat in California because people panicked, moved to one side and the boat listed.

I know they were the workhorses of both sides but man they were dangerous when combined with greed and drinking.

Oh hell yeah, those things were knocked up. The metal used was also quite primitive, resulting in structurally unsound boilers that were unfit for steaming. Fissures and pressure-cracks were common........

I mean, imagine a drunk stoker trying to get steam out of one of those clunkers- that's a pretty bad combination!
 
Western theater, the biggest problem was the early loss of New Orleans. Eastern side, rivers open to steamboat operations didn't go very far inland. Moving things between Atlanta, Richmond, and Chattanooga, rail was the best option. When blockade runners couldn't get into Charleston, you could get things ashore elsewhere and go the rest of the way by rail.
 
Back
Top