<< Hide Menu
Milo Chang
Milo Chang
🎥Watch: AP US History - The Road to the Civil War
For the United States, the Civil War saw the unprecedented mobilization of manpower and materials alongside unprecedented carnage on the battlefield. The Civil War was a total war because it involved every aspect of society.
Total war is a term used to describe a conflict in which all of the resources and capabilities of a society are mobilized for the purpose of achieving military victory. It involves the use of all available economic, political, and social resources, including the conscription of soldiers, the mobilization of industry, and the use of propaganda to support the war effort.
The South wanted a short war and needed European support. They were sure that Great Britain would support them because of their need for southern cotton. Unfortunately for them, the British just got their cotton from Egypt and India instead.
The North had more resources and thus could afford a longer war, especially since their Anaconda Plan could strangle the South’s ability to trade or receive resources through its naval blockade of Southern ports and coastline. The idea was to blockade all the ocean ports on the Atlantic and Gulf as well as the ports on the Mississippi, literally constricting the South (like an Anaconda).
North | South | |
Military | The Union hoped that its population of 22 million against the Confederate population of only 5.5 million free white would work to its favor in a war of attrition. | Strong military leadership under Robert E. Lee, something that the North did not have at the beginning of the war. |
Economic | The Union dominated the nation’s economy, controlling most of the banking and capital of the country, more than 85% of the factories, more than 70% of the railroads, and even 65% of the farmlands. | The Southern economy was less adaptable because of the weakness of the industrial base. The South depended on the outside world for most of its manufactured goods. |
During the early years of the American Civil War, many Union generals were criticized for their timidity and lack of aggressive action on the battlefield. This was particularly evident in the Eastern Theater of the war, where Union commanders were often hesitant to engage the Confederate Army in open battle and preferred to rely on defensive tactics and fortifications.
One of the main reasons for this timidity was the Union's lack of experienced military leadership at the start of the war. Many of the Union's senior generals, such as Winfield Scott and Robert E. Lee, had resigned their commissions to join the Confederacy, leaving the Union Army with a leadership vacuum. The Union's remaining generals were largely inexperienced and untested, and they were often hesitant to take risks or engage in aggressive action for fear of failure.
Another factor contributing to the timidity of Union generals was the Union Army's overall lack of preparedness for the war. The Union Army was poorly trained, poorly equipped, and poorly organized at the start of the conflict, and many of its generals were overwhelmed by the scale and intensity of the fighting. As a result, they were often reluctant to take the initiative or engage in offensive operations, preferring instead to defend their positions and wait for the Confederates to attack.
Overall, the timidity of Union generals at the start of the Civil War was a significant factor in the Union's slow and often ineffective response to the Confederate threat. It was not until later in the war, when more experienced and aggressive generals such as Ulysses S. Grant and William Tecumseh Sherman took command, that the Union began to achieve more decisive victories on the battlefield.
In fact, other Union generals often criticized Grant for being too aggressive and too willing to take risks on the battlefield. Some of his peers, such as General George B. McClellan, believed that he was too quick to engage the Confederate Army in open battle and too slow to retreat or regroup when necessary. They also accused him of being too focused on defeating the enemy at any cost, regardless of the number of casualties sustained.
Yet after firing many of his previous generals for their timidity, including General McClellan, Lincoln was excited by General Grant's leadership, strategic vision, and determination to win the war. When told to fire General Grant, Lincoln reportedly retorted, "I can’t spare this man. He fights."
The Civil War was a modern war in many ways, and it saw the introduction and use of many new technologies and tactics that would later become commonplace in future wars. One of the most significant innovations of the Civil War was the ironclad warship, which changed the face of naval warfare and paved the way for the development of the modern battleship.
Ironclads were armored steam-powered ships with iron or steel hulls and decks that were heavily fortified with iron or steel plates. They were designed to be able to withstand the impact of cannonballs and other artillery, and they were much more difficult to sink than traditional wooden ships.
The first ironclad warship was the USS Monitor, which was built for the Union Navy during the Civil War. It saw its first action in March 1862, when it fought the Confederate ironclad CSS Virginia (formerly the USS Merrimack) in the Battle of Hampton Roads. The battle ended in a draw, but it demonstrated the effectiveness of ironclads and their potential to revolutionize naval warfare.
Other ironclads were built and used by both the Union and the Confederacy during the Civil War, and they played a significant role in the outcome of the conflict. The Union Navy used ironclads to blockade the Southern coast and disrupt Confederate trade, while the Confederacy used ironclads to defend its ports and rivers.
The Civil War also saw the use of new weapons, such as the repeating rifle and the Gatling gun, as well as the development of new tactics, such as total war and trench warfare.
© 2024 Fiveable Inc. All rights reserved.