The technology called upon by the two armies certainly changed the nature of the war; there were cannons which could fire up to 1 mile and at short ranges (200 yards or so) could cause devastation. Likewise rifles such as Springfeilds and Enfeilds carried by infantry on both sides, more than doubled the killing zone than Napoleonic- style rifles. These rifles could fire accurately at 200 yards and could hit large targets from over 400 yards, the development of rapid-fire guns ensured that advancing troops could suffer huge casualties for long periods of time. These technological advancements meant that battlefields were wider and deeper than previously had been seen.
Both the North and their counterparts in the South raised large armies of citizen-soldiers expected to serve for up to three years. Some 2 million Northerners and more than 900,000 Southerners became members of these mass armies. The majority of the soldiers joined up of their own compliance; conscription acts prompted people to enlist rather than suffer the indignity of being drafted in.
The use of railroads and telegraphs were crucial in the creation of a modern war. Both sides set up their own military telegraph offices, this medium allowed them to send messages over great areas of the country. Railroads were used to transport soldiers and supplies on both sides and were also used to transport some heavy artillery such as cannons. Lincoln used an act of congress to establish the US Military Railroad which gave logistical support to union forces moving into the south. Jefferson Davis did not find it so easy as Lincoln as he had to resort to using national funds to establish links between critical logistical gaps in the South’s railroad system. The establishment of a designated unit to aid the Military through the railroad gives an indication of the extent to which the forces were willing to rely on technology.
The use of ideology in warfare was used most notably in WWII by Hitler and is an important aspect of modern warfare in order to inspire the relative sides. In the US Civil War the North used the idea of the Union to promote their ideals. Many Northerners viewed the United States of America as the pinnacle of democracy, opportunity and individual rights. It was propagated that not only would America be worse off if the states fell apart but it would be to the detriment of the whole world. With Lincoln’s controversial emancipation proclamation again a large proportion of the North were motivated further. The south in turn used the idea of individual rights and the rights of individual states to build a sense of Southern nationalism. They promoted the idea of fighting to protect the “Southern way of life” and “Southern institutions”. Lincoln’s proclamation gave the North a moral high ground which would favour them for generations to come. The use of ideology and propaganda was not only essential for the US Civil War but also created a heightened modernity to the war.
With all modern wars the Navy plays an important part and this was no different in the American Civil War. Both navies ordered new armoured ships powered by steam engines and the Union was at the forefront of a new design involving revolving turrets. The North used their warships to blockade the Confederate coast from Virginia to Texas, this had little initial success but by the end of the war the Union was stopping regular trade between the confederacy and foreign powers with 400 vessels forming the blockade. The US Civil War saw joint operations between the Navy and the Army with the Navy acting as a carrier to many troops and sometimes the frontline force against towns which were on the coast or on a river. This is yet another example of the heightened modernity highlighted in the US Civil War.
The US Civil War saw the creation of a set of rules for combat, the treatment of prisoners of war and conduct throughout wartime. These rules gave the basis for international discussions which laid down rules for European wars of later periods. This thought for the rules of engagement between two sides shows a humanity and modernity which up to that point had not been agreed upon. The behaviour of the Union after the war was also interesting they took control of the southern states and used the army to carry out all administrative and constabulary tasks until a state was declared reconstructed. The Union used its power to ensure that southern congressmen and senators were to their liking and would do as the Union wished. This totalitarian approach to managing a post-war country is something we don’t see again until WW1 and even then it was a little more measured, WW2 would be the next example of this style, that is nearly a century later. The modernity of the US Civil War is not in question, there are clearly examples of it being far in advance of what had preceded however, I believe the US Civil War was not wholly modern due to the Napoleonic nature of the tactics used.
There are a small number of eminent historians who are willing to counter the established idea that the US Civil War was the first modern war. The first point to counter is the idea which is propagated that the new rifles revolutionised tactics. Attacking formations were not, as is assumed, mown down before they got close to the enemy but managed to install themselves at Napoleonic ranges and fought hard until all ammunition was used. Neither did the new rifles stop artillery from operating too far to deploy certain artillery rounds eg. Canisters, gunners continued to play an important part as they had always done and they suffered relatively low casualties. Another myth is that Cavalry was swept off the battlefield by the immense power of improved artillery this is not true, initially they were hesitant due to poor training but by the end the cavalry was an important part of the battle as they had been in all Napoleonic wars.
Fortifications were not as a result of the new weaponry as was the case in World War One but instead was due to fashion and academic ideals. It was believed that firepower and protection was most important, this was not strictly true. In some cases fortifications were built in order to create a false battle, both sides had been drained of energy and enthusiasm and so they mutually dug-in just to create a situation in which less people would die even if no-one won.
In some ways the tactics used by some generals were far from progressive in fact they were regressive, generals persisted with deep assault formations which had been discredited in Napoleonic times. The result of this was a chaotic intermingling of regiments under enemy’s guns and thus a loss of impetus for the advance. This chaotic scene has been accredited to the technological advances of the Americans but there are a number of explanations for the indecisiveness of the battles: the terrain interfered with command and control, the tactical articulation of 19th Century armies favoured a defender rather than an attacker, the logistic difficulties hindered pursuit. The indecisive nature of many battles was due to the individual generals. Many of hem seem to have been cautious, some even refusing to fight if the odds of victory were not to their favour, the predominant military culture was rooted in a tentative and sedate style of war. The scale of the battles are also comparable to Napoleons era, the size of the army’s which engaged each other are roughly the same and distances covered are also comparable. The use of steam-powered engines was, especially on the East, not needed as horsepower could have sustained these campaigns. The integrated movements of rail-born mobilisations witnessed in Lincolns’ and Davis’ America are not even closely comparable to that which was witnessed in Napoleonic France of 1870.
In conclusion, one can see that there are significantly modern aspects to the American Civil War; however, historians such as Paddy Griffith have highlighted the holes in the assertion that it was the first modern war. Arguably the US Civil War was a transitional war, it was the war which created various revolutions and innovations which would lead to the two World Wars and their relative intensity and modernity. We can trace the changing nature of warfare from Napoleonic to Modern from the American Civil War.
Gerald F. Linderman Embattled Courage: The Experience of Combat in the American Civil War (New York, 1987) pp. 180-215.
Jack Coggins Arms and Equipment of the Civil War (New York, 1962).
Richard S. Hartigan Leiber’s Code and the Laws of War (Chicago, Ill. 1983).
James E. Sefton, The United States Army and Reconstruction, 1865-1877 (Baton Rouge, La 1967); Joseph G. Dawson III, Army Generals and Reconstruction: Louisiana 1862-1877 (Baton Rouge, La 1982)
