The Whitworth Guns: British Tech at Gettysburg, Civil War Walk 🇬🇧 

Thanks very much indeed, Rob!

@@theministryforhistory I've really started to get into cartridge making for historical weapons and I've got some interest from my friends as well. do you guys have a group where you discuss this sort of thing?

It had a very fast twist rate for rifling at the time it was like 1 in 26 if I remember correctly

Far as I recall it wasn't possible to actually see the round in the air (same with other rifled shot) due to the speed, unlike smoothbore rounds.

South Carolinian Wade Hampton imported them for his Hampton Legion's battery

Thanks very much!

@@theministryforhistory Love the jacket and the outfit, too! I actually recognize where you got it from!

Indeed! Thanks for watching!

Thanks very much for saying so! I greatly appreciate it. Thank you for watching!

I love that documentary, only problem I've ever had on it is as concerns warfare and technology, doesn't go into much detail at all! Great narrative account of the war.

Confederates on the other hand, took them to use I think? Shame about those cannon. Most Whitworth imported were used.

Thanks for watching!

Thanks again for watching!

Thank you!

Indeed! It shows how much time, effort, and precision went into the production of each gun and its ammunition. However dear the cotton famine cost Britain however, Egypt and India soon made up the difference.

@@theministryforhistory I havent had time to watch many of your shows but I am very impressed with what I have seen, keep up the good work (and more on Crimea if possible)

@@michaeldarby3503 there’s another American Civil War series coming next but, starting in June, prepare for a torrent of Crimea content!

@@theministryforhistory Interestingly, it was the cotton workers themselves who exhibited pro-Union sentiments. The US Civil War seems to have been a real bone of contention in British society at the time.

Indeed! Lincoln personally wrote to Lancashire during the Cotton Famine - we talk about it extensively in our video here - ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-u1Yq4VB7Ml4.html

Check out our Paper Cartridges channel and PaperCartridges.com!

There would have been provisions to supply ammunition or the ability to produce it, but I believe they might have been shipped separately, as the Union had difficulties fabricating ammunition when they captured the guns off 'Princess Royal'. You absolutely needed the bolts, greased wadding, and cartridge, for it to work correctly. It's unlikely that one would use this to fire canister, it is definitely something for long range fire, and likely never would have been placed in a position to require canister.

@@theministryforhistory Ok, thanx for answering. I'd be very reluctant to buy into a weapon system at such a high price, AND with such a tenuous supply of ammo. I'd buy a few molds before even considering buying the guns. No wonder there werent that many purchased. -- I asked the canister question for one reason: You always want to have a close range option, just in case. I realize these are long-range weapons. But the battlefield contains alot of "what ifs", ya know? -- I like your work. I'll be subscribing to see more.

It wasn't about self determination. The South had effective representation. It was 100% about slavery.

@@MrTScolaro wasn’t a lot of it about taxation? Since a major motivation for the original split from Britain was in order to retain slavery which in numerous cases in English courts had been found to be illegal? (The Somerset Case is but one example).

@@pcka12 Not really, unless you consider the move from a world low tariff of 17% before the Morrill tariff of 26% was imposed in 1860 sufficient to cause breaking the union. Personnally I think the difference is of a magnitude to cause for political debate/strife not rebellion. Slavery was the issue.

@@MrTScolaro but there is plenty of evidence that northern politicians didn’t care a toss about abolishing slavery (except when it suited their political advantage) & it is pretty obvious that few of the southern rank and file had any real prospect of ever owning a slave so that the existence of ‘free labour’ in competition with them actually placed them at a disadvantage. As with most conflicts the participants where more like a football crowd supporting the ‘home team’ rather deeply ‘moral’ or ‘immoral’ (depending upon your viewpoint) actors. Remember that New York (therefore ‘Union’) crowds lynched coloured people whilst all this was going on!

@@pcka12Oh come on. Whataboutitism doesn't cut it with me. It is the style of argument for those who know they do not have a leg to stand on. The South had slaves. The North didn't. There was a war. The war ended with the North winning and adopting the 13th amendment which ended slavery QED. It really isn't any more complicated than that.

Indeed. It is quite literally the title of the video.