Thursday, November 1, 2012

War Mobilization: The Myth and the Reality

I see many parallels between the US Civil War and World War I in terms of the idea of war versus the actuality of a total war.  In both cases, the vast majority of all parties involved saw the war as something that would be violent but quick, and swift and final.  No one could have predicted how complex the war would become.

....or could they?  Consider some of the problems that both the Union and the Confederacy faced when mobilizing for the early stages of war.  How prepared were they for actual conflict?  Consider the myth and actuality of First Bull Run--why was it anticipated as a sporting event but then experienced as a bloodbath?

10 comments:

  1. Sometimes overconfidence is a bad thing. Both the North and south took the war lightly thinking that it would be a quick victory. Even the new York times predicted in 60 days the war will end. This overconfident mindset lead to the unpreparedness of both the North and the South. Mobilizing and training a small army was very difficult to do in a young, expanding country. Things were not taken seriously and this resulted in a childish, chaotic anticipation of Bull Run.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I agree with Nicki about how things were takin "lightly". When any war is thought to be quick, it makes it that much easier for it not to be. I do not agree with Nicki about how it was hard for them to adapt, frankly I think that was the only strengths about the two sides. They were able to supply more troops when necessary and change their ways of fighting to match the intensity of the opponent. Of course, Bull Run was a nightmare, but I think it was because not all soldiers fighting were trained for war, and this I am not surprised by. It is obvious that when a nation splits, in order to have an army that has sufficient numbers, you need to train more men. I don't think the Union or Confederacy had a sufficient time to do so. Not all of the Southern states even succeeded before the war started. The lack of structure of these army's derives from the time and places that the Union and Confederate leaders were but under.

    ReplyDelete
  3. First of all, as said in the intro to the question, both the Confederacy and the Union believed the conflict would be short. They were not stressing over nearly as much as they would if they knew what they were in for. Regarding the mobilization of the North and South, the document states that mobilization was one of the "most rapid and effective ever" in history, although the volunteering militia were very disorganized and unprepared themselves. I find it ironic how the militia seemed so unprepared but the mobilization was so effective. But, on top of it all, the First Bull Run turned out to be a mess; it was experienced as a "bloodbath." Under General McDowell, the Union army ventured to Washington and encountered Rebels. This ultimately resulted in the green units in both armies to become disorganized, the structure to collapse, immense confusion, and an overall very chaotic event.

    ReplyDelete
  4. It's hard to imagine an army being made up of a bunch of shopkeepers and farmers. Today, being a soldier is a profession, but during the Civil War, these men just rushed onto the battlefield. The North and the South were both gearing up for a quick fight, and they didn't realize until late that they needed an actual long term plan to fight this fight.

    ReplyDelete
  5. The Bull Run Battle was the first chance for the armies to meet in a major land battle and they both underestimated each other. the fact that the north saw the campaign on the confederate capital as a breeze going into it was their first mistake, but the south also thought that the north didn't want to fight and was going to be a push over. the bull run was also the first time that the south was able to showcase their ability to adapt to the battle faster and more efficiently then the north and this was a direct response to the leadership of the south. Stonewall jackson was a key general in the souths battle plan and was feared for his seemingly impenetrable wall of soldiers and their unbreakable mindset.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Well, first thing i want to talk about is that may be the Bull Run was just a typical bloody battle just like ever other battles were, the reason that people said it was a mess may be was because that it was the start of the real war and people have not seen such a "massacre" for quite a long time since the Mexican war. Despite there were a great percentages of the troop on both side were made by farmers and shopkeepers and all that, yes they were not well trained but i do not think anyone could blame that as the reason the war was a "bloodbath",because it was the war anyway, the more soldiers were well trained won not make the battle become more bloody because they know how to kill people better? also, in my eyes, the reason that there were people viewed it as a sport game is because they do not have quiet appreciation for the value of history and overconfidence.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I completely agree with nicki, when you are too overconfident, you tend to not worry. They both believed that the war was just going to be a breeze and it was just a small stage in becoming a nation. This led to such unpreparedness, that our nation lost thousands of men that didn't really have to die. They only realized when it was too late that this was indeed much bigger than they thought. What they needed was a long term plan which neither side possessed. Another major problem was the capability that the individuals had. These men weren't trained. They had no idea what they were doing.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I think the North as well as the south underestimated each other at the beginning of the war. Both thought that there would be nothing more than a few months of fight until one side would gave up. The Union felt confident because they were superior in many aspects without even mobilizing a lot: a functioning government, the economy based on Industrialization, the army plus the navy, they didn't really expect that the South would have something to oppose.
    In the same time the South thought that if they would resist only long enough, the Union would give up and leave them alone.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I agree with what Abdoulaye said in terms of a soldier being a profession, rather than compulsory in many wars in America's history. The north were very confident going into the war due to their superior economy, and their larger army.
    I can imagine the south being very unorganised.

    ReplyDelete
  10. The main culprit here: over-confidence. The North under estimated their Confederate counterparts. But this hubris was not isolated to the North alone. Even the South had an under prepared army. But from a military stand-point that was more acceptable of south since the North was such a militaristic nation or 'power' at the time of the war. The North had no real particular excuse for being so under prepared besides being over confident.

    ReplyDelete