The American Civil War

I thought I'd start this topic and see if anyone else would be interested in discussing this, the bloodiest war in American history. It started on April 12, 1861, when Confederate forces opened fire on Fort Sumter in the harbor of Charleston, South Carolina. It ended on April 9, 1865 when General Robert E. Lee, general-in-chief of the Confederate armies, surrendered the Army of Northern Virginia to his Federal counterpart, General Ulysses S. Grant, and the Army of the Potomac at Appomattox Courthouse, Virgina. Those four years saw 600,000 American soldiers die on both sides and large prtions of the Confederate States devastated. And some say that the war is still being fought to some extent today.

 

The horrific losses suffered by both sides was really a sneak preview of the destructive powers of modern warfare. It was a shame to send thousands of men marching across the killing field in the face of lethal rifle and artillery fires, one would have thought that the military leaders learned the lessons by the time WWI came around.

 

A couple of questions from an "outsided".
The America TV documentary about the America Civil War has been shown here in the UK, what did you think of it, provided you've watched it.
How much do you think the high loss of life eg Gettysburg was down to the Springfield 1861 rifled musket and the lack of an earlier change in tactics to counter it, ie dig in.
Don't ask, I've just got a very good memory once I've seen something its stored. Anyway someone has to get it started.

 

If you're talking about the documentary series done by Ken Burns, it has its good points and rather too many bad points. I did like it well enough, however.

The casualties were indeed due to technology overtaking tactics. Both sides used the tactics of Napoleon on battlefields where rifles good to 600 yards were being used, along with much improved artillery firing explosive shells, among other things.

And you are right, liang; the Civil War was indeed a preview of WW1. Trench warfare, automatic weapons, mine warfare, all were used in the Civil War. But because they were used in America, European generals pooh-poohed them, which would cause a lot of European casualties fifty years later.

 

You probably have alot of TV documentary on the Civil War over there but I think that was the one. There was about 6 episodes or so.
I think you find the British, French, Russians and Turks found about modern warfare during the Crimean War of 1853-56. The British lost more men through incompetence than enermy action! The rifled musket did the same there esp to cavalry charges. The 1870 Franco-Prussian War was a more mobile war I think.
Back to the America Civil War, why was the Confederates so successful at first. What did they have that the Union didn't and don't say better leaders. They all went to West Point and fought in the Mexican War?

 

You win some, and you lose some. The South initially were more prepared for the conflict as they were the one who attacked first, that may explain why they enjoyed initial success. Once the Union mobilization went into full swing and the less competant commanders were replaced (yes, even west point had incompetant graduates), the South was bound to be warned out by the more populous and industrial North in a war of attrition.
Although the high explosive shells and grapeshots killed and mangled many, most of the casualties in Civil war I believe were due to small arms fired, in particularly the single shot rifles. Hundreds of rifles lining up and firing in unison have no trouble decimating the slowly advancing infantry ranks. Only a small handful of experimental repeating rifles were being used by both sides. Can you imagine the carnage if would have caused both sides were armed with quick firing Winchesters or bolt action Mausers, or Vickers machine guns. Oh wait, that is in another war.

 

Hey Corp, what problems did you have with Ken Burn's Civil War? I consider it a masterpiece, and I'm not always a fan of his (for example he butchered his history of baseball).

Burn's Civil War was a ten part series (could be nine). Just recently there was a very good series done on the major battles of the Civil War, five or six part I think, on the History Channel. Had I known just how good it was, I would have recorded it. It was hard to read the credits, but best I could tell the A&E Channel produced it.

The simplified reason why the South did so well during the war was Robert E. Lee. He was far and away the best American General of his time, so talented in fact that Lincoln first offered him command of the Union forces (before he turned him down because his state (Virginia) was with the Confederacy). Had Lee commanded the North, he not only would have had a much better grasp of strategy than did McClellan (and others), but would have chosen his subordinates more wisely.
Some other reasons are as follows:
1. Nearly the whole was was fought on Southern soil. This gave them two major advantages, knowing the territory and the added reason to fight (defending the homeland if you will).
2. Southerners, as a whole, tended to be natural outdoorsmen who were familiar with guns and horses. In the North, it wasn't always true.
3. America's best generals tend to come from the South and the West. Don't ask me why, it would make an excellent Psychology paper.

 

One of the big problems of the 19th century was the nature of war was changing faster than it ever had before or has since.

Think about it for a moment if we had a time machine and moved a company of soldiers from any army in 1715 forward to Waterloo in 1815 they are at a technical disadvantage but they will be able to put up a fight. Now move a unit of British infantry from Waterloo to the western front end of 1916 and these guys are literally going to be massacred. Finally move a unit of the British army from 1916 forward to take on a unit of Americans you back to them being able to put up a fight.

Bottom line was during the 19th century and WW1 the problem was that a general's experence from when they were junior officers really didn't bear much comparison to front line realities. In time of great change all you really have to go on is theories. Some will work some won't only experience really shows.

 

You might say this corp, but the American forces in WW1 didn't do much better than the Europeans and died in horrible numbers. So you can't just accuse the European tacticians of ignoring the lessons of the American Civil War.

 

Roel,

Sure CC can correctly accuse the European leaders of ignoring the lessons of the Civil War. I'm not as up on WWI history as I should be but who commanded the American forces in WWI? Was he American, Brit, or French?

In defense of the European generals however, I believe the machinegun played a more important part. No machine guns in the ACW.

I think it was that no one had adopted tactics to meet the new technology, until the advent of the tank.

:smok:

 

Everybody ignored the lessons that should have been learned during the American Civil War. I guess a major reason why Americans love to chide Euros about WW I is that it was European Generals who sniffed that nothing of note happened in our Civil War and the strategy/tactics were effectively barbaric. Then they didn't do any better in WW I.

General "Blackjack" Pershing commanded the American Expeditionary Forces during WW I. Yes the Pershing tank was his namesake (and Patton one of his assistants).

 

Yes they did the Europeans hid in trnches where as the americans hid behind logs.

 

1. Burns overemphasized slavery, to the detriment of much else about the war. His politically correct vision of the subject didn't help any, either

2. He said nearly nothing about the naval aspect of the war, yet without the Federal navy the North might well have lost the war.

3. Large portions of the land campaigns were left out, especially in the Western theater.


On the plus side, his series does have a wealth of period photos which I really enjoyed seeing, and Shelby Foote's commentaries were truly wonderful!

 

How can you leave out the naval aspect, with the advent of Ironclad boats, and the blockade which starved the south to death? That is a large minor indeed, James.

 

In the nineteeth century the pace of change was so fast that even had you learned everything there was to know about the ACW it wouldn't have helped you that much.

By 1914 the average soldier was using a much more powerful weapon. Machine guns were reliable and man portable. Artillery had got to the point of being able to lob shots over the horizion and Arial recon made it very difficult to take anyone by surprise. All big changes since the 1860's.

On the whole the ACW offered some tantalizing hints towards the future but thats all.

 

And certainly not as many as the Russo-Japanese war of 1905, which also showed far more the future of naval warfare...

 

I don't know how he managed it, Roel, but he did.

I have heard some historians say that the war was not won by Mr. Lincoln's army, but by his navy, and I believe that that is essentially true, with some provisos, of course.

 

No war is going to 100% show you the future of things. However, I believe that if the European powers had paid a little more attention to what had been developed suring the Civil War, they might not have been so completely taken by surprise by the destructiveness of the then-modern weapons of WW1. Especially when the lessons to be learned there were reinforced by other conflicts, like the Franco-Prussian War and the Boer War.

 

You Europeans may be interested to know that one of the naval battles occured off of Cherbourg, France. It was between the CSS Alabama and USS Kearsarge. The Alabama was defeated and sank. There are salvage dives by the French and US going on now.

The Alabama was built in Liverpool, England. As a result, the UK had to pay war reparations to the US for the ships and materials that Alabama captured.

 

Plus all the damages done by the other Confederate cruisers built or converted in England during the war. CSS FLORIDA, SHENANDOAH, and GEORGIA, among others, also wreaked considerable havoc on the Union merchant fleet.