Yesterday I put emphasis on Secretary of War James Seddon’s words stressing the importance of the blockade-runners in October 1864 – “It is impossible to calculate the good that has resulted to the armies of the Confederacy from the successful blockade-running vessels.” Well, let me offer some measure of that value deemed “impossible to calculate.” In December 1864, Brigadier-General Josiah Gorgas provided a report to Seddon detailing the material status of the commodities of war – guns, powder, iron, nitre, and certain other raw materials. As for small arms, Gorgas wrote:
Sir: In reply to your inquiry for information as to the means of supplying munitions of war, “confining the answer to the munitions” furnished by this Bureau to the cis-Mississippi, I have the honor to state, first, as to arms: There are enough arms on hand of a mixed character–that is, arms most of which are not as good as those now in the hands of troops in the field–to arm and equip some additional force. The returns of November, 1864, showed on hand at the various arsenals and depots:
- Rifles of caliber .58 – 3,882
- Rifles of caliber .54 – 2,759
- Smooth-bore muskets .69 – 3,564
- Smooth-bore muskets .75 – 636
- All other infantry arms – 10,504
- Carbines – 2,596
This amount can be probably increased by 10,000 or 12,000 by a vigorous system of collecting the arms scattered about through the country.
So that was what was in the depots – at most 36,000 small arms, give or take. That is only counting what was sitting in the depots or otherwise unissued weapons. Gorgas cited returns current at the start of December to indicate nearly 200,000 Confederates present for duty with the armies. Presumably most of those were armed. So do the math for a ball park total of small arms.
Where was the Confederacy obtaining weapons at this late stage of the war? Gorgas continued:
We have hitherto had no difficulty in importing arms through the blockaded sea-parts. The total importations for the year have been:
- Rifles – 39,798
- Pistols – 1,716
The want of funds necessary to purchase has greatly limited the importations of the expiring year. There are probably not more than 10,000 or 12,000 on the islands awaiting shipment.
As for domestic production:
The number of arms manufactured and made up of parts derived from capture and other sources for the year ending November 30, 1864, were:
- Rifles, caliber .58 – 12,778
- Carbines – 5,354
- Pistols – 2,353
So for the year of 1864, three of every four new rifle acquired by the Confederacy came through the blockade. The figures on pistols and carbines were to the advantage of domestic sources. But still the disparity in rifles indicated that if any new weapon arrived in a Confederate soldier’s hands, it was likely to be of foreign (European) origin.
About the manufacture of weapons, Gorgas indicated the Confederacy had the capacity to do more:
There is machinery enough under the control of this Bureau to manufacture 55,000 rifles and carbines per annum, provided a sufficient mechanical force be employed as follows:
- Richmond – 25,000 rifles, 450 workmen
- Fayetteville – 10,000 rifles, 250 workmen
- Columbia, S.C. – 4,000 rifles, 125 workmen
- Athens, Ga. – 10,000 rifles, 250 workmen
- Tallassee, Ala. – 6,000 rifles, 150 workmen
- Total – 55,000 rifles, 1,225 workmen.
The proviso is the workmen, and these must be permanently attached to those establishments and excused from the performance of all military duties, except perhaps local guard duty. The number actually employed is about 425, about 300 less than were employed, say twelve months since. Defection from service in the local forces and losses on the battle-field have thus greatly reduced our force of workmen.
By General Orders, No. 89, over 700 men were placed in the ranks; of these perhaps one-half were competent mechanics, many of them valuable for the service of the armories. The product could not at once be raised to the maximum figures above indicated, but could, with the 800 additional workmen, be so raised, allowing for the time it would take to teach and organize them.
For our cavalry arms we have chiefly to rely on importations, although pistols are being made at several points with success. Want of workmen alone prevents additional results. Sabers can be produced in sufficient numbers, and of pretty good quality, by the detail of a very few workmen from the field.
Follow the numbers here. The Confederacy had 200,000 men present for duty (and another 200,000 not present for various reasons). On hand were around 236,000 small arms, give or take. Gorgas does not indicate the number of weapons issued, to replace those lost or damaged. And maybe that isn’t the important issue towards sustaining the army. The Confederacy could produce 55,000 rifles, but had instead produced only 12,778. The balance of what was needed came in the form of 39,798 imported rifles. Total “new” weapons in 1864 was 52,576. Just shy of the maximum potential domestic output, as cited by Gorgas. And that would allow the Confederacy to replace one of every four weapons in use, give or take.
So, does this champion Confederate domestic manufacturing? Or show it as deficient? Neither. Gorgas’ explanation points to another conclusion – the blockade-runners allowed the Confederacy to take men out of the factories for service in the ranks. Gorgas counts 800 workers, but I would submit that was just the surface figure. Maybe two regiments… maybe more.
And that is only taking into account small arms production. Would not be hard to carry that figure forward in regard to other war-critical industries and say supplies arriving through the blockade freed up a body of manpower equal to a brigade.
Oh, but one more point – blockade running also carried with it an intangible worth more than guns or gold. So long as ships could transit to Charleston, even with hazard, the Confederacy still “existed” and had contact with the outside world. But ports like Charleston – were supplies could land on Confederate soil – were becoming scarce by the fall of 1864. Within a few months, the number would be zero.
(Citation from OR, Series IV, Volume 3, Serial 129, pages 986-7.)