Bull Run Question

[Setzer]

Pretty much every history book I've read in school says that First Bull Run convinced both sides that the war would be a long conflict. But I can't help but be somewhat skeptical. "The rebels won a single battle! This will clearly be a bloody conflict that will last for years and cost hundreds of thousands of American lives!" Were there any responses more along the lines of "They got lucky, we'll crush them next time"?

[Bakustra]

Pretty much every history book I've read in school says that First Bull Run convinced both sides that the war would be a long conflict. But I can't help but be somewhat skeptical. "The rebels won a single battle! This will clearly be a bloody conflict that will last for years and cost hundreds of thousands of American lives!" Were there any responses more along the lines of "They got lucky, we'll crush them next time"?

It wasn't a case of the Confederacy winning so much as both sides learning that their armies needed far more training to become effective in battle. So during those months, both sides were able to fortify the areas around Richmond and Washington, and, more importantly, both sides thought that they would be able to win quickly initially. The US thought that they could march south, take Richmond, and win the war in days. That's why Lincoln called for 90-day volunteers. The South thought that they could win handily and force the US to recognize their independence by defeating the Northern army. When neither side won decisively at Bull Run, it became apparent that neither scenario would happen, leading to the conclusion that the war would drag on longer. Bear in mind that Bull Run was the only major land conflict in the whole of 1861.

Also, keep in mind that many Northerners were rather leery about the whole war. Some were proslavery, others just wanted to see the South go. The CSA continued to think they had a chance of victory until Petersburg and the fall of Richmond, so they thought as you suggested, but knew that they had to train their troops and prepare them for war.

[Sea Skimmer]

The whole point was both the north and the south initially raised armies using volunteer militia who signed on for just 90 days of service. The belief fully was that a battle would occur, and the winner would sweep into either Washington DC or Richmond and force the enemy to surrender. Certainly it would have been almost politically impossible for either side to keep fighting had it lost its capital so swiftly, and in the case of the south losing Richmond also meant losing the only ironworks in the entire confederacy.

So just about ANY other possible outcome was going to mean a long war. If the 90 day militiamen could not win the fight then it would take much longer to raise new armies of 2 year volunteers. The slow pace of equipment, movement and replacing losses sustained in the first battle was going to preclude fighting more then one action in that short period. Both sides also knew that after that 90 day period relatively significant fortifications could be built up to block the numerous river barriers in-between Washington and Richmond, which is exactly what happened. Ultimately neither side was EVER able to take the others main capital works by storm in four years of war. The Union only finally forced the south to abandon the Richmond defenses by shear attrition.

This was an era of long wars, when usually winning anything quickly was just plain impossible and it often took a year or more for a war to even get properly underway. So it’s not unusual that people thought a long war would occur if they didn’t win in the first battle, its unusual that they thought they could ever win in one battle at all. It was only possible to think that way because the two capitals were so close together.

[LadyTevar]

In a few history books, there's the explanation that the Confederates won Bull Run, but were too busy 'celebrating' to march onwards to take Washington. In others, the South was just as shocked/horrified by what happened at Bull Run and couldn't get their act together to make a move. Instead, they retreated.

Thoughts on this?

[Bakustra]

In a few history books, there's the explanation that the Confederates won Bull Run, but were too busy 'celebrating' to march onwards to take Washington. In others, the South was just as shocked/horrified by what happened at Bull Run and couldn't get their act together to make a move. Instead, they retreated.

Thoughts on this?

That goes together with what Sea Skimmer and I have said. They did continue to hold Bull Run for the rest of the year, in that the Union didn't make any further offensives, but they realized that they needed time to train their troops beyond the level of "disorganized mob".

[Sea Skimmer]

In a few history books, there's the explanation that the Confederates won Bull Run, but were too busy 'celebrating' to march onwards to take Washington. In others, the South was just as shocked/horrified by what happened at Bull Run and couldn't get their act together to make a move. Instead, they retreated.

Thoughts on this?

While the South won the battle and Union troops fled the field, it only inflicted about 3,000 casualties and took about 2,000 in return. Both sides retain major forces in the field which saw no combat at all, including each sides army in the Shenandoah Valley and major Union forces left behind in Washington. The Confederates themselves became highly disorganized in the battle and fired off most of the ready ammunition they had. They also had large number of wounded to deal with and no experience doing so. A push on Washington would have also had to contend with several Union gunboats on the Potomac River, easier said then done with 6pdr smoothbore field guns.

Basically the Confederates had to destroy the Union at Bull Run for a push onto the capital to be an option, and they didn’t and couldn’t easily have done so in anything like the historical battle.

[Serafine666]

While the South won the battle and Union troops fled the field, it only inflicted about 3,000 casualties and took about 2,000 in return. Both sides retain major forces in the field which saw no combat at all, including each sides army in the Shenandoah Valley and major Union forces left behind in Washington. The Confederates themselves became highly disorganized in the battle and fired off most of the ready ammunition they had. They also had large number of wounded to deal with and no experience doing so. A push on Washington would have also had to contend with several Union gunboats on the Potomac River, easier said then done with 6pdr smoothbore field guns.

Basically the Confederates had to destroy the Union at Bull Run for a push onto the capital to be an option, and they didn’t and couldn’t easily have done so in anything like the historical battle.

Another element that figures in is what lay behind the two armies. The Confederate Army broke the Union and drove them back... into the rising fortifications around Washington DC. If the battle had gone the other way, however, there was no solid fallback point for the South. Richmond was a long ways away and the rivers between them and it were not easily turned into obstacles for pursuit--in fact, they may have turned into obstacles for retreat. Even in the first major conflict of the war, the sides were mismatched in the resources they could call upon for victory. The 2nd Battle of Bull Run was actually much more significant than the 1st because the Confederate armies were able to severely thrash Pope in a way that they were unable to do for McDowell. Another difference, of course, was that it was probably not possible for the Union to win 1st Bull Run with a majority of the military experience on the other side of the battlefield (whereas it may have been possible to win 2nd Bull Run) but that's a different discussion altogether.

[Simon_Jester]

The whole point was both the north and the south initially raised armies using volunteer militia who signed on for just 90 days of service. The belief fully was that a battle would occur, and the winner would sweep into either Washington DC or Richmond and force the enemy to surrender. Certainly it would have been almost politically impossible for either side to keep fighting had it lost its capital so swiftly, and in the case of the south losing Richmond also meant losing the only ironworks in the entire confederacy.

Do you think the Confederates could have put out any noticeable defensive effort had Virginia not seceded?

This was an era of long wars, when usually winning anything quickly was just plain impossible and it often took a year or more for a war to even get properly underway. So it’s not unusual that people thought a long war would occur if they didn’t win in the first battle, its unusual that they thought they could ever win in one battle at all. It was only possible to think that way because the two capitals were so close together.

Does the Franco-Prussian War count as long? I thought that one only ran about a year.

[Sea Skimmer]

Do you think the Confederates could have put out any noticeable defensive effort had Virginia not seceded?

Noticeable sure, but not for more then a year or so, maybe two at best. I mean really, had the Union had better leadership the war would have been over in 1862 anyway. The Union Peninsula Campaign, or one of several other possible uses of that army, by all rights should have overrun Richmond. If Virginia stays in, then Lee and many other officers will stay with the Union. Additional the Union does not lose Newport News which is its largest best equipped naval base and home to most of the fleet which was laid up and historically burned to prevent capture. It also had more then 1,000 heavy cannons in storage which went on to arm Confederate coastal defenses. So the Confederacy loses its leadership advantage, it suffers from an effective blockade at an early point, and it loses the vital keystone to its ability to cannibalize together a war industry. It’s also short of heavy armaments and has lost the only plant that can make new ones.

To make things even worse for the shrunken south, the geography of northern Virginia was naturally constricted. The terrain west of the Shenandoah Valley was effectively impassable to large armies, and the rivers along the Chesapeake narrowed the useful width of the coastal plan even if they did aid Union logistics. Either way the South only had to defend a narrow front and was highly successful at doing so. If you move to southern Virginia and North Carolina though, the terrain is much more open. Any defensive position that can be taken can be readily outflanked making it a war of movement. With the Union having Lee as a decent leader, movement will heavily favor the rapidly expanding superior numbers of the Union.

Does the Franco-Prussian War count as long? I thought that one only ran about a year.

It did but that’s hardly winning in 90 days. Also the French also started in a dramatically inferior position in that the German states all had mass conscript armies (only introduced in 1862), while the French had about 1/5th as many professional soldiers and no trained reserve. The French then proceed to allow the Prussians to wipe out that entire professional army in a matter of weeks by allowing first the main body to be encircled at Metz, and then losing the rear half when the Emperor Napoleon himself took command and led it into disaster at Sedan. The level of incompetence it took to allow this double defeat was staggering. The rest of the war had to be carried on by effectively untrained French national guardsmen, who were numerous enough to be a serious problem but never had any real hope of winning the war. Even then, a huge portion of the available guardsmen were allowed to become trapped in the siege of Paris in yet another reign of incompetence. Also the sitting French government collapsed and got replaced by an inept council installed literally by a mob in the street while this all went on after the Emperor was taken prisoner at Sedan.

The Seven Weeks War between Germany-Italy-Austria in 1866, a vital prelude to the events in 1870, is a much better example of what it took to have a quick war back then. However it still took some major advances not present in the US Civil War (mainly mass adoption of breach loading rifles and artillery) to make it happen. Additionally the war easily could have gone on longer, but the Germans agreed to a quick peace with few gains because they feared if they went any longer Russia or France or both would come to the Austrians aid. The fact that so many nobles and monarchs were making decisions was a major factor in why the war could start and end so quickly. Democracies are less adaptive to such things.

Anyway I really meant long wars as opposed to those of the 20th and 21st century in which it is quite reasonable to actually plan to overrun another country in a month or two. Indeed if you can’t plan to win that quick; you must very strongly question the wisdom of the war.

[Lonestar]

Additional the Union does not lose Newport News which is its largest best equipped naval base and home to most of the fleet which was laid up and historically burned to prevent capture.

I really hope you mean "Norfolk".

[Sea Skimmer]

Whatever, same sand clogged waterhole.

[davegrs]

Does the Franco-Prussian War count as long? I thought that one only ran about a year.

This was also a war that took place in the most developed area of the planet. Railroads, macadamized highways, short distances. Phil Sheridan was an observer of the Franco-Prussian war and commented on how easy it was to move troops in the environment and that the Prussians should try to move on bottomless Virginia roads.