The CSA was a backwater, the US wasn't. Eight months is far from 2 years. This is something that was done for centuries. It isn't like Americans were idiots. The US was among the highest educated people in the World by that time. One thing the US is noted for is cranking up production when needed very quickly.
CSA industrialization
- Thread starter ReconGuy02
- Start date
The CSA was a backwater, the US wasn't. Eight months is far from 2 years. This is something that was done for centuries. It isn't like Americans were idiots. The US was among the highest educated people in the World by that time. One thing the US is noted for is cranking up production when needed very quickly.
You scientifically cannot do that. The production depends on climate and the amount of time it takes the beds to mature to produce a usable product. Chemistry doesn't care how educated you are, it's gonna take x amount of time to mature and there's nothing you can do about that.
Also eight months is the best the Union could hope for. That's still assuming the best case scenario and the beds have matured properly and the right chemical combination has been reached.
And you have two years plus mining plus any you can smuggle in. Two years is more than enough time.
It is 3 times the amount of time required and the US has an enormous amount of manpower, resources, and money. It is easily done.
Three times what exactly? Chemistry doesn't care about manpower and money, you need the right chemistry and infrastructure in place to turn poop into gunpowder, and it doesn't happen over night. You're severely underestimating the difficulty involved in the process:
Leconte said:
And to be clear, Leconte estimated eight months in the South Carolina climate, which is different from that of much of the North. For the Prussian method specifically he thinks it could be shortened from a year to 8 months in the South Carolina climate. This may be possible in parts of the North, but the year mark ought to be seen as the standard.
Assuming the French leave would the south seek to fill the French shoes and support the Second Mexican Empire? This could lead to the North defaulting to supporting the other side regardless if it's unorganized or splintered.(Could the north seek to train the opposing side? In the case of the Civil war part 2 (Mexican Republican forces, USA Vs. Mexican Empire, CSA) would this cause Europe to get involved? Arguments (while weak) could be made that the UK and France wants to protect their colonial possesions. Germany may want to Ally with either the north or south to possibly draw forces away if they ever go to war with the UK or France. Though they maybe to busy getting there home in order.
Then it is TWICE the amount of time needed. Building things pretty damn quickly were one of the things the US has been known for. Rails, warehouses, factories and nitre beds are things that have plenty of time to be done. You are severely overestimating the time necessary when you have tons of money, manpower, land and equipment which the US had. How long do you think it needs? It's fricking gunpowder. Something that was cranked out for centuries by that point and the US was hardly an uneducated backwater.
RodentRevolution
Banned
No it is not a question of building but a question of having the right environment for the chemical processes that convert a portion of the products in animal poop into saltpetre. These processes require energy and also a minimum amount of time, if you bake the poop you get baked poop not nitre. So you have to rely on the external climate of whatever region you are in. Thus in South Carolina you have long muggy summers. In New York State winter can get a tad frosty which would effectively put the necessary processes in a nitre bed to sleep. I imagine you also want to make sure things are not too wet and not too dry but in the 19th Century you cannot simply build that, the sensor technology to artificially manage such an environment just is not there.
Last edited:
I think you need to read up on the whole process more. Leconte's work is nice and short.
It is also a frigging big country. You can and probably would build more than one bed. You can be pretty damn sure places like Missouri and Kentucky will be hot and muggy in summer. The area around New Orleans certainly was and New Orleans was taken very early.
RodentRevolution
Banned
This is not the argument. The point that is being made to you is that any bed will take at least eight months to mature and likely more before you will be able to obtain regular good quality yields of saltpetre from it.
It will be seen that under the most favorable circumstances saltpetre cannot be made in any considerable quantity in less than six or eight months, and that if we commence now the preliminary process of preparing black earth, so as to insure a sufficient and permanent supply, results cannot be expected under eighteen months or two years.
Joseph Leconte
The six to eight months timeframe would seem to come from the utilisation of existing, one might say 'natural', accumulations of nitrified organic waste. This however will only yield a limited supply.
Leconte's pamphlet as already recommended to you by EnglishCanuck is not a long read and runs you quickly through preparation of the black earth aka nitre beds, the leaching process, the crystallisation process and the final refining process. You may well note however from the number of steps it is not a quick process and this cannot be hurried. That any industrial scale manufacturer will look to have multiple beds and the US would likely look to set up multiple such enterprises as perhaps might the individual states and private concerns is rather a given. It still does not make it happen any faster.
marathag
Banned
They didn't need to even try OTL, sinceeven during the nadir of US/UK relations during Trent, trade was unaffected
I never said that it could be done anywhere, I said that the US was a huge country and that means it has a huge number of climates. It also means you have a lot of areas to prepare a large number of niter beds all at the same time. Kentucky and Missouri are both bigger than many European countries. There is also mining which is available in KY and other places.
marathag
Banned
Unlike those countries, the US had many civilians who used black power for personal firearms. So had a good number of powder mills after the British prohibitions on local powder manufacturing went away after 1776
RodentRevolution
Banned
Unlike which countries? Most countries across the globe had large numbers of folk who hunted for the pot in the 19th Century, not to mention many hunted for furs and sport hunters on top. Further the issue here is where will these powder mills obtain the raw material required to mix into gunpowder?
Last edited:
marathag
Banned
Most trapped. Hunting was most for the Landowners, who employed hunters. They were both rich, had had titles. The Commons had been cleared of game for a long time, and honestly, peasants were too poor to afford firearms on the continent. Only Great Britain since Elizabeth were relatively unrestricted, and that changed after Cromwell and the later issues with the Scots.
Not just any yahoo could be a Jäger, either.. That was a Brotherhood.
Should note with a far more extensive close blockade, the USA didn't run out of Powder in 1815, when Kentucky and Tennessee was mostly howling wilderness and caves unexplored.
I'd recommend reading Du Pont, Dahlgren, and the Civil War Nitre Shortage which addresses the problem pretty succinctly. The domestic industry was wholly unable to supply the armies needs at the start of the war, the volume of nitre needed was so unprecedented that they simply could not meet demand. There were only two chemical companies that felt they could carry out the work to make bulk orders, and only one which found itself actually capable of doing so in partnership with the DuPont company. Even with all this, the first shipments of purely domestic nitrates to make powder were not available until near the end of 1863.
There is an immeasurable gulf between supplying for the needs of a domestic economy and a war economy where you have to provide for an expanding army and navy, something without precedent in US economic history at that point.
My argument throughout has not been that the problem is unsolvable, but that the US simply did not possess the domestic capacity in 1861-63 to arm itself from its own resources or produce enough in bulk to meet its needs. This takes time, labor, and money, the latter two might be readily available but the first one is most likely not. That is the factor that seems to be ignored here.
marathag
Banned
Yet the CSA did exactly that, with the exception of not having any large scale Powder Mills. They did everything from scratch.
But dumb lead paint chip eating Yankees would just wail and give up in 1861.
Has any war ever ended from just from having run out of powder? Shortage can be 'not as much as is wished to have on hand' not 'Nope, none to be had'