THE UNIVERSITY OF HULL The Importance of Civil Military Relations in Complex Conflicts: Success and Failure in the Border States, Civil War Kentucky and Missouri, 1860-62. Being a Thesis submitted for the Degree of PhD, Department of Politics and International Studies In the University of Hull By Carl William Piper, BA (Lancs),MA June, 2011 Contents Introduction, p.1 Literary Review, p.60 The Border States in the Secession Crisis, p115 Case Study 1: Missouri April to September, 1861, p.160 Case Study 2: Kentucky April to September, 1861, p.212 Case Study 3: Forts Henry and Donelson, p.263 Case Study 4: The Perryville Campaign June to November, 1862, p.319 Conclusion, p.377 Bibliography, p.418 Introduction Despite taking place in the mid-nineteenth century the U.S. Civil War still offers numerous crucial insights into modern armed conflicts. A current or future federation or new ‘nation’ may face fundamental political differences, even irreconcilable difficulties, which can only be settled by force. In future states will inevitably face both separatist issues and polarised argument over the political development of their nation. It is probable that a civil war may again occur where the world may watch and consider forms of intervention, including military force, but be unwilling to do so decisively. This type of Civil War therefore remains historically significant, offering lessons for approaching the problems of strategy in a politically complex environment. Equally it offers insights into civil-military relations in highly complex conflicts where loyalties are not always clear. Success and ultimate triumph in the U.S. Civil War relied a great deal on the efficiency of civil-military relations and a willingness to approach each in a flexible, innovative manner. Within grand strategically vital regions where loyalties were uncertain and political complexity was very high, success in the realm of civil-military relations became the decisive factor in securing political control. Success in this dynamic and fluid realm of civil-military relations directly enabled military potential to be maximised, accelerating the implementation of the initial stages of a war winning strategy. This strategy 1 would ultimately preserve the Union and propel the United States towards world power status. Theories of civil-military relations from and based around the thoughts and methods of Samuel Huntington argue for the separation of the professional military and their political leadership. Huntington’s theories as first laid out in ‘The Soldier and the State’1, developed from the American historical experience, with the United States’ civil-military relationships present and future in mind, often ignored the complex and unique nature of some conflicts. Huntington at times ignored what the he considered to be historical factual anomalies in favour of theoretical framework. It would be unwise to analyse civil wars and complex conflict in this manner, these are often fought out on many levels with local and regional conflicts tied up in the wider struggle. What may be appear to be a very clearly defined conflict at this wider level can be in fact be far more complex regionally and indeed locally. Complex conflicts and multi-layered civil wars of varying intensities have been present in many eras and, in the post-Napoleonic age, have tended to occur following large scale multi-national conflicts, be they ‘Hot’ or ‘Cold’. The American Civil War has been utilised by Huntington to help develop his theoretical framework for efficient civil-military relations. However key aspects of this war exist where Huntington’s theories and others within the discipline are unsuitable or too imprecise for suitable analysis. These aspects also exist in other complex civil wars. The complexities of such conflicts render historical 2 detail more important and therefore more resistant to overarching theoretical analysis. This thesis will therefore demonstrate key, but less widely covered, aspects of the U.S. Civil War can serve as more useful models for civil-military relations in complex conflicts; introducing concepts and rare occurrences directly affecting theoretical analysis. These concepts and occurrences can be found in the decisive Western Theatre of the U.S. Civil War. A more focussed examination of the decisive Western Theatre of the U.S. Civil War and the role played by the states of Kentucky and Missouri therein can prove useful in examining Samuel Huntington’s interpretation of the conflict and its effect on civil-military relations. Huntington’s lifetime assertion that the struggle served as a dividing line in the development of the United States in general and her civil-military relations in particular justifies this further examination.2 The war in general functioned in much the way Huntington identified; with the United States adapting to the conflict, both militarily and politically, in the fashion of a war against an external enemy. However much of that which did not function in the traditional manner or cannot be clearly defined by Huntington takes place in the Western Theatre; a theatre in fact defined by the struggle for Kentucky and Missouri. The 1860/61 struggle for these two states introduces pivotal actions/reactions, organisational developments and highly irregular/unorthodox instances of civil-military relationships vital to the outcome of the war but cannot be confidently defined by Huntington’s 3 theories. The complexities of the Border State conflict can then be used as the basis for an examination of other intra-state conflicts with similar characteristics. At a wider level examining the Border State conflict addresses the need for a more suitable model to assess complex conflicts; this thesis being most relevant to the analysis of intra-state conflict fought after the end of the Napoleonic Wars. These civil wars involving numbers of competing groups of local, regional or national origin with geographical, cultural or ideological objectives not always in accordance with the two major protagonists.3 Each war likely involving foreign intervention, either overtly or covertly to ensure an outcome beneficial to their own political objectives or wider world view. However these external powers were never prepared to decisively intervene regardless of cost or with the risk of widening the war. In each conflict the role of one or more of these smaller regional grouping4 were arguably crucial and indeed certainly a recognizable major factor in that conflict’s outcome and direction. This work will show the overall outcome of such a complex conflict is dependent on the successful formation of official or unofficial coalitions to create effective civil-military relations. It will show the need for the manipulation of, or co-operation from, strategically vital but lesser partners to achieve a successful end to the conflict. It will highlight the importance both of the role of the national leader and his relationships with local spheres of political power. This thesis will also note how these roles are more difficult and 4 important in multi-layered conflict. It will also demonstrate a local or regional leadership can at times have a pivotal role to play in a civil war which, although this role may be brief, can have the potential to be decisive. It will be argued that ignoring such regions and their importance in a complex civil war can be highly damaging to the chances of ultimate victory. This work will argue that a flexible, unorthodox and occasionally unlawful approach is necessary to triumph in the environment of complex civil war. It will highlight a correct balance of both political leverage and military force is required to secure a positive outcome thus achieving the stated political objective. It will argue the higher level of complexity common to this type of war places a higher premium on an efficient chain of command and on civil- military relations at all levels. Importantly this thesis will show that traditional chains of command and established civil-military relationships may be completely unsuitable for this type of conflict; thus requiring either their amendment or removal. Successful revolutions are rare; a national government directly challenged by revolution would tend to the use of extremes due to the high political stakes involved. Even when norms of warfare are observed by all combatants political expediency may require the setting aside of certain ‘rights’ whether codified or un-codified in law. This thesis will argue that setting aside both the law and tradition at the right time is necessary to triumph in complex intra-state conflict. However putting aside legal and traditional rights, especially doing so at the wrong time without full consideration, can undermine political objectives 5 and military cohesion. Conversely, in a complex civil war, autonomous legal and cultural traditions can be a serious obstacle to successful coalition building. This thesis will argue that autonomy, where it cannot be manipulated, may have to be set aside to ensure ultimate success and when this is done can have a decisive effect on the chances of victory. It will be demonstrated that it is within these complex issues that too simplified theoretical analysis may be unsuitable. References will be regularly made to historical omission, revolving around the use of and ignorance of historical occurrence in complex civil conflict. However in addressing Huntington’s subordination of historical fact to the functioning of theory and the analysis of American civil-military relations this thesis does not seek to create in any way a whole new theory. This thesis does however seek to address complex conflict and civil wars by challenging Huntington’s historical omissions and use of history where they can be shown as being important in validating or otherwise his ideas. Furthermore it can be very strongly argued that the complex nature of the Civil War in Kentucky and Missouri provides strong tests to any approach or theory of civil-military relations.