Civil War Flashcards
(49 cards)
Who were the border states? and what outcome did this have on the Confederacy?
was support unanimous?
In 1861 the states of Virginia, North Carolina, Arkansas and Tennessee joined the rebellion against the Union.
Support for secession in these states were not unanimous.
e.g. although Virginia seceded West Virginia remained loyal to the Union.
The border states consisted of:
- Delaware –> Slave state but had economic links with the union and few slaves.
- Maryland –> initially divided –> e.g. when Union troops passed through the state confederate soldiers fired on them –> Lincoln used this as an excuse to suspend habeas corpus and arrest opponents.
- Kentucky
- Missouri –> also a relatively divided state but had strong unionist sentiments
The slave states in the Union maintained slavery throughout the war.
The loyalty of the border states robbed the confederacy of 2 million people and industrial resourced
Military positions of the Union: % of US pop Pop (in numbers) Farm acreage % Manufacturing workers % Manufacturing output % Factories Miles of railway States
% of US pop: 71% Pop (in numbers): 23,000,000 Farm acreage: 65% Manufacturing workers: 92% Manufacturing output: 92% Factories: 110,000 Miles of railway: 22,000 States: 22
Military positions of the Confederacy: % of US pop Pop (in numbers) Farm acreage Manufacturing workers Manufacturing output Factories Miles of railway States
29% 9,000,000 (including 3.5m slaves) 35% 8% 8% 18,000 9,000 11
Factors that helped the Souths military position?
The south was used to horses and their cavalry units were often superior.
In general, they had better military leadership
They hoped to get foreign recognition because of the importance of cotton.
The souths advantage was its sheer size.
Actual physical conquest of the south would require a vast army from the North, not the 75,000 Lincoln initially called for.
Rebels in the South simply needed to hold their ground
In military terms what was developed and what effect did this have?
The development of the rifle musket and Minié bullet equalised opposing forces as both sides had access to this technology.
The accuracy of these rifles was far greater than that of Napoleonic weaponry and therefore increased casualties.
Problems within the union which could affect their military position?
Lincoln had been elected by only 40% of voters in 1860. Not all of the North supported the war. Even fewer supported a war over slavery
Military position at the beginning of the war conclusion?
it appeared as though the South was destined to lose but the war ended up lasting for so long and resulting in 600,000 deaths.
The outcome of the war was not a foregone conclusion in 1861
In terms of campaigns, how was the war split?
The war can be seen as two mainland campaign:
One in the eastern theatre (mainly in Virginia)
One in the Western theatre (near the Mississippi River)
What were the Norths 2 military campaigns?
- The anaconda plan
2. Campaigning in the west
What was the anaconda plan?
- Squeeze the south by cutting its communications and trade.
- Blockade the South
- Take over the Mississippi River and cut the Confederacy in half
- Take Richmond
- Once all this was done they would cut the Confederacy in half again and get Atlanta
Why were the North not as effective in campaigning in the West initially?
The temptation to try for a swift victory in the eastern theatre was too much after the Confederacy established Richmond as their capital as it was so close to Washington DC.
Thus, an eastern theatre took much of the available resources
What was the size of the Confederacy army and the union’s army and what can we conclude by this?
- 2,100,000 served in the Union forces (out of a pop of 23,000,000)
- 900,000 served in the Confederate forces (out of a pop of 9,000,000)
the disparity in population was not reflected in the overall army size
White southerners raised larger forces proportionally than the white population of the North.
First attack at Manassas (Bull Run)
Year?
Outcome?
Events?
Resulted in a humiliating defeat for the Union.
Resulted in Lincoln relying on George McClellan
McClellan subsequently assembled a large force of 121,000 men with 44 artillery unity, 15,000 horses and naval support and landed in Virginia in March 1862.
He outnumbered the Confederate forces but believed he faced a large Confederate army so moved slowly.
McClellan’s timid movements allowed Lee to build up Richmond’s defences and then to launch a series of counter-attacks in June 1862 called the Seven Days Battles.
He threw away any hope of a rapid attack with his superior forces and allowed Lee to keep the initiative.
The failures led Lee to risk an attack into Maryland in September 1862 and ended the chance of a decisive early victory.
Robert E. Lee 1807-1870
Lee was from a prominent military family in Virginia.
He took part in the Mexican War with distinction and commanded the troops that defeated John Brown at Harper’s Ferry.
He was a chief military advisor to Davis cabinet from 1861.
He became field commander in 1862, showing himself to be a highly effective tactician and inspirational leader.
However, his invasions of the North failed. He held off union armies with smaller forces but was forced to surrender in April 1865.
He accepted the end of slavery but not civil rights for former slaves.
What was the significance of the Battle of Shiloh? Year? Key events? Cost of war? Outcome?
- The battle took place on April 6th and 7th 1862 in the western theatre.
- General Grant was ordered to advance up the Tennessee River and await Union reinforcements.
- He camped at Shiloh but made few defensive preparations and was surprised by a Confederate force attack under Beauregard and Johnston.
- The attack drove Grant back to the river and weakened his forces
- He planned a counter attack for the next day
- This ended up driving Confederate forces back.
Cost of war:
- The battle cost the Union 13,000 casualties and the Confederacy 10,600 casualties.
Outcome:
- It demonstrated the military weaknesses on both sides.
- It damaged Grants reputation, although he was saved by Lincolns support.
- The South lost Johnston, their most able commander.
- It demonstrated that the war would not be won by a decisive battle and that there would be heavy costs.
What was the significance of the battle of Antietam? When was it Events? Who won? Impact?
- On September 3rd, 1862, Lee took 55,000 troops to Maryland which was Union territory.
- –> This was perhaps encouraged by the poor performance of the Union
- –> Lee may have also wanted to demonstrate the souths ability to take the war into Union territory
–>This would have helped the Confederacy gain foreign recognition
- Lee divided his forces and had 18,000 men at a defensive position in Antietam.
- A Union army of 87,000 men attacked him
- The attacks were poorly planned, and Lee defended ably
- The superior union numbers and firepower forced a retreat
- McClellan (union side) failed to follow up with a pursuit
- The Union lost 12,410 with 2100 dead and the South lost 10,300 with 1500 dead
Union victory had significant consequences
–> led to Lincoln issuing the Emancipation Proclamation (wartime measure to free slaves in all enemy-held territory)
- In reality, no slaves were freed as the Union did not hold the territory and the proclamation did not apply to Union slaves.
However, –> It ended any hope that France or Britain would recognise the South as they could no longer on moral grounds after the Proclamation.
Antietam was the most disastrous day in terms of deaths and injuries in American history
What was the significance of the battle of Vicksburg?
Events?
Who won and why?
Outcome?
- Union forces continued to advance on Mississippi and forced Confederate soldiers onto the stronghold of Vicksburg.
- Grant defeated Confederate reinforcements
- However, –> The battle was not won due to any brilliant military action but rather by hunger, disease, relentless bombardments from Grant’s naval forces and the failure of the Confederate forces to relieve the city.
By the end of July, Union forces controlled the whole of the Mississippi River
This cut the Confederacy from Arkansas, Texas and Louisiana, disrupting communications and supplies of food.
Outcome:
One of the major turning points of the war
Grant was made commander in chief as a result which had a major outcome in the ultimate outcome of the war
Why might the impact of Gettysburg be overstated?
Lee was still capable of winning battles
Meade had not destroyed his army
The North still had to figure out how to bring about a decisive result on the battlefields of the West and how to occupy the huge areas in revolt.
What was the significance of the Wilderness Campaign? 1864
Events?
Aim?
Who won and why?
- By 1864 Grant was in overall command of the Union armies
- He and Lincoln coordinated a campaign of advances on all fronts
- Grant took 118,000 men into Virginia to destroy Lee’s 64,000 men.
- The aim was to destroy Confederate forced rather than take Richmond
- It involved crossing an area of dense shrub called the Wilderness.
- Lee fell back on Petersburg in order to safeguard Richmond
- lee lacked the forces to withstand the constant losses.
- By 1865 Lee had 50,000 against Grants 125,000
- The final attack took place in April and Richmond fell
- Lee retreated and surrender to Grant at Appomattox
The success of the Wilderness campaign was due to its objective in destroying Lees forces rather than taking cities, as well as the willingness of Grant to absorb more casualties than Lee.
The relentless advances of the Union made the Confederacy surrender. This could only have been achieved with the superiority of supplies, artillery and manpower.
–> Grant emerged the victor through his understanding of modern war
How much did the military leadership of the North account for the final victory?
Who had the greater advantage and in terms of what?
What similarities did they have?
In what way was Mclellan mistaken?
What did Mclellans failures lead to?
What did Grant bring with him?
The Northern generals had a greater advantage in terms of resources and their ability to create soldiers from civilians.
However, the two sides had broad similarities in their tactics and similarities in their weaponry and number of forces which meant that a quick decisive battle was unlikely.
McClellan’s whole 1862 campaign rested on the doubtful assumption that the fall of Richmond would mean the end of the war. He lacked crucial information about the size of enemy forces which led to the defeat at the battle of bull run.
Frustration with McClellan led to Lincoln turning to more aggressive leaders such as Grant who were more willing to accept casualties.
–> McClellan’s failures saw a new kind of general ship emerge.
–> After the campaigns of 1862-62 Union military leaders developed a greater strategic sense.
The taking of Vicksburg by Grant was of considerable strategic importance in cutting the Confederacy in two.
But Meade after Gettysburg could not follow up his victory by pursuit.
It was Grant who saw that a different kind of warfare was necessary
Individual battles must be integrated into bigger campaigns
Grants campaigns shows how far Union military leadership changed during the war and also how it changed the nature of warfare.
–> It took a change of outlook among the generals to make superior resources and strong political leadership lead to victory.
Was Grant or Lee the more effective general?
- Arguments that Lee was an effective general
Lee was an inspirational leader who managed to maintain the loyalty of his troops and sustain campaigns with fewer men and resources.
In 1862 he defended and safeguarded Richmond.
He conducted able defences against stronger forces at Fredericksburg.
At the Battle of Chancellorsville, he divided his forces and defended his position against Union attacks.
He carried the war into the North in 2 invasions in 1862 and 1862 and in both cases considerable damage was done to Union forces.
Lee made Grant fight in unfavourable terrain at the Wilderness.
Lee was defeated by sheer lack of resources rather than any personal failings.
Lee was able to maintain the respect and affection of his forces which was a major element in his leadership.
Was Grant or Lee the more effective general?
- Arguments that Lee was not an effective general
Lee was wasteful and pursued a deeply flawed strategy of offence at both Antietam and Gettysburg
Lees campaigns were costly and the relative lack of manpower of the South meant this was more damaging.
Lee’s tactics which relied on frontal assaults were costly.
–> e.g. Chancellorsville, although usually seen as a victory it brought about heavy casualties
The invasion of the North in 1862 resulted in Antietam and was not well managed.
–> Lee divided his forces leaving him vulnerable to attacks.
Gettysburg lacked a precise focus.
Lee failed to save Richmond, despite giving the Virginia campaign priority.
Lee failed to see the importance in allocating enough forces to the western sector.
–> The fall of Vicksburg allowed Union forces to take Atlanta and pursue the March through Georgia which weakened the effectiveness of the South’s overall campaign.
His view of the conflict of war rather than a rebellion may have made victory impossible
Arguments that Grant was an effective General
Grant was able to deliver victories fairly consistently.
It was his initiatives that led to early successes in Tennessee which led to the Mississippi campaign.
–> the victory at Vicksburg was possibly only because of the way Grant deceived and defeated Confederate forces prior to the siege.
His subsequent invasion of Mississippi and taking of Atlanta helped continue the war
Grant showed awareness of the realities of modern war by allowing Sherman to drive through Georgia, destroying resources.
The campaigns of 1864-1865 were decisive because Grant accepted that the aim of the war must be the destruction of Confederate armies not taking the cities.
His acceptance of high casualties was the way the war was won. His leadership gave his troops the confidence in ultimate victory.
Arguments that Grant was not an effective General
Grant was not an effective General
Despite early successes in the West he was careless before the Battle of Shiloh and was surprised and driven back.
His victory at Vicksburg depended on dealing with less numerous Confederate forces and the south’s failure to protect the stronghold.
Grants strategy depended on persistence and willingness to take heavy casualties.
He was forced by Lee to fight in the wilderness.
–> The Wilderness campaign has the aim of wearing down the south and relied on smaller confederate numbers and sacrificing large numbers of his own men.
Grant’s siege of Petersburg was effective but mainly because of Confederate sickness and hunger.
