Did the North win the Civil War because of Railroads?

[John Bell Hood]

As a US army veteran who specialized in Transportation Management in the Army it is my belief that the South lost the war because even today the most cost effective way to move troops, supplies and heavy equipment is by train. That is why almost all major battles between the war between the states where at rail junctions. There was zero number of locomotives produced in the South after the war began, The amount of rail produced annually by the North (220,000) and South (26,000) at start of war, Rail mileage laid annually in the North (4,000) and South (400) during the conflict, There were six railroads serving Richmond but not one interchanged with each other; you had to transfer goods by hand hauling across town to reload on other trains, train speed dropped from 25 mph in 1861 to only 10 mph in 1863, southern train depots couldn't supply wood and trains had to stop along the way to chop and load wood as needed, accidents happened because no reliable telegraphs, Union troops destroying tunnels and burning bridges along with their Sherman neckties heating rails and wrapping around trees surely didn't help and raised the average cost of new cast-iron wheels in the South in 1861 ($15) compared to 1865 ($500). The major Southern rail centers were Chattanooga, Atlanta, and most important, Richmond and very little track was laid west of the missisippi. In Conclusion for all the above reasons it is my strong belief that the reason the south lost the war is because of transportation management. As a side note the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan involved a far greater movement of troops, supplies, and equipment at the outset than D-Day during WWII. What do you think?

[Saccadon]

I think the South lost because it made the mistake of invading Pennsylvania. As far as I know, at least when Stonewall Jackson was alive, the South was winning the war while on the defensive.

[Saccadon]

Also thank you for your service, sir!

[William F. Randolph]

There were many factors, this was one of them.

[GeorgeCrecy]

As Sgt. Soldier mentioned, railroad access certainly was a very important part of transporting the vast number of troops as you mentioned, but while it certainly was a large contributing factor, I would not say that it was the only one to northern victory. You also had other factors to that hurt such things, such as the needs for there to be a factory base to make those wheels you mentioned, or the mining base to support making new rails vs. making guns instead, which we see them substituting brass in many Confederate pieces due to the lack of resources. There was also a blockade in place, which also prompted the markets to look for cheaper sources of cotton in India and Egypt, further adding to the resource woes of the south. We see the changes in tactics you mentioned with Grant and Sherman who began to pursue total war, further creating a problem as what little economic resources that were available to begin with being destroyed or taken. So again, while certainly transportation plays a very important role, I would not say that it is the only one factor which won the war.

And like Saccadon said, thank you for your service, my dear sir!

[Conway]

I think that telegraphs also played a vital role in the outcome of the war. It would allow to better organize transportation and inform generals on a more strategic scale.

[thomas aagaard]

When we are talking movement of troops the CSA was actually a lot better at it than the union. They managed to use the railroads both at the operational level at the start of the war at 1st Bull run* and at the strategic level with Longstreet in late 63.

The Union naval supremacy was a much bigger deal. It was the navy that was able to keep Both McClellan supplies in 1862 and Later Grant supplied in 64-65 when they came south of Richmond.

But in general the armies where supplied just like Napoleons army was. By wagons pulled by draft animals... and sometimes by foraging.





*And just before someone mention the usual myth.
This was not the first time railroads was used during war... This had been done back in 1848 by a number of European armies.

[David Dire]

As Conway also mentioned, I believe, and have for awhile, that one of the major reasons the south lost was due to Lincoln, and how, specifically, he priortized railroads and telegrams as an essential thing in the war. I do not think the two caused the south to lose, however, and that it just helped. The loss at Gettysburg thanks to Lee was probably the Confederacy's biggest downfall, and Sherman's "Total War" finally crippling the south.

[FrancisM]

I don't think there is ever a sole reason for a war to be won or lost. The CSA had much less supplies and manpower compared to the north anyway, regardless of how well it could be transported. The Union could replace lost equipment and casualties much better than the North; they had the luxury of naval surpremacy which, as mentioned before, meant they could invade anywhere, anytime with pretty much impunity and suffocate the south economically. Then again, it was also this lack of industry and manpower that forced the south to try out new tactics that gave them local superiority in the beginning of the war.

[A. P. Hill]

Not solely ...