The Texas Ports were Meaningless ...

5fish

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2019
Messages
10,626
Reaction score
4,544
I put this under railroads because it's more about railroads than about ports. There were no railroads from the Texas ports to the Mississippi River, New Orleans, Vicksburg, and etc.. The Texas ports only helped Texas not the rest of the Confederacy. Maybe there is a famous wagon train trail from Texas to the Mississippi the Confederate used, I doubt it. It seems the Texas ports were meanless in the Confederate war effort out east during the war.

Now, this really lessens the importance of Vicksburg in the Union war effort because cutting the Confederacy in half really did not dodo that because it was not connected to Texas anyway. I read about the rail line at Vicksburg but it did not go to Texas. It was destroyed during the war. I am starting to see history hype about the importance of Texas ports and General Grant's victory at Vicksburg... The true story is there were no railroads from Texas to the Mississippi River...
 

5fish

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2019
Messages
10,626
Reaction score
4,544
No beef...

No railroads mean no beef for the Confederate army... I did not find any cattle drives to the Mississippi River...

It seems Texas did not supply much beef to the Confederate army as their ports did not supply any war materials... No cows for the boys in gray or butternut... It seems Texas only supply manpower to the war... you know one reason no trains...

The first cattle drives headed West from Texas to San Francisco to the area where gold miners could be found (1849). Cattle ranchers could sell their cattle for 5-20 times the amount they could in Texas. The cattle market in California dropped along with gold mining. When the Civil War erupted (1861), many cattle herds were left behind on the open range. Cattle ranching halted for a time; however, the longhorn population grew as they continued to graze and reproduce on the prairie. After the war (1865), large cattle herds and consumer demand in cities resulted in cattle drives to locations where the railroad had a railhead. These towns were called "cow towns." When the animals arrived they would be sold and sorted for distribution to cities for slaughter and market.

https://www.agclassroom.org/me/matrix/lessonplan_print.cfm?lpid=268


The cattle drive was not a novel concept. In the prewar years Texans drove beef on a small scale to the goldfields of California and the Rockies, and to the forts and reservations of the Southwest. But when the war ended in 1865, the South faced an economic collapse of staggering proportions, and Texas was no exception. One resource Texans had in plenty, however, was cattle. During the war, Texas cattle—almost exclusively of the temperamental, slab-sided, long-horned variety—had been roaming wild and procreating, with no local market in sight. One old-time trail drover recalled: “By the time the war was over they was down to $4 a head—when you could find a buyer. Here was all these cheap long-horned steers overrunning Texas; here was the rest of the country crying for beef—and no railroads to get them out. So they trailed them out, across hundreds of miles of wild country that was thick with Indians.”

https://www.historynet.com/long-trail-life-cattle-drive.htm

Some ranchers held contracts to supply beef to frontier forts and to Indian reservations in West Texas, Oklahoma and New Mexico beginning in the late 1850s. Cattle ranching virtually halted during the Civil War years, as the frontier retreated. Beginning in 1866, however, ranching – and cattle trailing – expanded rapidly.

https://texasalmanac.com/topics/agriculture/cattle-drives-started-earnest-after-civil-war
 

5fish

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2019
Messages
10,626
Reaction score
4,544
I looked around and found that Manpower was the asset they had... but only a third went east to help the war effort most stayed home... I see an island forming... lol

https://tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/qdc02

By the end of 1861, 25,000 Texans were in the Confederate army. Two-thirds of these were in the cavalry, the branch of service preferred by Texans. Lt. Col. Arthur Fremantle of the British Coldstream Guards, who visited Texas during the war, observed this fondness for cavalry service: "it was found very difficult to raise infantry in Texas," he said, "as no Texan walks a yard if he can help it." Governor Clark observed that "the predilection of Texans for cavalry service, founded as it is upon their peerless horsemanship, is so powerful that they are unwilling in many instances to engage in service of any other description unless required by actual necessity."

Here:

Approximately 90,000 Texans saw military service in the war. Governor Lubbock reported to the legislature in November 1863 that the army numbered 90,000 Texas residents, but this figure seems high for Texans in service at any one time. The 1860 federal census lists 92,145 white males between the ages of eighteen and forty-five years living in the state. Allowing for a slight increase in population during the four years of the war and considering that some Texans younger than eighteen and older than fifty served, one may say that between 100,000 and 110,000 Texans were potential soldiers.

Here:

Two-thirds of the Texans enrolled in the military spent the war in the Southwest, either defending the state from Indian attacks and Union invasion or participating in expansionist moves into New Mexico Territory. One regiment, recruited mainly in the Houston area, served under the colorful Rip Ford in South Texas. Ford commanded the military district of the Rio Grande, which extended from the mouth of the river for more than 1,000 miles to above El Paso. During the course of the war, Ford's men battled Union invaders, hostile Comanches, and Mexican raiders led by Juan N. Cortina.
 

Kirk's Raider's

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 16, 2019
Messages
2,251
Reaction score
922
I put this under railroads because it's more about railroads than about ports. There were no railroads from the Texas ports to the Mississippi River, New Orleans, Vicksburg, and etc.. The Texas ports only helped Texas not the rest of the Confederacy. Maybe there is a famous wagon train trail from Texas to the Mississippi the Confederate used, I doubt it. It seems the Texas ports were meanless in the Confederate war effort out east during the war.

Now, this really lessens the importance of Vicksburg in the Union war effort because cutting the Confederacy in half really did not dodo that because it was not connected to Texas anyway. I read about the rail line at Vicksburg but it did not go to Texas. It was destroyed during the war. I am starting to see history hype about the importance of Texas ports and General Grant's victory at Vicksburg... The true story is there were no railroads from Texas to the Mississippi River...
I have a thread on CWT " Mexico's role in subverting the Union blockade". Per my sources Mexico played an important role in subverting the blockade until the Union seized Brownsville Texas. After Vicksburg the Union withdrew from Brownsville and the Confederacy retook Galveston.
Imported weapons via Mexico to Texas did get to the East but not after Brownsville fell to the Union.
Kirk's Raiders
 

5fish

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2019
Messages
10,626
Reaction score
4,544
I found the trail the Confederacy used to move troops east...

 

diane

that gal
Joined
Mar 18, 2020
Messages
2,412
Reaction score
3,045
The King Ranch was the exception! They did well - almost had an army of their own, anyway.
 

5fish

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2019
Messages
10,626
Reaction score
4,544
The Opelousas Trail was part of the Old Spanish Trail...


1704735413029.png

The Opelousas Trail history was elcipes by these trails..

1704735493010.png
 

Union8448

Active Member
Joined
May 16, 2023
Messages
254
Reaction score
78
Texas had a very limited population during the Civil War decade and not all those men supported the Confederacy. Since the population was limited, the fraction of Confederate cotton production originating in Texas also had to be limited. Texas became something like modern Texas after 1870. From that time forward cotton production in Texas was a large factor in squeezing the world price for raw cotton downward.
As for Vicksburg, once the US had ships on the river both above Vicksburg and below Vicksburg, and Grant's force occupied the Vicksburg to Jackson railroad line, Vicksburg was useless to the Confederacy. It wasn't useless to the US. It was a huge political gain for the US administration. And it turned New Orleans into an affordable operational base. The entire western river system became a big cost reduction asset for the US after Vicksburg fell to Grant's army.
We don't know how much US control of the Mississippi River convinced a lot of people in the west to give up on the Confederacy and go back to normal.
 

diane

that gal
Joined
Mar 18, 2020
Messages
2,412
Reaction score
3,045
Texas had a very limited population during the Civil War decade and not all those men supported the Confederacy. Since the population was limited, the fraction of Confederate cotton production originating in Texas also had to be limited. Texas became something like modern Texas after 1870. From that time forward cotton production in Texas was a large factor in squeezing the world price for raw cotton downward.
As for Vicksburg, once the US had ships on the river both above Vicksburg and below Vicksburg, and Grant's force occupied the Vicksburg to Jackson railroad line, Vicksburg was useless to the Confederacy. It wasn't useless to the US. It was a huge political gain for the US administration. And it turned New Orleans into an affordable operational base. The entire western river system became a big cost reduction asset for the US after Vicksburg fell to Grant's army.
We don't know how much US control of the Mississippi River convinced a lot of people in the west to give up on the Confederacy and go back to normal.
Control of the rivers was very important - getting the Mississippi was crucial. I've always maintained the opinion that the Confederacy's defeat was assured after the fall of Ft Donelson. That gave the Union unfettered control of the Tennessee and Cumberland rivers and access to the Deep South. No recovery from that loss! It led to the collapse of A S Johnston's plans, the loss of Kentucky, the fall of Nashville, Shiloh and the whole domino effect continued until the end.
 

Union8448

Active Member
Joined
May 16, 2023
Messages
254
Reaction score
78
Control of the rivers was very important - getting the Mississippi was crucial. I've always maintained the opinion that the Confederacy's defeat was assured after the fall of Ft Donelson. That gave the Union unfettered control of the Tennessee and Cumberland rivers and access to the Deep South. No recovery from that loss! It led to the collapse of A S Johnston's plans, the loss of Kentucky, the fall of Nashville, Shiloh and the whole domino effect continued until the end.
The enormous counter attack at Shiloh church could not have changed the war, even if it had succeeded. Grant was disposable at that point. And the US could have evacuated a large part of the Tennessee army with its transports. But the attack did not make any sense. The Confederates were pushing the US toward a river that was occupied by the US naval forces. The Confederate won for awhile mainly because Lew Wallace and his flanking division got a bit lost on the backcountry roads.
No matter what happened at Shiloh, the Island No. 10 garrison was going to be forced to surrender and Farragut was going to steam up river to New Orleans. What was left of the Confederacy after Louisiana, Arkansas and Texas were mostly isolated? Only the old south. And then the bleeding began in earnest.
 

diane

that gal
Joined
Mar 18, 2020
Messages
2,412
Reaction score
3,045
The enormous counter attack at Shiloh church could not have changed the war, even if it had succeeded. Grant was disposable at that point. And the US could have evacuated a large part of the Tennessee army with its transports. But the attack did not make any sense. The Confederates were pushing the US toward a river that was occupied by the US naval forces. The Confederate won for awhile mainly because Lew Wallace and his flanking division got a bit lost on the backcountry roads.
No matter what happened at Shiloh, the Island No. 10 garrison was going to be forced to surrender and Farragut was going to steam up river to New Orleans. What was left of the Confederacy after Louisiana, Arkansas and Texas were mostly isolated? Only the old south. And then the bleeding began in earnest.
Scott's Anaconda Plan worked very well, especially when the Confederates abandoned defense of almost all their ports. There wasn't much to defend them with and the Union built a modern navy in world record time. The best the Confederates could do was rely on privateers like the CSS Alabama and Mallory did his best to scrounge a navy up. His man James Bulloch was in England trying to beg, borrow, or even steal some British ships and there was the matter of the Laird rams. These ships would have been a very interesting factor in the naval war had they been delivered, and would have been but for Lincoln's spymaster Thomas Dudley. He couldn't stop Bulloch's dramatic escape with the Alabama - he and the Liverpool port authorities were literally running alongside the ship yelling, "Stop! Pirates!" - but he did stop Britain's turn-a-blind-eye policy as to Confederate operations in their country. Quite a story with Dudley!

The Confederate policy about the naval aspects made Brownsville/Matamoros and the King Ranch in Texas very significant.
 

Union8448

Active Member
Joined
May 16, 2023
Messages
254
Reaction score
78
Scott's Anaconda Plan worked very well, especially when the Confederates abandoned defense of almost all their ports. There wasn't much to defend them with and the Union built a modern navy in world record time. The best the Confederates could do was rely on privateers like the CSS Alabama and Mallory did his best to scrounge a navy up. His man James Bulloch was in England trying to beg, borrow, or even steal some British ships and there was the matter of the Laird rams. These ships would have been a very interesting factor in the naval war had they been delivered, and would have been but for Lincoln's spymaster Thomas Dudley. He couldn't stop Bulloch's dramatic escape with the Alabama - he and the Liverpool port authorities were literally running alongside the ship yelling, "Stop! Pirates!" - but he did stop Britain's turn-a-blind-eye policy as to Confederate operations in their country. Quite a story with Dudley!

The Confederate policy about the naval aspects made Brownsville/Matamoros and the King Ranch in Texas very significant.
It is speculation, but I think some people in Britain had to consider the question, what if the US takes the fast cruisers they are building and before they become armed, sells them to Russia? And what if, during a period of peace, the US sells armed vessels to Russia? The informal comity between the US and Russia during the US Civil War could not have gone unnoticed.
 

diane

that gal
Joined
Mar 18, 2020
Messages
2,412
Reaction score
3,045
It is speculation, but I think some people in Britain had to consider the question, what if the US takes the fast cruisers they are building and before they become armed, sells them to Russia? And what if, during a period of peace, the US sells armed vessels to Russia? The informal comity between the US and Russia during the US Civil War could not have gone unnoticed.
We should do a thread on Russian America! There were good reasons for the Russian Empire to support the Union - they had always considered America a cushion between them and Britain. The two countries had fought over resources mainly regarding ship building such as timber, hemp, turpentine, etc. which was pre-independence coming from the countries around the Baltic. As colonies, Britain didn't have to fight the Russians for ship building resources.

The British already wanted American ships, due to remarkable innovations by Humphries and other American ship builders, and due to certain types of oak available only in southern America, the live oak. Admiral Horatio Nelson observed the USS Constitution working its way through Gibraltar and loved the smooth way they handled, how much more armament they could carry, and their speed. He also could have used them at the battle of Copenhagen because of their shallow draft - this was a battle between Britain and Russia through Denmark over the above-mentioned resources. The loss of the American colonies was a blow to Britain they hadn't foreseen, but one the Russians found favorable. Forward to the Civil War, the Russians had holdings in Alaska, Hawaii, and California - and were one of several countries vying for disputed land in Canada and the Pacific Northwest. So, it was not a surprise when their navy showed up in San Francisco Bay during a the-Confederates-are-coming scare. (The local militia had one extremely rusty cannon from the old Spanish presidio at Yuerba Buena which hadn't been fired since the Spanish were there...so when the Russian navy hove into view was a great relief!)

So, you see how this would have brought the Russian-British rivalry to the American civil war, and that was something Lincoln could not afford! One war at a time, was how he put it.
 

Union8448

Active Member
Joined
May 16, 2023
Messages
254
Reaction score
78
We should do a thread on Russian America! There were good reasons for the Russian Empire to support the Union - they had always considered America a cushion between them and Britain. The two countries had fought over resources mainly regarding ship building such as timber, hemp, turpentine, etc. which was pre-independence coming from the countries around the Baltic. As colonies, Britain didn't have to fight the Russians for ship building resources.

The British already wanted American ships, due to remarkable innovations by Humphries and other American ship builders, and due to certain types of oak available only in southern America, the live oak. Admiral Horatio Nelson observed the USS Constitution working its way through Gibraltar and loved the smooth way they handled, how much more armament they could carry, and their speed. He also could have used them at the battle of Copenhagen because of their shallow draft - this was a battle between Britain and Russia through Denmark over the above-mentioned resources. The loss of the American colonies was a blow to Britain they hadn't foreseen, but one the Russians found favorable. Forward to the Civil War, the Russians had holdings in Alaska, Hawaii, and California - and were one of several countries vying for disputed land in Canada and the Pacific Northwest. So, it was not a surprise when their navy showed up in San Francisco Bay during a the-Confederates-are-coming scare. (The local militia had one extremely rusty cannon from the old Spanish presidio at Yuerba Buena which hadn't been fired since the Spanish were there...so when the Russian navy hove into view was a great relief!)

So, you see how this would have brought the Russian-British rivalry to the American civil war, and that was something Lincoln could not afford! One war at a time, was how he put it.
There was a good deal of posturing. But the British must have perceived their interest in keeping it at that level. By October 1863 Admiral Milne visited New York City and that put the US and Britain on course for further co-operation.
 

Union8448

Active Member
Joined
May 16, 2023
Messages
254
Reaction score
78
I think that by July 1863 the Texans were functioning as independents. Its likely Grant had contacts in Texas that were telling him not to worry too much about Texas.
 

diane

that gal
Joined
Mar 18, 2020
Messages
2,412
Reaction score
3,045
There was a good deal of posturing. But the British must have perceived their interest in keeping it at that level. By October 1863 Admiral Milne visited New York City and that put the US and Britain on course for further co-operation.
The British also had a number of irons in the fire with the Ottomans, Egyptians, Afghans, and assorted European problems like the war in Crimea. That put them at odds with Russia and Lord Palmerston was not eager to unite France and Russia, or for them to create some Frankenstein alliance with the Union or the Confederacy. Lincoln wanted everybody out of his pool. Davis, on the other hand, would have loved to have France or Britain recognize them. (He would have been happy if Fiji recognized the Confederacy - one is all it took!)
 

diane

that gal
Joined
Mar 18, 2020
Messages
2,412
Reaction score
3,045
I think that by July 1863 the Texans were functioning as independents. Its likely Grant had contacts in Texas that were telling him not to worry too much about Texas.
I think by that date, after both Vicksburg and Gettysburg were under his belt, Grant didn't care about any point in the Trans-Mississippi. Unless the western Confederate cavalry regrouped there and refused to surrender. J O Shelby, Kirby-Smith, Forrest all still had viable armies and, if they did not surrender, would be a royal crick in Grant's neck. Shelby and Kirby-Smith did make a run for the border and were hoping Forrest would join them - he saw no survival value in that option and went back home to Tennessee. And, it was not likely the Mexicans would like the Confederates any better than they liked Maximillian!
 
Top