War on the Waters.

[wausaubob]

James M. McPherson University of North Carolina Press 2012.
1. McPherson is very fair to the Confederates.
2. The US naval power was eventually going overwhelm the Confederacy. If it had not happened in the 1860 decade, it would have happened with 1 generation. Navies were increasing based on steam engineering, iron and then steel. There was no way for the Confederacy to keep up, especially after June 1862. And the fighting vessels were becoming very expensive.
Journalists were and historians are mesmerized by the huge land battles. The Confederacy won many of those battles, certainly enough to win the battle of public opinion.
However starting with the Kearsage sinking the Alabama and ending with the capture of the Florida and the torpedoing of the Albermerle the navy produced a string of good news, all of which was welcome in New York/Brooklyn, the chief naval center of the time and the port headquarters of most of the fleet that remained American. And the navy followed that up by commander Lee helping Thomas at Nashville, re-establishing contact with Sherman, and then closing Fort Fisher in the second try.

 

[wausaubob]

And one other thing not mentioned by McPherson, the men on both sides who had participated in the Veracruz/Mexico City campaign of Winfield Scott, and had also crossed Panama and served on the Pacific coast, or in Sherman's case worked in San Francisco in private business had a big advantage on those who had never seen California. Even the Confederates such A.S. Johnston and Porter Alexander who had been to the Pacific had a much better understanding of what they were up against.
Grant belonged to that class, and got a prime department while Winfield Scott was still running things. But Halleck scooped up the officers with west coast experience too, both when he was in the west, and when he had overall command.

 

[wausaubob]

As I read McPherson I realized Semmes was the Forrest at sea. Like Forrest, Semmes was a hard corp defender of slavery. And like Forrest, there was a big mismatch between his naval talent, which was considerable, and the ship he had, the Alabama. Semmes burned some whaling ships and some fishing vessels. And since his ship was steam powered, he could run down sailing vessels. But he was never given a ship powerful enough to challenge the blockade, though his early adventures demonstrated he might have been able to do it. Semmes ran out of vulnerable targets. Bern Anderson made it clear that Semmes burned an American ship with legal British registry, thereby turning his own quarterdeck into an admiralty court. That put him outside international law. When he made it back to Europe Semmes did not put into an English port. And he got only strict neutrality from the French. I think he knew the gig was up, and he did not fight until he was back in the English Channel.
The Alabama was fine for chasing down unarmed sailing ships. And Semmes even sank a US fighting ship in the Gulf, once. But the freight that mattered to the US war effort originated in India or at Liverpool and could easily be carried on British ships or American ships re-registered as British. But a sailor of the talent could have accomplished much more with a better fighting vessel. But he still would have had to find a way to fight into and out of a Confederate port, in order to refit his ship. The Florida demonstrated that was possible, though risky.

 

[Drew]

Confederate Commerce Raiders all but destroyed the North's merchant fleet during the war. It's been said upthread that Semmes, "ran out of vulnerable targets." Yes, he destroyed most of them.

John Newland Maffitt was no slouch either. He commanded CSS Florida and destroyed upwards of 70 Northern prize ships worth over $10 million in the currency of the time.

These guys were formidable forces in their time and place.

 

[wausaubob]

Confederate Commerce Raiders all but destroyed the North's merchant fleet during the war. It's been said upthread that Semmes, "ran out of vulnerable targets." Yes, he destroyed most of them.

John Newland Maffitt was no slouch either. He commanded CSS Florida and destroyed upwards of 70 Northern prize ships worth over $10 million in the currency of the time.

These guys were formidable forces in their time and place.

Semmes caught almost exclusively sailing ships. Many US ships were sold to British owners. And the better steamers either plied the Liverpool to New York route, or were used to supply the US navy and the army on the Confederate coast. The idea that Semmes did significant injury to the US economy is popular, but without a factual basis.

 

[Drew]

Again, Confederate Commerce Raiders all but destroyed the Northern merchant fleet. Re-flagging ships to British registry for their safety at sea is indicative.

 

[wausaubob]

Again, Confederate Commerce Raiders all but destroyed the Northern merchant fleet. Re-flagging ships to British registry for their safety at sea is indicative.

Ummm, the US fleet included some ocean going ships. But it also included steamboats, canal boats and Great Lakes boats. And large parts of the US fleet were converted to military vessels, or were hired by the navy or the army as supply boats. Ships that are sold are not destroyed. They are exchanged, mainly to British sterling, which can then be used to by British supplies or converted back into US currency and war bonds. It isn't that difficult to understand. A ship that is sold to Britain can carry just as much Indian nitre as a ship that remains American.

 

[Drew]

Right, and a British-flagged ship can carry just as many arms and munitions to the Confederacy as a U.S.-flagged vessel, but that never happened. Sure.

 

[DaveBrt]

Again, Confederate Commerce Raiders all but destroyed the Northern merchant fleet. Re-flagging ships to British registry for their safety at sea is indicative.

I've seen this statement many, many, many times -- but no one has ever been able to show how this "destruction" of the US merchant fleet had any impact on the Confederacy's war aims.

 

[wausaubob]

I've seen this statement many, many, many times -- but no one has ever been able to show how this "destruction" of the US merchant fleet had any impact on the Confederacy's war aims.

Many of the vessels burned where sailing ships in the whaling industry, or fishing vessels. Bern Anderson stated the raiders caught 2 steamships and one revenue service steamship. Though David Porter recovered one of the steamships when it tried to make it to New Orleans under a prize crew.
The description I read stated the Semmes initially went to the Azores to hunt whaling ships. Once he completed that the US had already received a large amount of the essential freight it needed from Britain.
Semmes also caught the Ariel. But it was outward bound to Panama, and did not have a gold shipment. The passengers and marines on the Ariel were too many for Semmes to take on board, so he no choice but to bond the Ariel.
I suspect that after December 1863 both Semmes and his crew did not think the Confederacy was ever going to be able to enforce those bonds.
The issue is the US involvement in world merchant services was not an important part of the US economy by 1861 like it had been in 1803. And the raiders activity could disrupt that and it had no effect on the blockade or water borne logistics for the navy and the armies.
The raiders hurt one part of the 5M ton US civilian fleet, and that part was the least important to the US war effort.

 

[wausaubob]

And the Shenandoah largely sank sailing ships in the Bering Sea after the surrender at Appomattox.

 

[Drew]

I've seen this statement many, many, many times -- but no one has ever been able to show how this "destruction" of the US merchant fleet had any impact on the Confederacy's war aims.

With due respect, I think you're moving the goal posts here. The OP's assertion is essentially that Confederate Naval forces were doomed and ineffective from the start. That's really not true.

I believe the strategy was to attack the Northern merchant fleet in order to draw the Union Naval blockade away from the South in order to protect the former. It didn't work out that way, but the Confederates did succeed in doing major damage to the North's shipping industry.

Survivors re-flagged as British ships and merchant fleets from other nations took up the slack. That is why there wasn't major damage to the Northern economy, but again, that wasn't the goal, which was to take the heat off of Southern ports.

 

[DaveBrt]

With due respect, I think you're moving the goal posts here. The OP's assertion is essentially that Confederate Naval forces were doomed and ineffective from the start. That's really not true.

I believe the strategy was to attack the Northern merchant fleet in order to draw the Union Naval blockade away from the South in order to protect the former. It didn't work out that way, but the Confederates did succeed in doing major damage to the North's shipping industry.

Survivors re-flagged as British ships and merchant fleets from other nations took up the slack. That is why there wasn't major damage to the Northern economy, but again, that wasn't the goal, which was to take the heat off of Southern ports.

I was not replying to the OP, but to your statement that the South had all but destroyed the Union commercial fleet, as though that was something worthwhile and a feather in the Confederacy's cap.

 

[wausaubob]

With due respect, I think you're moving the goal posts here. The OP's assertion is essentially that Confederate Naval forces were doomed and ineffective from the start. That's really not true.

I believe the strategy was to attack the Northern merchant fleet in order to draw the Union Naval blockade away from the South in order to protect the former. It didn't work out that way, but the Confederates did succeed in doing major damage to the North's shipping industry.

Survivors re-flagged as British ships and merchant fleets from other nations took up the slack. That is why there wasn't major damage to the Northern economy, but again, that wasn't the goal, which was to take the heat off of Southern ports.

Either in the original round which was the historical Civil War, or in a renewed war, the industrial might of the US,. untouched by the Confederates and fueled by the massive manpower advantages of the US, was going to dominate the Confederacy.

 

[USS ALASKA]

I was not replying to the OP, but to your statement that the South had all but destroyed the Union commercial fleet, as though that was something worthwhile and a feather in the Confederacy's cap.

How Successful were Rebel Privateers and Commerce Raiders? | Naval War - At Sea & Along Inland Waterways

Arguably the Confederacy’s maritime efforts rank among its greatest wartime successes. Starting literally from scratch, the Confederacy immediately mustered a small but effective privateer fleet that not only met with some success, but forced the early resolution of the Confederacy’s status as a...

civilwartalk.com

Cheers,
USS ALASKA

 

[wausaubob]

That was an excellent thread.
The raiders sank ships. But they were almost all sailing ships and fishing ships. The US steamships could make a chase a drawn out, coal burning affair, with a good chance of getting assistance in a main shipping channel.
As to the value of the sailing ships, the US navy bought many of them and sank them first at Charleston and later in the James River.
Most of US ships that were sold off were probably obsolete, but had some limited use for low value freight or in the southern Pacific.
As for US spending priorities during the Civil War they were concentrated on the Atlantic Coast, the Gulf of Mexico, the internal rivers, the canals and Great Lakes where freight was essential to the US economy. Key routes through the Caribbean to Panama, and from Panama on the Pacific Coast to San Francisco were patrolled and maintained. I don't think Semmes and the Alabama ever caught a gold shipment. And railroad equipment went around the Horn to San Francisco to start the fledgling railroad industry of Sacramento.
On the key route from New York to Liverpool and to Hamburg, the British and German ships were already faster than the US ships and were taking over the high value passenger traffic.
So the raiders were disrupting the far flung US sailing fleet engaged in the world's merchant services. The British shipping industry benefited from the assistance.
But they did almost nothing to impinge on the US economy in the Midwest or the Pacific coast. And General Forrest was at least as disruptive to US river traffic as the Confederate raiders were on the high seas.