Common Misconceptions/Myths

[Saphroneth]

Thanks for taking the time with that explanation. This explains some things I've wondered about in reading about battles. What do you think might be some 'factors making pursuit operations less likely'? Characteristics of the commanders and their training and strategic orientation? Features of the American setting like terrain and logistics? Or did these battles just tend to become so unexpectedly fierce for the first few years of the war that the victors were too depleted?

I think it's largely to do with three things. (ed: couldn't count)

- troop and officer quality
- specific circumstances
- cavalry


The first one, the issue of troop and officer quality, is that basically the men are not very high quality because the army has expanded so much (and the trained men haven't been broken up as cadre) - it was known at the time and had been for hundreds of years that lower quality troops were best used fighting in defensive positions (i.e. breastworks/entrenchments) but were much less able to manoeuvre.
This means that there's not a great deal of finesse to the attacks, and they become attritional firefights which wear on the nerves of attacker and defender evenly rather than being able to punch through (and thus have a short battle which leaves the attacker in good shape). You also have articulation problems with the commanders as almost nobody has the proper seasoning, so the concentrated blows which would break an enemy tend to misfire.

The second one, about specific circumstances, is that there are places where you can see a pursuit phase nearly happen but it doesn't quite. Sometimes this is because nobody makes the mistake of burning through all their reserves (e.g. at Antietam - were it not for 6th Corps then Lee could have shattered 1st, 2nd and 12th, for example) and sometimes the opposite where reserves are committed but things don't reach the point where the "target" breaks (e.g. at Gettysburg, where Meade has committed all his reserves in error on both Day Two and Day Three but inconvenient commander deaths on Day Two or issues with committing on Day Three result in the situation remaining stable). You also have situations where a broken enemy can withdraw across a river to safety (post-Gaines Mill) or behind friendly troops which were just arriving (post-Second Bull Run).
If Gettysburg had seen Meade keep 6th Corps concentrated, fend off the attacks without them, and then launch a pursuit, or if Second Bull Run had seen 6th and 2nd Corps another day's march away and Lee pursue and shatter the Army of Virginia, it wouldn't have been especially unusual by European standards.

And the third one is cavalry. Early on in the war the cavalry forces aren't very large, and so the needs of scouting and carrying messages and stuff take up a lot of the cavalry manpower; later on the cavalry forces are larger, but the dominant cavalry doctrine by that point is a strategic raid rather than keeping them nearby for decisive action.
Having a large cavalry force to hand makes a pursuit action much more feasible, and you can also use them to threaten the enemy flanks to draw off reserves more effectively.

 

[Saphroneth]

Just as an aside: Recently I visited the Bentonville Battlefield near where I live in Raleigh, NC. At the end of the three-day battle, Johnston had to squeak the Army of Tennessee out the back door over a bridge to get away toward Raleigh. Sherman, with greatly superior forces, declined to pursue -- I think mostly because his next step planned was to consolidate and re-supply his forces at Goldsborough before driving north to join with Grant against Lee. In other words, pursuit might have destroyed Johnston's army, but there were simply larger-scale objectives involved.

Pursuit over a river is trickier anyway, because the bridge forms a defile - a relatively smaller coherent force can hold the bridge. Of course, by the time you outnumber your enemy close to 3:1 it does start to get easier to generate opportunities for pursuit... or for an envelopment, which is the other way to really decisively wreck an enemy army.


Personally I don't think it's particularly negative for the American armies that they weren't able to generate pursuits and thus decisive victories - just getting enough men in the field with weapons and some training was a major achievement given what they started with. What counts as a misconception though is arguing that this makes American warfare more modern, rather than it being just because civilians working out of books can't generate a fully drilled modern army capable of decisive combat in less than two years. (Appomattox, meanwhile, has many of the characteristics of a successful pursuit.)

 

[A. Roy]

- troop and officer quality
- specific circumstances
- cavalry

Fascinating! I thought of troop and officer quality. That's an excellent point that the Civil War armies had been built up quickly, resulting in forces that were less experienced.

I hadn't thought about that point about cavalry. I remember reading that it was Forrest who was hot to pursue Rosecrans from Chickamauga -- he was frustrated with Bragg for not undertaking it.

Thanks again for taking time with this.

Roy B.

 

[Saphroneth]

Fascinating! I thought of troop and officer quality. That's an excellent point that the Civil War armies had been built up quickly, resulting in forces that were less experienced.

Yep, it's nothing unusual. It's why armies do so much training, and in particular it's why - despite having a large enough military that they can allocate cadre to training purposes, and the luxury to spend nearly two years in training before having to deploy the New Armies - the British troops of WW1 who were enlisted after the opening of hostilities aren't up to snuff by the Somme. It's not really until 1917-18 that they get properly good, and a big part of that of course is recognizing where they still have things to learn after 1916.

 

[wausaubob]

The biggest misconception, is the history that the Confederates might have won. People have gone at it hundreds of times and proposed many counter factual solutions but the Confederates were not going to win.
1. Telegraph systems let the US administration peel off the five border areas and hold Washington, D.C.
2. The big US naval ships returned to the US and were deployed against the Confederate forts exactly in the way the southerners had expected in the lead up to the war. They had steam engines for power, and the increased advantages of steam powered vessels had already been demonstrated. The United States could build, convert and hire any type of support vessel it needed. It could man a large navy. If a ship or steamboat was damaged, it could almost always be repaired. If one was sunk, it could be replaced. Disease and malnutrition problems had already been partially solved in the world's navies. There was nothing the Confederacy could do about it, though they made some innovative attempts.
3. The far west was already a paid labor territory, as to both political parties. Within 16 months, it had overcome distance and the unionists had full control of the western territories and unorganized regions.
4. The Midwest was expanding due to domestic and international migration, and the process was barely paused by the Civil War. The Midwest was getting stronger as the war progressed.

 

[Saphroneth]

The biggest misconception, is the history that the Confederates might have won. People have gone at it hundreds of times and proposed many counter factual solutions but the Confederates were not going to win.
1. Telegraph systems let the US administration peel off the five border areas and hold Washington, D.C.
2. The big US naval ships returned to the US and were deployed against the Confederate forts exactly in the way the southerners had expected in the lead up to the war. They had steam engines for power, and the increased advantages of steam powered vessels had already been demonstrated. The United States could build, convert and hire any type of support vessel it needed. It could man a large navy. If a ship or steamboat was damaged, it could almost always be repaired. If one was sunk, it could be replaced. Disease and malnutrition problems had already been partially solved in the world's navies. There was nothing the Confederacy could do about it, though they made some innovative attempts.
3. The far west was already a paid labor territory, as to both political parties. Within 16 months, it had overcome distance and the unionists had full control of the western territories and unorganized regions.
4. The Midwest was expanding due to domestic and international migration, and the process was barely paused by the Civil War. The Midwest was getting stronger as the war progressed.

I disagree. I do not disagree that the Union had the advantage - it definitely did - but it had the advantage in the same way the house has the advantage in gambling. It is quite possible (though unlikely) for a situation to result in which the Confederacy wins through a combination of skill and luck - and/or bad judgement on the part of the Union - though I would certainly agree the chances are significantly lower than 50%.

Of course, the most obvious trick is Trent.

 

[Mango Hill]

Given that the Union army in the Maryland Campaign was lacking some thousands of pairs of shoes (and any spare clothing etc., especially afterwards, plus food shortages in October) it might have mostly been a Maryland Campaign thing.

Yes, that might be true. The photo of the three captured rebels is actually from Gettysburg, not Antietam. Saw that on a video about the aftermath of the battle. The ANV faced one long logistical line running mainly from Richmond by rail to Staunton and then by horse/mule drawn wagon from there to Williamsport.

 

[Saphroneth]

Yes, that might be true. The photo of the three captured rebels is actually from Gettysburg, not Antietam. Saw that on a video about the aftermath of the battle. The ANV faced one long logistical line running mainly from Richmond by rail to Staunton and then by horse/mule drawn wagon from there to Williamsport.

In the case of the AoNV, a lot of the supply needs were actually met by foraging - the grand raid into PA was intended to be (and in fact was, by my understanding) a net food and forage positive - if only by meaning the South didn't need to feed a hundred thousand men for a month or so - though obviously an ammunition negative.

 

[Mango Hill]

In the case of the AoNV, a lot of the supply needs were actually met by foraging - the grand raid into PA was intended to be (and in fact was, by my understanding) a net food and forage positive - if only by meaning the South didn't need to feed a hundred thousand men for a month or so - though obviously an ammunition negative.

Yes, that's on the video. The ANV brought back something like 33,000 head of cattle and sheep. An amazing achievement when pontoon bridges have to be built at Falling Waters while trying to fend off Union cavalry pursuit.

 

[Biscoitos]

As a relatively junior student of the War there's a seemingly never-ending parade of myths, misinterpretations, false summations, etc (collectively, 'myth'). Over time one version of a story may be accepted as canonical but then a generation later that changes. Out of your studies of the war and environs, what myth of the War would you most like to snap your fingers and remove from the collective memory of humanity? What do you think has been the most destructive?

The myth that Lincoln was not a racist.

The myth that all Union soldiers fought to end slavery.

 

[Sbc]

It doesn't - not when it derives from the chronic lack of a pursuit corps in American warfare, along with the different results of the fighting.


At Borodino (like at Second Bull Run) the defending force is badly battered enough, and owing to the tactical circumstances of the battle, that they pull back rapidly because the attackers still have a heavy force in hand (the Imperial Guard) to exploit that the line has been broken - Napoleon doesn't throw the guard in, but he could have done, and it is this risk which is why the Russians pull back.
At Gettysburg, the attacking force is the one that suffers more heavily, but before this happens it's done enough damage to the defending force that the defenders are effectively out of reserves. This is why both armies can remain on the field the next day - neither force has enough troops left to exploit the damaged state of their opponents. (At Waterloo, for example, the defending side - because of their reserves and because of the arrival of the Prussians - have enough strength left to make a push at the end of the day and exploit the damaged state of the attackers; at Gettysburg there is no formed body able to do this, as 6th Corps has been parcelled out.)


This derives partly from the lower quality of American Civil War units (because they've had less training and drill, owing to how they're not being trained by experienced NCOs etc) as it means that units are less able to successfully attack relative to their ability to successfully defend, in general.

I started on percentages——remember? The losing side in each battle was over 33%. However one was was the aggressor and one the defender. You stated the percentage losses were not really that high when in fact they are nearly identical. Plenty more examples of this ACW/European battles comparison. Btw your answer here about Gettysburg reinforces my point that the American soldier was just as determined as his counterpart across the pond.

 

[Sbc]

To clarify the situation further with Waterloo, it would perhaps be helpful to zoom in a little at Waterloo - specifically, to look at the British-Dutch force, rather than the Allies combined.

<content unrelated to the Civil War deleted by moderator>


Really the difficulty in the Civil War is in getting past the "break the enemy" phase in the first place - it was rarer - and when it did happen there was usually no pursuit force left (not helped by the dearth of effective cavalry). At Nashville for example Thomas even had to dismount and put in his cavalry to break Hood, and so there was nothing left for him to pursue with; at Gettysburg Meade had committed his whole reserve before Pickett's Charge (which would have also left him in massive trouble if the Charge had worked, as he'd have been the one facing a pursuit); in the Overland battles Grant can never get Lee to break from his positions (though Grant didn't have the cav corps around to exploit anyway).

Cavalry was not large enough in the ACW to pursue breakthroughs.

 

[leftyhunter]

The myth that Lincoln was not a racist.

The myth that all Union soldiers fought to end slavery.

Who claimed that Lincoln didn't have racial viewpoints in common with his era? Is your argument that Confedrate leaders were in favor of Abolition? Lincoln was always against slavey but respected the fact that the US Constitution allowed slavery.
Who said all Union soldiers enlisted to end slavery? Although after the EP all Union soldiers were fighting to liberate slaves in Confedrate controlled areas.
Leftyhunter

 

[weasel]

Who claimed that Lincoln didn't have racial viewpoints in common with his era? Is your argument that Confedrate leaders were in favor of Abolition? Lincoln was always against slavey but respected the fact that the US Constitution allowed slavery.
Who said all Union soldiers enlisted to end slavery? Although after the EP all Union soldiers were fighting to liberate slaves in Confedrate controlled areas.
Leftyhunter

The original post was about myths that members have come across they think are damaging, the most wrong, etc. I don't think @Sbc was stating those as facts.

 

[leftyhunter]

The original post was about myths that members have come across they think are damaging, the most wrong, etc. I don't think @Sbc was stating those as facts.

I was actually responding to @Biscoitos post #190. Not @Sbc .
Not sure if the so called myths were even advanced .
Leftyhunter

 

[Saphroneth]

I started on percentages——remember? The losing side in each battle was over 33%. However one was was the aggressor and one the defender. You stated the percentage losses were not really that high when in fact they are nearly identical.

I said the percentages were comparable, though the Napoleonic battles see higher peaks.

Plenty more examples of this ACW/European battles comparison. Btw your answer here about Gettysburg reinforces my point that the American soldier was just as determined as his counterpart across the pond.

You originally said, or at least implied, they were more so.

Cavalry was not large enough in the ACW to pursue breakthroughs.

Unfortunately it looks like the moderators here are tremendously unhelpful when you want to make some kind of comparison between the Civil War and other wars, so a large part of my point got deleted. I won't retype the whole thing because it'll just get deleted again, though.

 

[Biscoitos]

Who claimed that Lincoln didn't have racial viewpoints in common with his era? Is your argument that Confedrate leaders were in favor of Abolition? Lincoln was always against slavey but respected the fact that the US Constitution allowed slavery.
Who said all Union soldiers enlisted to end slavery? Although after the EP all Union soldiers were fighting to liberate slaves in Confedrate controlled areas.
Leftyhunter

It is a myth that Lincoln was not a racist.
That was my statement.
I stand behind it.


Why do you have to compare Lincoln with the Confederates?
Are you trying to deny Lincoln's racism?

I did not say anything about Confederates.
Your comments about Confederates are irrelevant to my statement.

 

[Potomac Pride]

1. The Confedrate soldier "fought to protect his home".
The federal government only siezed one man's property and that was Robert E. Lee's plantation at Arlington and Lee's family was compensated for the property.
2. African Americans loved being slaves and we're deliriously happy to be slaves.
3. The Confedracy had substantial amounts of African American soldiers.
4. Confederate's loved Indians and never harmed a hair on their heads.
Leftyhunter

That the Confederate soldier fought primarily to protect his home against invasion.

Most, if not all, of the men who enlisted in the Confederate armed forces in 1861 wanted war to establish an independent slaveowner confederation in North America. They had no notion of protecting their little towns and farmsteads from massive Union armies. Instead, they wanted to be part of a revolutionary movement to separate their own communities from the 'Black' Repubican Party-dominated federal government.

Later in the war, the CSA enforced extreme conscription measures to supply its armies with replacements. A good part of the fighting forces of the CSA were conscripts (or near conscripts) who deserted in huge numbers as the CSA began to disintegrate in late 1863.

Actually, the defense of home and family against the invading northern armies was one of the reasons Confederate soldiers fought in the war. See the quotes from the soldiers below.

"If I fall it will be in a good Cause in the defence of my country defending my home and fireside." – Private Andrew J. White, 30th Georgia Infantry

"Let me liberate my home from the varlet's tread, and then my country shall be freed from the fiendish vandals." – Private James W. Smith, 37th Mississippi Infantry.

"If I am killed tomorrow, it will be for Virginia, the land of my fathers, and not for the damned secession momvement." – Major Charles Minor Blackford, 2nd Virginia Cavalry.

"When a Southron's home is threatened, the spirit of resistance is irrepressible. [We are] fighting for our firesides and property [to defend our homes from] vandal enemies and drive them from the soil polluted by their footsteps . . .. I am determined to dispute every inch of soil with the Hessians e'er they shall invade the sunny South." - Corporal George Knox Miller, Bowie's Company, Alabama Cavalry

 

[Sbc]

I was actually responding to @Biscoitos post #190. Not @Sbc .
Not sure if the so called myths were even advanced .
Leftyhunter

Lol was a little confused for moment there never having weighed in on Lincoln.

 

[Sbc]

I said the percentages were comparable, though the Napoleonic battles see higher peaks.


You originally said, or at least implied, they were more so.

Read post 167 again. I said the were high in terms of percentages to combatants involved.