"Union Bias: Rating the Confederate Navy" Topic

Bob Down, in a letter to the editor published in Naval History magazine, complains that the Confederate Navy is seldom given due consideration:

The accomplishments of the Confederate Navy are staggering based on the fact that it was one-ninth the size of the Union Navy and had a small fleet of improvised vessels.

Do you agree that pro-Union bias continues to result in the Confederate Navy being underrated?

I have NEVER read any pro-Union bias. If anything, the exact opposite.

Confederate raiders and blockade are invariably depicted as dashing and daring, while the Union is depicted as plodding and brutal.

There are a few complaints about the raiders bringing in silk knickers and perfume rather than Enfield rifles, though.

I think that it is more a case of comparing the two very different missions of the Union and Confederate navies, and the bias comes because it is a lot easier to understand what the Union was trying to do.

The Union's mission was to use ships to establish an effective blockade and to bring about naval supremacy wherever they wanted it.

The Confederate mission was to foil the Union's advances by tying up Union resources with more than just ships(mines, torpedoes, stationary ironclads, etc.). Even though most Confederate ironclads never fought, they tied up an inordinate amount of Union resources.

How do you under-rate a navy which existed in the face of an over-whelming disadvantage in first instance? I doubt it is a Pro-Union-bias, merely the fact that the Confederate Navy had little to no chance of really doing much to harm the Union given the Union's huge advantage in men and material.

I concur with what the OFM wrote. As with almost all parts of the civil war, the South gets romanticized, the North criticized.

I also agree that if there is any bias, it is pro-Southern.

I've read a lot of American Civil War books in the past, including a few on naval topics and I would agree there is a pro-union bias.

I will go a step further and saying nice, positive things about the Confederacy is a definite no-no these days!

I agree, the Confederate Navy get the praise and glamour.
Look at any naval fictional work on the Civil War, most will be about the Confederate navy.

Saying the Union had a better navy is the same as saying the Union had a larger industrial base. Numbers, experience, infrastructure.

Really? Pro-Union bias? Where? Never seen it. It's all plaudits and paens to the blockade runners (when they weren't, of course lining their own pockets) or the commerce raiders.

The Confederate Navy was ingenious in their use of material and creating a force, however weak, from nothing. There. Something nice said about the CSN.

The Union Navy WAS much better. They had a simply massive task facing them. They started with 40-odd vessels, created and planned and worked hard and ultimately got their end of the job done. Blockade duty was miserable. The ships and crews never get credit for that drudge work.

Eric

I agree with Eric and John. What's the Anti-southern bias in naval analysis? Poorly built ships with lousy engines? Well…yeah in a lot of cases it was true.

However, its clearly acknowledged that the Confederate States Navy started at a huge disadvantage in men and material and responded with great ingenuity, resourcefullness and dogged determination to do what they did. "Shipyard in a cornfield" where the CSS Albemarle was built. Not a condemnation , but acknowledgement that before the ship was built, Elliot had to first create a shipyard.

"Navy Gray" is a good work on the engineering and administrative challenged faced by the Columbus Naval Works and operations on the Apalachicola and Chatahootchee rivers. Its also very clear in documenting the accomplishments made by the officers and sailors of the CSN.

The problem is that these amazing efforts are overshadowed by the operational challenges of protecting the ports. Examples include the string of losses that include loss of New Orleans, scuttling CSS Virigina, capture of CSS Atlanta, loss of CSS Ablemarle.

There are very few 'wins' that can be held up as signs of tangible success. Not surprisingly, this was a common lament amongst the citizens and politicians of the Confederacy as well.

I think it is all my fault. To quote myself, elsewhere:

"The Virginia. A dirty, rotten, shabby trick, played by those uncouth, cowardly, scheming rebels, and surely in contravention of all the rules of war. Crewed by a gang of drunken, cringing pirates.

Boo! Hiss!"

"The Monitor. A miracle of modern science. Product of the finest minds of the Union, and crewed by those stalwart heroes of the United States Navy.

Hoorah! Huzzah! Three Cheers for all concerned!"

People just copy me. What can I say, I'm a trend-setter.

Is our beloved editor out to start some controversies?

First this thread, then:

TMP link

Never heard that either. Have to agree with John.

Maybe if we remember that the CSS Shenandoah spent its career sinking evil Union whalers in the North Pacific and Berring Sea, that might explain the Greenpeace bias in favor of the Rebs.

How exactly did that harm the Union?

Meh. US navy was better. In addition to above, don't forget about combine arms with the army, especially on the Mississippi. Very impressive the services worked so closely together and so successfully.

I agree with John as well. The south got all the glory at sea. For example, the arguably most famous naval song about the war. "ALABAMA" ("ROLL, ALABAMA ROLL") YouTube link , sings praise for the Alabama, rather than the Kearsarge. Manet's painting also shows the Alabama far more prominently. This being so in what on paper should have been a near even fight. However, Rebel captain Semmes poorly managed his powder and shell maintenance and Union captain Winslow had far superior gunnery and made brilliant use of anchor chain as armor.

Overall, the southern navy fit the lost cause image popular in the south after the war. It was cornfield built navy that fought like crusader knights of old against impossible odds. Also, since it was generally physically separated from southern land, it was seen as less tainted by the evils of slavery.

John;
Actually, the destruction of US flagged commerce by Cornfederates, is one reason why Union shipowners chose "flags of convenience" and why the US Merchant Marine never recovered after the war. Even WW2 never brought the US Merchant Marine back to its pre-ACW levels.

Plykes is correct about the USS Monitor. There were scores of patent worthy inventions aboard it, Ericsson was brilliant, and those who sailed were equipped with Big Brass Ones.

"Pirates" might be a little hard on the CSN.

Other than that, well…

Eric

Do you agree that pro-Union bias continues to result in the Confederate Navy being underrated?

I agree that among Historians there never has been a bias. What evidence do you have of a bias? I think our friends down south get a little sensitive at times and see any criticism as a "bias".

What Secretary Stephen Mallory and a few former USN Officers pulled off was remarkable. The Confederate Navy was the child of an agricultural nation locked in an industrial war.

With few shipyards and little seafaring tradition the CSN began an innovative plan to even the odds. The water mine, the torpedo boat, the submarine, ironclad warship and powerful seagoing radiers were the weapons they chose to fight the war.

The CSS Florida, Alabama and Shenandoah did so much damage to the US Merchant Fleet that had led the world prior to the war never fully recovered after the war and lost it's lead to Britian.

I think Mr. Down is just tilting at windmills. No bias or controversy here to see. Move along now.

The Union's Army's Navy was better than the Confederate Navy. And the USN was better than both. The Confederate's exploits were embodied in just two vessels, the Alabama and the Shenandoah. For the rest, they failed both materially and humanly. As to the material, the South put no effort into improving the situation. (Tredegar was never to produce a single boiler) and other than the commanders of the two aformentioned vessels, none were as agressive as their Union counterparts. (except posssibly Hunley whom was foolhardy).

I have not read the article but from what you have shared with us I'd say the argument is a bunch of crap.

Considering that the modern US Navy holds up the CSA Navy's submarine crews as brothers gives me the impression more of a pro-South bias.