DOCSLIB.ORG

The American Civil War: Confederate Defiance, 1861–1863

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The American Civil War: Confederate Defiance, 1861–1863 1861–65 April 12–13 July 21, February 6, February April 6–7, April 25, 1861 1861 1862 16, 1862 1862 1862 The Fort Sumter First Battle Fort Henry Fort Battle of New American bombarded of Bull Run captured Donelson Shiloh Orleans Civil War (Manassas) captured captured TIMELINE Chapter 6 The American Civil War: Confederate Defiance, 1861–1863 By the middle of the nineteenth century, U.S. military institutions had proven their worth in the Mexican War. Yet their greatest test would not involve a conflict with a foreign power. Far more Americans fought and died in the American Civil War of 1861–65 than in all other previous conflicts put together. Its numerous engagements ranged from huge pitched battles with tens of thousands of soldiers on a side, to small skirmishes and raids involving just a few dozen. Irregular operations occurred, particularly in western areas, but campaigns by large conventional armies predominated. The Union and the Confederacy each raised huge numbers of troops during the conflict, but effectively using them was problematic. The vast majority were volunteers with no military background. On both sides, officers with prior experience were few relative to the number needed, and no commander had previously handled armies as large as those created between 1861 and 1865, which sometimes exceeded 100,000 men. Similarly, no civilian administration had ever faced the problems of supporting such vast forces and developing effective strategies for them. In this chapter, students will learn about: Not for Distribution: Taylor & Francis • The causes of the American Civil War . • The tactics and technology used to fi ght Civil War battles . • The relative strengths and weaknesses of the Union and the Confederacy . • How each side mobilized manpower . • The initial strategies and the diplomacy pursued by both sides . • The major campaigns and battles in 1861 and 1862 . • The military signifi cance of the Emancipation Proclamation . June 25–July 1, August 29–30, Sept. 17, Sept. 22, 1862 October 8, Dec. 13, 1862 1862 1862 1862 1862 The Seven Second Battle Battle of Preliminary Battle of Battle of Days Battles of Bull Run Antietam Emancipation Perryville Fredericksburg (Manassas) Proclamation issued Causes Slavery was the fundamental issue that fueled the clash between Northern and Southern parts of the United States in 1861. Ever since, apologists for the Confederate cause have glossed over this point by claiming the war was over “states rights.” Southern states, however, only came to fear that the federal government might threaten their “rights” after the 1860 election of the Republican candidate Abraham Lincoln to the presidency. Lincoln had campaigned on a platform Francis stating he would outlaw slavery in federal territories, though not in states where it already existed. & Yet his victory came solely from his popularity in the north, for he received no electoral votes from states south of the Mason-Dixon Line. Many Southerners thus concluded that they would eventually lack the political power to block attempts to ban slavery anywhere in the United States. Disagreement over slavery, however, was not the sole cause of the war. American slavery pre- dated the founding of the United States, and the institution had been tolerated since the country’s founding—for more than 80 years by 1860. Instead, it was slavery, combined with the spread of Taylor sectional interests and perspectives over the previous generation, which ripped the country apart after Lincoln’s election. In 1820, for example, national leaders had agreed to exclude slavery from the vast majority of federal territory at that time: All land above the line of latitude 36’ 30° excepting what became the state of Missouri. But following the “Missouri Compromise,” the debate over American slavery became more heated. Although abolitionist ideas were not then new, to that point they advocated the slow and gradual end of slavery. But the 1830s saw the birth of a “militant” abolitionist movement, whose leaders included William Lloyd Garrison and Frederick Douglass, that demanded its immediate end. Their speeches and writings, along with abolitionist literature mailed by the American Anti-Slavery Society, produced sometimes violent backlashes in both the North and the South, including riots and attacks on post offices. Distribution: These initial clashes were relatively few and did not yet represent a national crisis over slavery. More alarming tensions began after the Mexican War, for the huge area acquired via the Mexican Cession reopened the question of slavery in the territories. During the war itself, for Pennsylvania Congressman David Wilmot proposed banning slavery from any territories acquired from Mexico (the “Wilmot Proviso”), which was rejected. But California’s efforts to gain statehood soon brought the issue to a head. The resulting Compromise of 1850 owed its Not passage in Congress more to the procedural engineering of Illinois Senator Stephen A. Douglas than to any genuine spirit of cooperation. California’s admission to the Union meant that free states now outnumbered slave states in the Senate. (Congressmen from slave states had long been a minority in the House of Representatives due to Northern population growth.) But Southerners gained a new strong Fugitive Slave Act whose provisions threatened the liberty of Northern blacks and also worried Northern whites. The latter groups soon acquired a greater appreciation for the horrors of slavery via Harriet Beecher Stowe’s Uncle Tom’s Cabin . 168 Civil War: Confederate Defiance, 1861–1863 The 1850s witnessed a succession of crises that continued to enflame sectional tensions. Stephen Douglas soon destroyed the 1850 Compromise by championing the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854. This law revoked the older ban on slavery in federal territories established by the Missouri Compromise, allowing residents of these regions to decide the question themselves— an idea known as “popular sovereignty” that had been championed in the election of 1848. When settlers in the Kansas Territory tried to vote on the issue in 1854–55, both abolitionist and pro-slavery groups sought to sway the outcome, generating a political crisis and widespread violence in “Bleeding Kansas.” In the 1857 Dred Scott case, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled slavery could not be banned in federal territories, claiming that such would violate the Fifth Amendment’s protection of property. But Chief Justice Roger Taney went further, claiming blacks were not and could never be U.S. citizens. Northerners, already alarmed over previous developments and crises—including an attack on Massachusetts Senator and abolitionist Charles Sumner on the Senate floor in 1856—were shocked by the decision. Growing Northern sym- pathy for abolitionism in turn upset Southerners, particularly the support John Brown received after his failed raid on Harper’s Ferry, Virginia, and subsequent execution in 1859—a raid whose Francis purpose was to acquire arms to facilitate a slave revolt against Southern slaveholders. Ironically, most white Southerners did not own slaves. Of those who did, most had one or & perhaps a few. But about half of Southern slaves lived on large plantations owned by rich land- holders who comprised a tiny proportion of the entire white population. Nonetheless, slavery was a form of racial domination that shaped all of Southern society. Even the poorest white family was free. Moreover, many regarded slaveowning as a means to improve their economic and social status. A different dynamic operated in the north, where land prices were high and industrialization had dramatically increased the number of free urban laborers. Many poor Taylor Northerners dreamed of moving west to start their own farms—hopes threatened by the Distribution: for Not Figure 6.1 Photographs of the Exterior of Fort Sumter the Day After Its Surrender Library of Congress, Prints and Photographs Division, LC-DIG-ppmsca-35206, LC-DIG-ppmsca-35219, and LC-DIG- ppmsca-35221 Civil War: Confederate Defiance, 1861–1863 169 prospect of wealthy Southerners moving into new territories and buying large tracts of land to farm with slaves. Just as many in the South came to believe that all Northerners were aboli- tionists (most were not, and in many areas prejudices against blacks were strong), many in the north came to believe in a “slave power” or “slavocracy” that was trying to manipulate the federal government for the benefit of Southern interests. These were the underlying anxieties that successive political crises exacerbated in the late 1840s and 1850s, leading to the final one that almost destroyed the United States. Secession and War As the country became more polarized, it lacked the leaders and institutions that had previously been able to forge a national consensus. The Whig political party disintegrated in the 1850s, and by the 1860 election the Democrats had split, with Southern and Northern wings each running different candidates (Stephen A. Douglas and John C. Breckinridge, respectively). Many of the men who in earlier years possessed the standing to craft a possible compromise, Francis such as Daniel Webster, Henry Clay, and John C. Calhoun, had died by the early 1850s. Among younger politicians, perhaps Stephen A. Douglas had the ability to do so. But any pos- & sibility of his championing a national reconciliation was squandered with the Kansas-Nebraska Act, and his subsequent efforts to preserve the Union were too little, too late. Instead, four presidential candidates ran in the election of 1860. Northern states provided all the electoral votes Abraham Lincoln needed to win the presi- dency. For many Southerners, the North’s ability to win the executive branch outright posed a mortal danger to slavery within the United States, though Lincoln and the Republicans only Taylor sought to ban it from federal territories, and abolitionists were a minority among the region’s population. South Carolina was the first to act on these fears, declaring its secession from the Union on December 20, 1860.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Jonathan Letterman
    Doctor’s Orders – Jonathan Letterman SUBJECT TEACHER GRADE DATE American Studies NMCWM 04/08 Drafted: 5/11/2020 Unit: Civil War Rachel Moses Lesson: Jonathan Letterman TIME REQUIRED 30/45 Minutes OVERVIEW While he may not have been a general, Jonathan Letterman changed the course of the Civil War and of American medicine. His innovation and retooling of the Union Army’s Medical Corps during the chaotic battles of 1862 made him a hero of Civil War medicine. Jonathan Letterman became the Medical Director of the Army of the Potomac on July 4, 1862. By this time, the Civil War had been raging for more than a year and the Medical Corps was in disarray. Previous Medical Directors had largely failed in their duty to adequately care for the sick and wounded on the battlefield. At the Battle of First Bull Run in July 1861, many wounded were left on the battlefield to suffer for days in the hot sun. The ambulance system of the United States Army had failed them. Letterman arrived at a crucial time; by the end of August, the Union army was on the retreat again from Bull Run. General Robert E. Lee and his Army of Northern Virginia began crossing the river into Union-controlled Maryland. The stage was set for the biggest challenge of Jonathan Letterman’s life. His reorganization of the Ambulance Corps, field hospitals, and development of a tiered system of care on the battlefield forever changed how the wounded were evacuated and treated. As a testament to this, following the Battle of Antietam on September 17, 1862, over 10,000 wounded were evacuated off the battlefield within 24 hours, an incredible feat considering the department’s previous performance.
    [Show full text]
  • The Shadow of Napoleon Upon Lee at Gettysburg
    Papers of the 2017 Gettysburg National Military Park Seminar The Shadow of Napoleon upon Lee at Gettysburg Charles Teague Every general commanding an army hopes to win the next battle. Some will dream that they might accomplish a decisive victory, and in this Robert E. Lee was no different. By the late spring of 1863 he already had notable successes in battlefield trials. But now, over two years into a devastating war, he was looking to destroy the military force that would again oppose him, thereby assuring an end to the war to the benefit of the Confederate States of America. In the late spring of 1863 he embarked upon an audacious plan that necessitated a huge vulnerability: uncovering the capital city of Richmond. His speculation, which proved prescient, was that the Union army that lay between the two capitals would be directed to pursue and block him as he advanced north Robert E. Lee, 1865 (LOC) of the Potomac River. He would thereby draw it out of entrenched defensive positions held along the Rappahannock River and into the open, stretched out by marching. He expected that force to risk a battle against his Army of Northern Virginia, one that could bring a Federal defeat such that the cities of Philadelphia, Baltimore, or Washington might succumb, morale in the North to continue the war would plummet, and the South could achieve its true independence. One of Lee’s major generals would later explain that Lee told him in the march to battle of his goal to destroy the Union army.
    [Show full text]
  • Chickamauga the Battle
    Chickamauga the Battle, Text and Photographs By Dennis Steele Senior Staff Writer he Battle of Chickamauga flashed into a white-hot clash on September 19, 1863, following engagements in Teastern and central Tennessee and northern Mississippi that caused the withdrawal of the Confederate Army of Tennessee (renamed from the Army of Mississippi) under GEN Braxton Bragg to Chattanooga, Tenn. Bragg was forced to make a further withdrawal into northwest Georgia after the Union’s Army of the Cumberland, under MG William S. Rosecrans, crossed the Tennessee River below Chattanooga, flanking Bragg’s primary line of defense. Chattanooga was a strategic prize. Union forces needed it as a transportation hub and supply center for the planned campaign into Georgia. The South needed the North not to have it. At LaFayette, Ga., about 26 miles south of Chattanooga, Bragg received reinforcements. After preliminary fights to stop Rosecrans, he crossed Chickamauga Creek to check the Union advance. In two days of bloody fighting, Bragg gained a tactical victory over Rosecrans at Chickamauga, driving the Army of the Cumberland from the battlefield. The stage was set for Bragg to lose the strategic campaign for Chattanooga, however, as he failed to pursue the retreating Union force, allowing it to withdraw into Chattanooga behind a heroic rear-guard stand by a force assembled from the disarray by MG George H. Thomas. The Battle of Chickamauga is cited as the last major Southern victory of the Civil War in the Western Theater. It bled both armies. Although official records are sketchy in part, estimates put Northern casualties at around 16,200 and Southern casualties at around 18,000.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 11: the Civil War, 1861-1865
    The Civil War 1861–1865 Why It Matters The Civil War was a milestone in American history. The four-year-long struggle determined the nation’s future. With the North’s victory, slavery was abolished. During the war, the Northern economy grew stronger, while the Southern economy stagnated. Military innovations, including the expanded use of railroads and the telegraph, coupled with a general conscription, made the Civil War the first “modern” war. The Impact Today The outcome of this bloody war permanently changed the nation. • The Thirteenth Amendment abolished slavery. • The power of the federal government was strengthened. The American Vision Video The Chapter 11 video, “Lincoln and the Civil War,” describes the hardships and struggles that Abraham Lincoln experienced as he led the nation in this time of crisis. 1862 • Confederate loss at Battle of Antietam 1861 halts Lee’s first invasion of the North • Fort Sumter fired upon 1863 • First Battle of Bull Run • Lincoln presents Emancipation Proclamation 1859 • Battle of Gettysburg • John Brown leads raid on federal ▲ arsenal at Harpers Ferry, Virginia Lincoln ▲ 1861–1865 ▲ ▲ 1859 1861 1863 ▼ ▼ ▼ ▼ 1861 1862 1863 • Russian serfs • Source of the Nile River • French troops 1859 emancipated by confirmed by John Hanning occupy Mexico • Work on the Suez Czar Alexander II Speke and James A. Grant City Canal begins in Egypt 348 Charge by Don Troiani, 1990, depicts the advance of the Eighth Pennsylvania Cavalry during the Battle of Chancellorsville. 1865 • Lee surrenders to Grant at Appomattox Courthouse • Abraham Lincoln assassinated by John Wilkes Booth 1864 • Fall of Atlanta HISTORY • Sherman marches ▲ A.
    [Show full text]
  • American Civil War
    American Civil War Major Battles & Minor Engagements 1861-1865 1861 ........ p. 2 1862 ........ p. 4 1863 ........ p. 9 1864 ........ p. 13 1865 ........ p. 19 CIVIL WAR IMPRESSIONIST ASSOCIATION 1 Civil War Battles: 1861 Eastern Theater April 12 - Battle of Fort Sumter (& Fort Moultie), Charleston Harbor, South Carolina. The bombardment/siege and ultimate surrender of Fort Sumter by Brig. General P.G.T. Beauregard was the official start of the Civil War. https://www.nps.gov/fosu/index.htm June 3 - Battle of Philippi, (West) Virginia A skirmish involving over 3,000 soldiers, Philippi was the first battle of the American Civil War. June 10 - Big Bethel, Virginia The skirmish of Big Bethel was the first land battle of the civil war and was a portent of the carnage that was to come. July 11 - Rich Mountain, (West) Virginia July 21 - First Battle of Bull Run, Manassas, Virginia Also known as First Manassas, the first major engagement of the American Civil War was a shocking rout of Union soldiers by confederates at Manassas Junction, VA. August 28-29 - Hatteras Inlet, North Carolina September 10 - Carnifax Ferry, (West) Virginia September 12-15 - Cheat Mountain, (West) Virginia October 3 - Greenbrier River, (West) Virginia October 21 - Ball's Bluff, Virginia October 9 - Battle of Santa Rosa Island, Santa Rosa Island (Florida) The Battle of Santa Rosa Island was a failed attempt by Confederate forces to take the Union-held Fort Pickens. November 7-8 - Battle of Port Royal Sound, Port Royal Sound, South Carolina The battle of Port Royal was one of the earliest amphibious operations of the American Civil War.
    [Show full text]
  • First Battle of Bull Run-Manassas
    Name: edHelper First Battle of Bull Run-Manassas The thought that the American Civil War would last four long years never entered the minds of most of the people. It was assumed by people on both sides that each side would win quickly. It is interesting to note that many of the battles during the war had two names. The North would name them after the nearest body of water-- in this case, a stream called Bull Run. (Run is an early English word that means a stream or creek.) The South named them after the nearest town, such as Manassas. The new capital for the Confederacy (Richmond, Virginia) was only 100 miles away from the Union capital (Washington, D.C.). When this great battle came, it was certain to take place between the two cities because of their proximity. In preparation for an assault, the Union soldiers began fortifying areas around the capital and the nearby towns of Alexandria and Arlington, Virginia. Confederate forces made no immediate effort to attack Washington as the Union expected them to do. Instead, General Beauregard gathered his army at Manassas Junction where there was a railway. Union forces were commanded by General Winfield Scott, but he was too old and infirm to lead the men on the field. That job fell to General Irwin McDowell. While many men had flocked to the Union banner, few had any training as soldiers. He wanted time to train the men for battle, but Congress wanted him to confront the Confederates. The two forces met near the creek called Bull Run on July 21, 1861.
    [Show full text]
  • From Bull Run to Antietam
    The Civil War Chapter 11 From Bull Run to Antietam Chapter 11 Section 1 The First Battle of Bull Run • Union commander – Irvin McDowell • Union troops not very organized – need more time – but Lincoln wants men into action • Goal was to take Manassas – important railroad junction near Washington • Union marched toward Bull Run Stream • Looked like a Union victory early on • But Confederates rally behind Thomas Jackson – “STONEWALL” • The South won the First Battle of Bull Run Preparing for War • North had advantages in population, railroads, money, weapon • South had the advantage of superior officers and fighting on their home field • Union Strategy – cut off South from everything – Anaconda Plan • Confederate Strategy – war of attrition • Old tactics were used against new technology War in the West • George McClellan named commander after Bull Run disaster • Lincoln wanted to take control of Mississippi River • Union forces in the west led by Ulysses Grant • Grant wins Forts Henry and Donelson easily • Grant endures heavy losses as the Battle of Shiloh however but learns a lesson – defensive fighting will win the war • Union is able to capture southern points on the Mississippi however War in the East • Monitor and Virginia make wooden vessels obsolete • At the Peninsular Campaign, McClellan was in striking distance of Richmond but he let Confederates organize attack. • Confederates now led by Robert E. Lee The South Attacks • Lee and Jackson join forces to attack Union troops • John Pope replaced McClellan after being to hesitant • Jackson attacks Pope, when Pope goes on the offensive – Lee brings reinforcements • Second Battle of Bull Run • After the Battle, McClellan is reinstated • Now that Richmond was no longer in danger, time to invade the North • Lee invades W.
    [Show full text]
  • Fm 34-1 Intelligence and Electronic Warfare Operations
    /fa FM 34-1 INTELLIGENCE AND ELECTRONIC WARFARE OPERATIONS HEADQUARTERS, DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY DISTRIBUTION RESTRICTION: Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. Pentagon Library (ANR-PL) ATTN: Military Documents Section Room 1A518, Pentagon Washington, DC 20310-6050 & J* % } *FM 34-1 FIELD MANUAL HEADQUARTERS No. 34-1 DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY Washington, DC, 27 September 1994 INTELLIGENCE AND ELECTRONIC WARFARE OPERATIONS TABLE OF CONTENTS Page PREFACE iii INTRODUCTION v CHAPTER 1 - INTELLIGENCE AND ELECTRONIC WARFARE SUPPORT TO MILITARY OPERATIONS 1-1 Mission of Army Intelligence 1-1 IEW in the Force Projection Army 1-1 Principles of Force Projection IEW 1-4 Intelligence Battlefield Operating System 1-11 Primary Features of the Intelligence BOS 1-11 Limitations of the Intelligence BOS 1-13 Training the Intelligence BOS 1-14 CHAPTER 2 - FUNDAMENTALS OF IEW OPERATIONS 2-1 Total Force Effort 2-1 Levels of Intelligence 2-2 Intelligence Disciplines and Functions 2-4 Characteristics of Effective Intelligence 2-7 Primary Intelligence Tasks 2-7 The Intelligence Cycle 2-15 Commander's Intelligence Requirements 2-17 Electronic Warfare 2-20 Electronic Warfare Components 2-20 CHAPTER 3 - FORCE PROJECTION OPERATIONS 3-1 Peacetime IEW Operations 3-1 IEW and the Stages of Force Projection 3-2 DISTRIBUTION RESTRICTION: Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. *This publication supersedes FM 34-1, 2 July 1987. V FM 34-1 Page CHAPTER 4 - COMBAT OPERATIONS 4-1 IEW Supports Commanders 4-1 Commander's Intelligence Team 4-2 Range
    [Show full text]
  • The Gettysburg Campaign: Birth of the Operational Art?
    The Gettysburg Campaign: Birth of the Operational Art? A Monograph by MAJ Kevin B. Marcus United States Army School of Advanced Military Studies United States Army Command and General Staff College Fort Leavenworth, Kansas Second Term AY 00-01 Approved for Public Release; Distribution is Unlimited Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8-98) Page 1 of 2 REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE 1. REPORT DATE (DD- 2. REPORT TYPE 3. DATES COVERED (FROM - TO) MM-YYYY) monograph xx-xx-2001 to xx-xx-2001 01-05-2001 4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5a. CONTRACT NUMBER The Gettysburg Campaign: Birth of the Operational Art? 5b. GRANT NUMBER Unclassified 5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER 6. AUTHOR(S) 5d. PROJECT NUMBER Marcus, Kevin B. ; 5e. TASK NUMBER 5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER 7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER U.S. Army Command & General Staff College School of Advanced Military Studies 1 Reynolds Ave. Fort Leavenworth , KS 66027 9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME AND 10. SPONSOR/MONITOR'S ACRONYM(S) ADDRESS 11. SPONSOR/MONITOR'S REPORT NUMBER(S) , 12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT A PUBLIC RELEASE , 13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES 14. ABSTRACT file://E:\ffcsbackup2\final\Marcus--Spring--AY2001_200115051512.298.html 05/30/2001 Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8-98) Page 2 of 2 While hundreds of volumes exist on the Gettysburg Campaign, most examine the battle?s tactical framework and focus on the activities of brigades and regiments. However, of more interest to the serving military professional may be an analysis of the degree to which the Confederacy?s design and execution exemplify attributes of what is now known as the operational art.
    [Show full text]
  • Northern Lights Ch. 8
    Northern Lights CHAPTER 8 Northern Lights: The Stories of Minnesota’s Past © Minnesota Historical Society, 2013 Unauthorized use or distribution of this material is strictly forbidden On July 2, 1863, soldiers in the First Minnesota Infantry Regiment charged Confederate lines during the Battle of Gettysburg. 1819 1820 1835–1860 1849 1850 1854 1857 Construction U.S. Congress Steamboat tours Minnesota U.S. Congress U.S. Congress U.S. Supreme of Fort Snelling passes the Mis- of the Upper Mis- becomes a passes the passes the Kan- Court hands down begins. souri Compromise. sissippi River are territory. Alex- Compromise of sas-Nebraska Act, the Dred Scott It outlaws slavery popular. ander Ramsey 1850. It includes which lets these decision. It says in lands north of is appointed a stronger two territories that enslaved latitude 36° 30', governor. fugitive-slave decide whether people have no but allows it in law, stating that to allow slavery. rights and there- Missouri and south enslaved people (This goes against fore cannot claim of this line. who escape must the Missouri freedom, even if Northern Lights: The Stories of Minnesota’sbe returned Pastto Compromise). they used to live 146 © Minnesota Historical Society,their 2013owners. on free soil. Unauthorized use or distribution of this material is strictly forbidden 8 THE CIVIL WAR Slavery caused a major division between Northerners and Southerners. These groups often had differing views about its morality and necessity. War broke out when Southern states left the Union. Find out how the experi- ences of individuals—enslaved African Americans and a soldier in the First Minnesota Regiment—illustrate the impact of slavery and the Civil War on Minnesota.
    [Show full text]
  • Losing the Fight from the Start
    MOVEMENT TO CONTACT: LOSING THE FIGHT FROM THE START A Monograph by Major Charles W. Coxwell Infantry School of Advanced Military Studies United States Army Command and General staff college Fort Leavenworth, Kansas First Term AY 94-95 ApprOVea tor HIDIIC Kelease; Ulstnauhon IS Unllmlted SCHOOL OF ADVANCED MILITARY STUDIES MONOGRAPH APPROVAL Maior Charles W. Coxwell. Jr. Title of Monograph: Movement to Contact: Losinu the Fiuht from the Start Approved by: ~,s?~--- Monograph Director Ernest H. Evans, Ph.D. Director, School of COL reg& ~dntenot,MA, MMAS Advanced Military- Studies Director, Graduate Philip J. Broolies, Ph.D. Degree Program Accepted this 17th day of December 1994 ABSTRACT MOVEMENT TO CONTACT: LOSING THE FIGHT FROM THE START by Major Charles W. Coxwell,, Jr., USA, 48 pages. This monograph evaluates the soundness of U.S. movement to contact doctrine towards the offensive meeting battle. The author distinguishes two forms of meeting battle: offensive and defensive. The offensive meeting battle is a continuous struggle for the initiative. The author finds that in an offensive meeting battle, U.S. movement to contact doctrine concedes the initiative. U.S. movement to contact doctrine is passive, indecisive, and reactionary. The doctrine loses the fight from the start. The doctrine is evaluated against the offense guidance presented in FM 100-5 to determine its level of congruency with capstone doctrine. Soviet doctrine is introduced to support the position presented in FM 100-5. The Soviets championed the offensive meeting battle. They preferred it to all other forms of combat. Presently, military policy is requiring that a belligerent's offensive capability be neutralized without protracted war.
    [Show full text]
  • Not Written in Letters of Blood: the Forgotten Legacy of the Army of the Cumberland”
    Cedarville University DigitalCommons@Cedarville The Research and Scholarship Symposium The 2016 yS mposium Apr 20th, 3:00 PM - 3:20 PM Not Written in Letters of Blood: The orF gotten Legacy of the Army of the Cumberland Andrew R. Perkins Cedarville University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.cedarville.edu/ research_scholarship_symposium Part of the Military History Commons, and the United States History Commons Perkins, Andrew R., "Not Written in Letters of Blood: The orF gotten Legacy of the Army of the Cumberland" (2016). The Research and Scholarship Symposium. 5. http://digitalcommons.cedarville.edu/research_scholarship_symposium/2016/podium_presentations/5 This Podium Presentation is brought to you for free and open access by DigitalCommons@Cedarville, a service of the Centennial Library. It has been accepted for inclusion in The Research and Scholarship Symposium by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@Cedarville. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Drew Perkins 2 March 2016 “Not Written in Letters of Blood: The Forgotten Legacy of the Army of the Cumberland” There is a chapter missing in the annals of Civil War history. The story of an entire army, and the thousands of men that comprised it, is not being told. That army is the Army of the Cumberland, which teeters on the verge of being lost to history due to three main factors: poorly timed defeats and victories in battle, personal feuds and politicking between Union officers, and the undue emphasis of Civil War historians on Southern Romanticism. While the largest Union army of the war, the Army of the Potomac, has received dozens if not hundreds of publications written about it in the last few decades, the second largest army, the Army of the Cumberland, has garnered no such attention.
    [Show full text]