In discussing the development of an effective strategy for the
prosecution of the war, the leadership from both sides drew from the same core
philosophy—that of Jomini, and the teachings of the early nineteenth
century. As Archer Jones wrote in his
article about Jomini and the Strategy of the Civil War, most Civil War
commanders used Jomini’s strategies whether familiar with them or not.
On the Union side, this was especially prevalent with the early leaders
of the war like McClellan, and others who attempted to fight this first modern
war by the book. The origins of
strategic thinking began at the professional military institutions and evolved
further in the war with Mexico where many of the Civil War leaders fought. This
same type of strategy, although effective in Mexico, was no longer effective in
the CW. As Archer Jones explains, these
Jominian tactics in fact led to the indecisiveness of CW commanders. John Shy
gives several reasons why these Jominian tactics were no longer effective:
First, all forces are not the same as Jomini espoused. Second, politics and war
are not separate, although leaders like McClellan attempted to prosecute the
war with as little Lincoln intervention as possible. Finally according to Shy,
the experience of each leader did not conform to the modern war that the CW was
becoming, and Jominian tactics did not address these new elements of total war.
In Civil War Command and Strategy, Archer Jones describes the Union
strategy as leaning towards concentrations in time. This favored the larger
Northern army according to the author. The North would make simultaneous
advances against many different parts of the Confederate cordon defense,
Because of the smaller Confederate force, the Southerners would be weak at one
point and this would be the planned point of Northern breakthrough. This
strategy eventually worked for the North as Grant prosecuted the war to a
successful close.
As T. Harry Williams explained in his article “The Return of Jomini…”
Jomini, and Clauswitz were on different ends of the scale. Union fighters
started the war purely Jominian, (while losing battles) but evolved more
towards Clauswitz’s concepts of total war to prosecute the war to a successful
end. As this shift was made on the Northern side Lincoln shifted towards those
commanders that embraced these concepts of total war.
When considering the evolution of the Union command system, one must
consider the teachings of T. Harry Williams in “Lincoln and his Generals.
Lincoln, began the war trusting the abilities of his early military leaders but
quickly shifted to a more hands on approach as he learned of their ineptitude.
Lincoln, according to Williams was forced to take a more hands on approach. Lincoln
learned early on that the focus of the Union effort had to be on the
Confederate army, not cities—like Richmond. Lincoln also understood the
importance of public opinion and morale and he worked hard to develop a
positive big picture to keep the entire North motivated for the fight. Lincoln was very hands on according to
Williams, until he found his general—in Grant. This hands on process led
towards a more modern command system with Lincoln as Commander in Chief, Grant
as General in Chief, and Halleck as Chief of Staff.
On the Confederate side, Southern leaders may have been more closely
tied to Jominian philosophy then Northern generals since it took them longer to
make the shift mentioned by Williams in “The Return of Jomini…” When
considering the origins of Confederate strategic thinking, it is important to
realize that these roots were exactly the same as the North, since the leaders
had been taught in the same schools and fought in the same Mexican War.
Although as stated by Williams in his article from “Why the North Won…” there
were differences at the top. Davis acted more as General in Chief then
Commander in Chief while Lincoln, when he finally found his General, was better
able to manage the big picture. As Williams describes in the same article,
under Grant the shift was made from Jomini to Clauswitz enabling the North to
emerge victorious. Where as with the South, the best overall General—Lee was
never given overall command and Jefferson Davis, was unable to prosecute the
war to a successful end for the South.
The South according to Archer Jones in “CW Command and Strategy”
focused on concentrations in Space in an attempt to establish a cordon defense
and best use their interior lines. Davis knew the importance of holding as much
territory as possible because any loss of territory would result in a loss of
potential soldiers. The turning movement was at the heart of CW doctrine
according to Jones—lessons learned again in the Mexican War. The Confederates
used these turning movements extremely well. The South also used raids very
effectively early according to Jones, but the North implemented this raid
strategy as they prosecuted the war to a successful close.
Overall, the North did a better job of adjusting to modern warfare and
developing a modern command structure according to the teachings of this
course. While both sides seemed to start the war fighting the way they knew
based on the teachings and experiences they received, the North caught on
early. Under the leadership of Lincoln the North made the transition from
Jomini to Clauswitz in their successful attempt to reunite the nation.
No comments:
Post a Comment