Transportation Revolution

[jgoodguy]

The question I am more interested in is ,why did the South prior to the war not invest in rail as the North had done? If they had done so what effect,if any would this had upon the military strategy? Would Lee had taken advantage of them or would he have still marched troops ,as they had done prior,into battle? As I pointed out Hill was able to rescue Lee by using the rail system ,WONDER;Was that Jackson or his decision?

IMHO The investment was comparable.

 

[USS ALASKA]

railroad lines went from plantation areas to ports

(in the South)



Cheers,
USS ALASKA

 

[USS ALASKA]

IMHO The investment was comparable.

'To whom the good?'

What provided the potentially greatest return...

Cheers,
USS ALASKA

 

[USS ALASKA]

One day I may have abandon Secession and Politics for railroads.

Please be careful sir. You may be shunned and ostracized for your temerity. They are a rather...passionate...lot over on that side of town...



Cheers,
USS ALASKA

 

[USS ALASKA]

why did the South prior to the war not invest in rail as the North had done?

She, the South, invested as much as she could for what she needed / could afford. @Carronade was spot on. There was no regional over arching plan coordinating these efforts. They were individual efforts to provide for a local plan.

Cheers,
USS ALASKA

 

[Drew]

The question I am more interested in is ,why did the South prior to the war not invest in rail as the North had done? If they had done so what effect,if any would this had upon the military strategy? Would Lee had taken advantage of them or would he have still marched troops ,as they had done prior,into battle? As I pointed out Hill was able to rescue Lee by using the rail system ,WONDER;Was that Jackson or his decision?

This has been addressed, above. Keep in mind though, the South is a lot wetter than other regions of the country and there were in the mid-19th century extensive transport networks along her rivers.

Steamboats are far less capital intensive than railroads, which really dug in only after the war and probably with federal subsidies. Maybe @DaveBrt can shed more light on this.

 

[DaveBrt]

Why should the South invest more in railroads than they did? They had economic needs to be fulfilled, and the railroads they built filled those needs. Yes, they would have been connected and expanded over time, but the main need -- getting the cotton crop to market -- was being met.

Steamboats were useful, but the periodic low waters gave rise to even more railroads to go around the low water areas.

 

[Drew]

Why should the South invest more in railroads than they did? They had economic needs to be fulfilled, and the railroads they built filled those needs. Yes, they would have been connected and expanded over time, but the main need -- getting the cotton crop to market -- was being met.

Steamboats were useful, but the periodic low waters gave rise to even more railroads to go around the low water areas.

How was railroad construction paid for, in the middle of the 19th century?

 

[Hussar Yeomanry]

How was railroad construction paid for, in the middle of the 19th century?

On a wing and a prayer.

More seriously it was the big thing and 'everyone knew' that railroads make money. Lots and lots of money. Millions if one was lucky, now if you will just hand over your money to the man with the broad smile and fancy top hat over there in return for this piece of paper then that would be nice...

For some reason most were not lucky.

[Like much else railroad construction led (especially in the UK) to major crashes on the stock markets and bankruptcy. As a result many speculative lines were created and while some, especially at first, served a real need, not all did. Also even more lines were started... and never finished...]

 

[DaveBrt]

How was railroad construction paid for, in the middle of the 19th century?

The proposed roads took subscriptions for stock. When the state required amount had been subscribed, the company could hold its first meeting and organize. Plans were started, with an engineer hired to lay out the exact route and make the official estimate of cost. Then portions of the subscriptions were called for (usually 5 or 10% of the price of the stock) and bonds were issued and, maybe, sold. Friends of the road went to the state legislature to get state money (given as stated miles of track were completed, usually 25 miles) and to get state backing of the road's bonds (hypothication).

Finally, suppliers were asked to take stock in place of some or all of their money due. This was true of the plantation owners along the route who would sell their slaves' labor for shares as well as for engineers, locomotive companies and iron foundries.

Of course, the cities and counties along the proposed way had subscribed to buy stock or bonds in order in influence the route decisions.

Later improvements and expansion were paid for from earnings or the sale of stock or bonds.

 

[Drew]

The proposed roads took subscriptions for stock. When the state required amount had been subscribed, the company could hold its first meeting and organize. Plans were started, with an engineer hired to lay out the exact route and make the official estimate of cost. Then portions of the subscriptions were called for (usually 5 or 10% of the price of the stock) and bonds were issued and, maybe, sold. Friends of the road went to the state legislature to get state money (given as stated miles of track were completed, usually 25 miles) and to get state backing of the road's bonds (hypothication).

Finally, suppliers were asked to take stock in place of some or all of their money due. This was true of the plantation owners along the route who would sell their slaves' labor for shares as well as for engineers, locomotive companies and iron foundries.

Of course, the cities and counties along the proposed way had subscribed to buy stock or bonds in order in influence the route decisions.

Later improvements and expansion were paid for from earnings or the sale of stock or bonds.

In other words, there was government subsidy involved. BTW, I didn't ask about just the South, but the country in general. As an amateur, it looks to me like every time a railroad made money, speculators got rich. When they failed, taxpayers got hosed.

It's a good thing we're not allowed modern politics around here.

 

[DaveBrt]

On a wing and a prayer.

More seriously it was the big thing and 'everyone knew' that railroads make money. Lots and lots of money. Millions if one was lucky, now if you will just hand over your money to the man with the broad smile and fancy top hat over there in return for this piece of paper then that would be nice...

For some reason most were not lucky.

[Like much else railroad construction led (especially in the UK) to major crashes on the stock markets and bankruptcy. As a result many speculative lines were created and while some, especially at first, served a real need, not all did. Also even more lines were started... and never finished...]

If we are talking about Civil War railroads (this is CivilWarTalk), then you are completely wrong. Roads were built by local people and their states to increase land value and increase the opportunity to get cash crops to market more reliably. I know of no Southerner who got rich off railroads -- do you?

 

[DaveBrt]

In other words, there was government subsidy involved. BTW, I didn't ask about just the South, but the country in general. As an amateur, it looks to me like every time a railroad made money, speculators got rich. When they failed, taxpayers got hosed.

It's a good thing we're not allowed modern politics around here.

The state money was intended to buy the rails. The roads had to pay for the grading, bridges, buildings and rolling stock.

"Every time the railroads made money the speculators got rich." Care to give us some CW era examples? Many railroads published their lists of stockholders with each annual report. There are rarely any shareholders with more than 20 shares of stock. Where are the speculators?

 

[Hussar Yeomanry]

Maybe I mispoke.

The question spoke of 'the nineteenth century' and in my haste I provided a picture of that which was (or was about to happen) in the North. I accept that the South may have been different, the North far closer to how things were or indeed had been in England. (Finally England was starting to clean up its act... just in time for the North to copy its previous excesses).

 

[DaveBrt]

Maybe I mispoke.

The question spoke of 'the nineteenth century' and in my haste I provided a picture of that which was (or was about to happen) in the North. I accept that the South may have been different, the North far closer to how things were or indeed had been in England. (Finally England was starting to clean up its act... just in time for the North to copy its previous excesses).

"Nineteenth century transportation" needs to be defined for a rational discussion to be had. Travel in 1805 was nothing like travel in 1895.

 

[jgoodguy]

Some links. FWIW
Evaluating Antebellum Railroads - Western Political Science Association
Who Financed the Transportation Revolution? Regional ... - jstor
Railroads and Economic Growth in the Antebellum United States
Southern Antebellum Railroads: A Retrospective - H-Net

 

[John S. Carter]

Why should the South invest more in railroads than they did? They had economic needs to be fulfilled, and the railroads they built filled those needs. Yes, they would have been connected and expanded over time, but the main need -- getting the cotton crop to market -- was being met.

Steamboats were useful, but the periodic low waters gave rise to even more railroads to go around the low water areas.[/QUOTE Were most of the tracks just interstate ? The North had tracks which went across state lines which made their systems more effective. It is that the Germans built the Auto Bond for the military,and the Eisenhower administration built the interstate roads for military .Both was to speed the transport of men and goods across the nation. Forgot,Teddy wanted the Panama canal to move the Navy from East to West or West to East coast.These in turn aided the economic growth of these countries .The South failed to realize the essential use of it to move its goods not just cotton.As to the argument for steamboats,they had limitations as to weight,and the weather,rivers do not always have the same depth or capacity .how many boats can a river carry,and the ever present danger of fire.Question ; Did the federal government assist the North in its rail construction and negate the South or did the states refuse their aid ,violation to states rights or fear of federal control may be a part of this . .

 

[John S. Carter]

This has been addressed, above. Keep in mind though, the South is a lot wetter than other regions of the country and there were in the mid-19th century extensive transport networks along her rivers.

Steamboats are far less capital intensive than railroads, which really dug in only after the war and probably with federal subsidies. Maybe @DaveBrt can shed more light on this.

Has there been any research as to the economic benefits verses the rail? Steamboats are romantic but one spark and the capital investment could be gone in thirty min. The rivers were not always navigable .There was a certain weight limit for cotton,adding the other cargo which was carried and passengers.As to ground tectonics,engineers were able in time to consider answers to these problems, read the history of the transcontinental railroad .a wet ground would be easier to solve that how to go thought the Rockies,

 

[John S. Carter]

She, the South, invested as much as she could for what she needed / could afford. @Carronade was spot on. There was no regional over arching plan coordinating these efforts. They were individual efforts to provide for a local plan.

Cheers,
USS ALASKA

It this is the case,on just the economics ,the South should not have succeeded.There must have been Southern leaders who recognized the South's weakness in comparison to the North/East.Then by that time it would not have changed the determination of those who desired and had planed this for so long.The boss does not want to be told that he is doing that which is foolish,unless the ones doing the telling do not mind being ostracized from the club or worse.

 

[Drew]

Has there been any research as to the economic benefits verses the rail? Steamboats are romantic but one spark and the capital investment could be gone in thirty min. The rivers were not always navigable .There was a certain weight limit for cotton,adding the other cargo which was carried and passengers.As to ground tectonics,engineers were able in time to consider answers to these problems, read the history of the transcontinental railroad .a wet ground would be easier to solve that how to go thought the Rockies,

Some of what @jgoodguy posted at #76 will address your question on economic benefit.

With respect to "one spark," that is not really true. Antebellum steamboats used "high pressure" engines, because A) the additional power they provided was necessary to fight prevailing river current and B) they were less expensive than "low pressure" steam engines that were safer, but less powerful. The latter were used in locals without significant current, Northern U.S. and European rivers/canals, IIRC.

Steam engines exploded due internal failure and not external "spark." Railroad locomotives were equally susceptible (AFIK) to failure and explosion.

The loss of a locomotive can't possibly have been much different than the loss of a steamboat, economically. That's not including cargo and is only my own best guess.