The
Indian activities in the west did have an effect on the Unions ability to wage
war in the east. At the start of the war, most of the regular soldiers in the
U.S. Army were stationed in the west. There was some discussion about bringing
most of these professional soldiers back east and mixing them in with the
volunteer units for the experience. This did not happen. Many of the regular
soldiers remained in the west, and volunteer units that fought in the east
suffered somewhat from a lack of experience that could have been gained from
the experienced soldiers.
Of
course, the reason that a good number of Federal soldiers had to remain in the
West was the Indian uprisings that were occurring at the same time. The
American settlers had to be protected, and large numbers of Federals
who could have been well used in the east, and even the near west, had to
remain in the trans Mississippi west for this specific purpose.
At the beginning of the war, both North and South had more volunteers than could put under command. Now, there were sufficient volunteers and in those ranks were some experienced (Kit Carson, and many others) men that could fight the Amercian Tribes. Even though the west was facing a moment where the troops were not there, the losses would have been was something acceptable.
ReplyDeleteIn the east, the need in the East for regulars was immediate and the loss due to the lack of regulars was not something that was acceptable. In my opinion, this was a decision that did lengthen the war.
...I could be wrong about this but I think the North had a policy to put veteran troops into the ranks as complete units, instead of mixing them in with the volunteers. Allowing them to lead and mentor the volunteers would have obvious benefits. Since this didn't happen it prolonged the war in my opinion.
ReplyDelete