Table Of ContentStrategies of
North and South
Also by Gerald L. Earley
The Second United States Sharpshooters in the Civil War:
A History and Roster (McFarland, 2009; paperback 2014)
Strategies of
North and South
A Comparative Analysis
of the Union and Confederate
Campaigns
Gerald L. Earley
McFarland & Company, Inc., Publishers
Jefferson, North Carolina
All photographs are by the author unless otherwise noted.
Library of Congress Cataloguing-in-Publication Data
Names: Earley, Gerald L., author.
Title: Strategies of North and South : a comparative analysis of the Union
and Confederate campaigns / Gerald L. Earley.
Description: Jefferson, North Carolina : McFarland & Company, Inc.,
Publishers, 2021 | Includes bibliographical references and index.
♾
Identifiers: LCCN 2021025256 | ISBN 9781476685663 (paperback : acid free paper)
ISBN 9781476643168 (ebook)
Subjects: LCSH: United States—History—Civil War, 1861-1865—Campaigns. |
Confederate States of America—History, Military. | Generals—Confederate States
of America. | Confederate States of America. Army—History. | Generals—United
States—History—19th century. | United States. Army—History—19th century. |
Operational art (Military science)—History—19th century. | Strategy—
History—19th century. | Command of troops—History—19th century.
Classification: LCC E470 .E129 2021 | DDC 973.7/3—dc23
LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2021025256
British Library cataloguing data are available
ISBN (print) 978-1-4766-8566-3
ISBN (ebook) 978-1-4766-4316-8
© 2021 Gerald L. Earley. All rights reserved
No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form
or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying
or recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system,
without permission in writing from the publisher.
Front cover image: “Gettysburg. Repulse of Longstreet’s Assault” painted by
James Walker; engraved by H.B. Hall, Jr. circa 1876 (Library of Congress)
Printed in the United States of America
McFarland & Company, Inc., Publishers
Box 611, Jefferson, North Carolina 28640
www.mcfarlandpub.com
Table of Contents
Preface 1
1. American Antebellum Martial Perceptions 5
2. 1860: Pre-War Motivation and Morale 12
3. 1861: America Stumbles into Civil War 19
4. 1861: The North Initiates Comprehensive Warfare 45
5. 1862: A Disastrous Year for the Confederacy 65
6. 1863: The Year of Northern Ascendency 138
7. 1864: The Decisive Year 185
8. 1865: The Confederacy Collapses 268
9. Comparisons and Conclusions 280
Chapter Notes 289
Bibliography 297
Index 301
v
Preface
For over 150 years the American Civil War has been an extraordinarily popular sub-
ject for books, magazines and literature. Civil War theme writing accounts for more than
enough surviving material to fill a great library and continues to reach interested read-
ers not only in America but worldwide. Interpretive writing about the Civil War has pro-
duced some rectified perspective in recent decades. As new information is introduced
with evolving perspective, it becomes increasingly apparent that much of the writing
from the century following the war requires reexamination, and additional insight is nec-
essary to construct a more exact and impartial rendering of the conflict.
With a multitude of compelling personalities and momentous historical and social
issues involved, the Civil War will probably continue to be America’s single most docu-
mented and studied historical topic. However, for some Americans the Civil War remains
a subject of fascination because it touches us on a personal basis. It’s in our DNA.
Politicians, talking heads, pundits and the media constantly remind us that America
is and has always been a nation of immigrants. While this cannot be denied, as evidence
indicates that humans were not native to and originally migrated to the Americas from
elsewhere, some Americans see things differently. Actor Charlton Heston expressed this
viewpoint well when he wrote that he was a “native American” by virtue of birth and the
birth of his parents. He also mentioned, for example, that his son Fraser could trace his
maternal ancestors in America back twelve generations to 1633.1 And so it is for Ameri-
cans like me. Nearly all of my ancestors that I have traced arrived on this continent well
before the American Revolution. They were not simply immigrants: they were mostly
settlers, frontiersmen and pioneers. There is a difference. When most of my ancestors
arrived on this continent there was no United States, and there was little or no infrastruc-
ture to nurture them. Life was dangerous and harsh in the frontier areas where they set-
tled. Then generations later when the American Civil War erupted, all of my then living
ancestors were here and were caught up in it.
Since much of the writing about the Civil War was authored by those who, like me,
had ancestors involved or otherwise had something of a personal stake in how the Civil
War is remembered, a tendency to give weight to the “myth of the lost cause” has per-
sisted. Southern veterans after the war fabricated a myth that the South did not fight to
sustain slavery and lost only because of superior Northern resources. Some recent writ-
ing has addressed this bias by documenting and debunking the distortion generated
by the post-war myth of the lost cause interpretation and by presenting an alternative
viewpoint. Unfortunately, some of this otherwise useful and accurate revisionist writ-
ing is presented much like a lawyer working a trial case. As a result valid analysis found
in previous writing is seemingly ignored or diminished in an apparent zeal to discredit
1
2 Preface
the myth. An impartial and balanced comparison of the overall military record with a
focus on how and why outcomes were affected is still needed. The task here is to exam-
ine the subject with objectivity. Getting at the truth is not likely to please everyone,
especially in this time of overbearing constraints and irrational criticisms of histori-
cal figures.
Despite a weariness of seemingly endless conflict, most Americans retain respect for
and take pride in our nation’s martial history. This isn’t unusual or unseemly; it is com-
mon throughout the world and evident in human history. Examples of this custom are
thousands of years old and are found even in the Bible. Almost an entire chapter in the
Bible, II Samuel 23, records the names and deeds of King David’s mighty men. How well a
nation’s warriors acquit themselves in battle was and remains weighty.
It seems reasonable through research to assume that the Southern states bred a more
militaristic society than the rest of the nation before the Civil War. This topic has been
examined and attributed to ethnic and cultural differences within the antebellum north-
ern and southern United States. Antebellum writing reveals that Southerners, especially
elites, absolutely viewed their region as martially superior in the years leading up to the
Civil War. As with most generalizations this assessment was and remains somewhat exag-
gerated. Nevertheless, Southerners and even many Northerners obviously believed it and
acknowledged it in their writing before and during the war. Given then that Southern-
ers viewed their region as martially superior to their ultimate conquerors, some mitigat-
ing explanation for their defeat was incumbent. Consequently, much Civil War writing,
past and recent, has consciously or unconsciously resembled the assessments so familiar
in the myth of the lost cause school.
This book investigates the validity of the perception of Southern martial superiority
that has influenced military studies of the Civil War. It is not intended to disprove any of
the beliefs attributed to the myth of the lost cause, as this has been previously examined
convincingly enough. Instead it is an account of Federal and Confederate military oper-
ations and battles with a view of delivering a non-biased assessment of performance as
well as outcomes. This assessment takes into account the challenges and circumstances
encountered during the course of the war.
It requires an encyclopedic series of volumes to examine and narrate even the some-
what significant operations of the war. The objective of this book, rather, is to condense
the study of a multitude of reports, correspondence, books, articles and insight into a
concise analysis of Federal and Confederate combat performance and military compe-
tence. The text will follow selected events in chronological order. The operations and bat-
tles included will be selected based on their relevance to the book’s objective.
Unfortunately this type of analysis is inherently subjective. Civil War combat vet-
eran William Humphrey defined the failings of interpretative historical writing when he
noted in a post-war letter, “I have never read history yet where they had every thing cor-
rect—just as it happened. You must remember no to (two) men or 100 men can go to the
Worlds Fair and come back and tell the same story of what they have seen, but that is no
sign there is no such thing as the Worlds Fair.”2
As Captain Humphrey observed, history is not an exact science. Getting histor-
ical narrative writing correct is difficult enough. To interpret and project conclusions
from the narrative that satisfies everyone is impossible. No one will ever set the record
absolutely straight until a time machine is invented. That is no sign that the Civil War
didn’t happen, only that not everyone will agree about how and why it happened. This is
Preface 3
especially true in an age when historical morals and mores are often judged according to
customs accepted in our own time.
Even great military minds disagree in evaluating the combat performance of mili-
tary units. Inevitably some corps, divisions, brigades and regiments are praised beyond
their merit while others are unfairly cast in an unfavorable light by commanders and his-
torians. The U.S. 32nd Infantry Division in World War II provides a useful example. This
division was comprised of the regimental descendants of the famous Civil War Iron Bri-
gade. One of my uncles served as a rifleman in one of its regiments and remained with
the 32nd during its entire service in the Pacific. General Douglas MacArthur had a some-
what low opinion of the 32nd Division, once telling a fellow general that the 32nd “never
had been any good.” Japanese Army Commander Tomoyuki Yamashita had a different
opinion. When asked which U.S. troops were the best he encountered in two Philippine
campaigns, he named the 32nd Division. The 32nd “earned the highest tribute” of Japan’s
“ablest ground commander,” but its own area commander held a different opinion. Each
general had a different perspective and appreciation of the challenges on the same bat-
tlefields and drew different conclusions as to the division’s fighting abilities. It must be
remembered that even an expert historical participant’s account is subject to and influ-
enced by perspective and stance, just as Captain Humphrey observed.3
This book will begin with a look at antebellum martial perceptions and expectations
for the ensuing war. Southern morale and motivation will be examined next and com-
pared with the same for Northerners. The text will then be devoted to an account and
evaluation of operations and battles throughout the war emphasizing events with partic-
ular suitability and relevance to this study. The final chapter will provide a series of obser-
vations and conclusions derived from the comparisons of the campaigns and operations
included in the main text.
Yale professor David Brion Davis in his study of the history of slavery in the Amer-
icas noted that the aging Civil War veterans themselves focused their attention upon
“minute details” of the battles rather than the issues and meanings of the war. Davis
observed that few wars have generated “such a strange fascination” with tactics or what
one might call military minutia. Perhaps Davis presented a particularly adept analogy
when he compared the war to a tremendous “athletic contest” between sections of the
country, at least as it is remembered by many.4 What Davis overlooked is that this war
which changed the course and destiny of our nation, and the world, is directly linked to
so many Americans through their heritage. Today a great many Americans have a not-
so-strange fascination with their ancestry. The objective here is to provide a non-biased
comparative analysis of the military performance of our Civil War ancestors, free of the
influence of their partisanship and of our sentiments regarding their propriety.
