Transportation Revolution

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.
IMHO a ship boiler explodes and you lose the ship, cargo, and men. In a locomotive boiler explosion, you lose the locomotive and likely nothing else.
 
IMHO a ship boiler explodes and you lose the ship, cargo, and men. In a locomotive boiler explosion, you lose the locomotive and likely nothing else.

Actually, you lose the men operating the locomotive. They were important, too.

If the explosion derails the train, you could also lose the "cargo." Maybe it could be salvaged from the side of the rail road, but still.
 
Actually, you lose the men operating the locomotive. They were important, too.

If the explosion derails the train, you could also lose the "cargo." Maybe it could be salvaged from the side of the rail road, but still.
OTOH
ing_-_a_practical_journal_of_railway_motive_power_and_rolling_stock_%281897%29_%2814761379935%29.jpg
The aftermath of a boiler explosion near Oslo Norway, 1893. One locomotive was thrown into the air and landed on the roof of another; the crews of both escaped without injury[1]
 
Though I am a 'railfan' and love trains I have wondered if the part of the transportation revolution that was most important was not the railroad, steam powered trains, but rather steam powered shipping. Railroads were easy to interdict, difficult and costly in manpower to defend and had nowhere near the carrying capacity of steam vessels to move goods. Whether it be the ability to maintain a naval blockade in all kinds of weather, moving goods on or across the great river systems or supplying a base of operations from a port, steam driven vessels were an essential component to Union victory in the war. Railroads were also an important part of that war but in most cases they served ports, river ports or seaports and it was from these emporia, supplied by steam driven shipping that they delivered the goods inland. I would rank steam powered ships as far more important than the paved turnpikes and canals of the period we call the transportation revolution, and at least the equal of the railroads in the fighting and winning of the war. I would argue that the Confederacy could lose the rail hubs of Chattanooga, Jackson and Atlanta and still carry on the war for a long period, but that losing Vicksburg, New Orleans, Mobile and Wilmington were fatal to the Confederacy's viability and that it was steam driven vessels that made that possible.
 
Last edited:
I would argue that the Confederacy could lose the rail hubs of Chattanooga, Jackson and Atlanta and still carry on the war for a long period, but that losing Vicksburg, New Orleans, Mobile and Wilmington were fatal to the Confederacy's viability and that it was steam driven vessels that made that possible.

I've posted it before and can dig it up if necessary, but there is primary source evidence that Indiana Governor Oliver Morton threatened Abraham Lincoln with secession from the Union, if the Mississippi River could not be brought under Union control, in its entirety.

Yes, ports and navigation were critical to all in the mid-19th century. Railroads be danged.
 
I've posted it before and can dig it up if necessary, but there is primary source evidence that Indiana Governor Oliver Morton threatened Abraham Lincoln with secession from the Union, if the Mississippi River could not be brought under Union control, in its entirety.

Yes, ports and navigation were critical to all in the mid-19th century. Railroads be danged.
IMO Secessions belong in the Secession and Politics forums. Best not to disturb the peace here.
 
IMO Secessions belong in the Secession and Politics forums. Best not to disturb the peace here.

Except, my point is directly related to the issue at hand, transportation in the mid 19th century. It was hugely important to everyone.

Forum 'rules of evidence' are often invoked here, to restrict an open discussion in favor of prevailing arguments. This happens to everyone's detriment.
 
Except, my point is directly related to the issue at hand, transportation in the mid 19th century. It was hugely important to everyone.

Forum 'rules of evidence' are often invoked here, to restrict an open discussion in favor of prevailing arguments. This happens to everyone's detriment.

There was a lot of pressure on Lincoln to open the Mississippi to riverboat traffic.
OTOH railroads offered an alternative.
American Civil War: Clearing the Mississippi

The Mississippi had been the most important transport link in the United States until just before the outbreak of the civil war. By 1861, the new railway network had reduced the importance of river traffic, especially from what is now the mid-west (then considered to be the north west). However, Chicago merchants who had depended on the river for their access to the outside world for generations were to take
some time to realise this. Control of the Mississippi was seen as essential by both sides.
Economic

The Civil War forever altered Indiana's economy. Despite hardships during the war, Indiana's economic situation improved. Farmers received higher prices for their agricultural products, railroads and commercial businesses thrived in the state's cities and towns, and manpower shortages gave laborers more bargaining power. The war also helped establish a national banking system to replace state-chartered banking institutions; by 1862 there were thirty-one national banks in the state. Wartime prosperity was particularly evident in Indianapolis, whose population more than doubled during the war, reaching 45,000 at the end of 1864
Looks like plenty of railroads in Indiana with access to eastern markets.

Midwest-Railroads-Map-c1860.png

Midwest Railroads Map, circa 1860, showing the Madison and Indianapolis [M&I], Terre Haute and Richmond [TH&R], and component roads of the Bee Line: Cleveland, Columbus and Cincinnati [CC&C]; Bellefontaine and Indiana [B&I]; Indianapolis and Bellefontaine [I&B], courtesy of Erin Greb Cartography.
In short, Mississippi river offered low cost access to the Gulf and the Atlanta, but there were RR alternative routes and in the end, the markets moved eastwards.
 
Last edited:
I've posted it before and can dig it up if necessary, but there is primary source evidence that Indiana Governor Oliver Morton threatened Abraham Lincoln with secession from the Union, if the Mississippi River could not be brought under Union control, in its entirety.

Yes, ports and navigation were critical to all in the mid-19th century. Railroads be danged.

I recall that thread for some reason, Drew. And it seems, that despite all the evidence that was presented there against your opinions of Morton is this matter, you continue to present them. Perhaps we can pick up where we left off? In that thread.

https://civilwartalk.com/threads/who-was-oliver-p-morton.140782/page-2#post-1701902
 
Last edited:
OTOH railroads offered an alternative.

The big antebellum explosion in expansion happened between 1850 and 1860. In 1850, the US had 9,000 miles of track. By 1860, that number had jumped to over 30,500. This growth was not spread evenly across the network. New England grew by less than 1200 miles. The Mid-Atlantic doubled to 6700 miles. The South went from about 2000 to 8800. But the real kick-butt growth was the old North-West. Less than 1300 to over 11,000. The majority of this happened in Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois. As the below map demonstrates, those states had a spider-web of rail access by 1860

A02A19A1.jpg


While a lot of these had end-of-line at ports on the Great Lakes, which were not open year-round, they had access to the Big Four (NYC, Penn, B & O, Erie) to transship to the East.

Source - https://www.amazon.com/dp/B003U4WFH4/?tag=civilwartalkc-20

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.

That wouldn't be the first or last time national leaders ignored or disregarded the voice of reason. Japanese that had visited and toured the US knew of the industrial capacity inherent within her borders. Yamamoto pointed this out repeatedly. However, this did not fall in line with the 'group-think' decision and the route they decided to take.

Cheers,
USS ALASKA
 
What is interesting here is a potential danger to the Union. If one looks at the map one can notice that the connection between the (Old) Northwest and the East Coast was not entirely secure. Those east west connections were the New York Central through northern NY from Buffalo, along the earlier Erie Canal route to the Hudson, the Erie, again from Buffalo to NYC but using a different gauge, the Pennsylvania RR over the Alleghenies from Pittsburg to Philadelphia and the B&O from Wheeling to Baltimore. While the South had little chance of interdicting rail traffic in NY state, it had plenty of opportunity to cut the B&O in several places and it did several times. The Union had to use a good deal of manpower to keep that line open. Take a close look at the PRR route. Its east west connection came to a bottleneck near Harrisburg and the Susquehanna. Had the Confederacy been able to cut the B&O and take down the Harrisburg bridges over the Harrisburg Susquehanna trackage, the North would have been left with one east-west route, that of the NY Central and Erie. That route came down the Hudson (or upper Delaware) to NYC and the ports of the city but had never been designed to move traffic out of the city and further south. It could be done but the congestion would have created bottlenecks of considerable delay trying to move trains around NYC. The Union was fortunate that in the summer of 1863 Confederate forces did not have the time or equipment to take down those bridges and cut that line. Had that happened, and the B&O taken out at the same time, it would have caused serious problems for the Northern war effort.
 
@kevikens

it had plenty of opportunity to cut the B&O in several places and it did several times. The Union had to use a good deal of manpower to keep that line open. Take a close look at the PRR route. Its east west connection came to a bottleneck near Harrisburg and the Susquehanna. Had the Confederacy been able to cut the B&O and take down the Harrisburg bridges over the Harrisburg Susquehanna trackage, the North would have been left with one east-west route, that of the NY Central and Erie.

The B & O - broken at times but never complete shut down. And to disable the Penn for any length of time would have required actions WAY deeper in Union territory than the B & O.

Sir, given the threads on the Battle of Gettysburg forum, even if the South had been able to get to the Harrisburg bridges and take them out, I don't believe she could have held the area long enough to cause more than a minor short-term inconvenience. A 'bean-pole and corn stalk' replacement would have gone up quickly and traffic would have resumed. Kinda reminds me of discussions about the Japanese taking the Hawaiian Islands during Pearl Harbor. She just didn't have the logistic train to support such 'far-away-from-home' military actions to have a meaningful impact on the overall outcome.

Cheers!
USS ALASKA
 
@kevikens



The B & O - broken at times but never complete shut down. And to disable the Penn for any length of time would have required actions WAY deeper in Union territory than the B & O.
Depends on what you mean by "completely shut down." When Jackson broke the line in June 1861, the connection between western Virginia and Washington, D. C. remained broken for 10 months.
 
@kevikens



The B & O - broken at times but never complete shut down. And to disable the Penn for any length of time would have required actions WAY deeper in Union territory than the B & O.

Sir, given the threads on the Battle of Gettysburg forum, even if the South had been able to get to the Harrisburg bridges and take them out, I don't believe she could have held the area long enough to cause more than a minor short-term inconvenience. A 'bean-pole and corn stalk' replacement would have gone up quickly and traffic would have resumed. Kinda reminds me of discussions about the Japanese taking the Hawaiian Islands during Pearl Harbor. She just didn't have the logistic train to support such 'far-away-from-home' military actions to have a meaningful impact on the overall outcome.

Cheers!
USS ALASKA
The Susquehanna at Harrisburg is not the Potomac Creek north of Fredericksburg. There was a reason for iron truss bridges at this location, and later a lengthy stone arch bridge..
 
Understood sir, however while the Susquehanna can be considered a 'mighty' river, many caveats need to be used.

It is the longest river on the East coast.

It is the 16th-largest river in the United States.

It is the longest river in the United States without commercial boat traffic...

...because while being very wide at certain points, it is also very shallow.

To repair any damage caused by Confederate raiders, we aren't talking about this...

usmrr-bridge-l.jpg


we are talking about this...

harvey-taylor-bridge-aerial-5edff26c45a32b63.jpg


There are times in the summer you can walk across without getting your knees wet.

It would not be that big of a deal, construction wise, to restore traffic service with no adversarial forces around.

I've been around the river since 1970 and crossed over it in the Harrisburg area every day for 25 years. Done a lot of river recreation in these very areas. In the railroad bridge locations, it just isn't very deep, fast flowing, or treacherous - just wide

Cheers,
USS ALASKA
 
Last edited:
Though I am a 'railfan' and love trains I have wondered if the part of the transportation revolution that was most important was not the railroad, steam powered trains, but rather steam powered shipping.

Sir, I agree that in a free form economic system, both may compete in certain areas of warm coastal / riverine water. In a war-time logistical system, I believe both of them to be complimentary. The rails to be the tactical / operational and the ship borne to be operational / strategic. Unless it is the case of supplying Port Royal where all deliveries are tac / op / strat. And yes sir, there was some over lap.

Cheers,
USS ALASKA
 
Understood sir, however while the Susquehanna can be considered a 'mighty' river, many caveats need to be used.

It is the longest river on the East coast.

It is the 16th-largest river in the United States.

It is the longest river in the United States without commercial boat traffic...

...because while being very wide at certain points, it is also very shallow.

To repair any damage caused by Confederate raiders, we aren't talking about this...

View attachment 174317

we are talking about this...

View attachment 174318

There are times in the summer you can walk across without getting your knees wet.

It would not be that big of a deal, construction wise, to restore traffic service with no adversarial forces around.

I've been around the river since 1970 and crossed over it in the Harrisburg area every day for 25 years. Done a lot of river recreation in these very areas. In the railroad bridge locations, it just isn't very deep, fast flowing, or treacherous - just wide

Cheers,
USS ALASKA
OK, I concede, with hybrid corn stalks and Jack and the bean stalk sized poles, Haupt could have pulled it off, except when something like Hurricane Agnes dumped so much fresh water into the Susquehanna drainage in the early 1970's the Chesapeake below it was fresh water from Coniwingo to Cape Charles.
 
Back
Top