{"title":"First Bull Run/Manassas","authors":"B. Gannon","doi":"10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190903053.013.7","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190903053.013.7","url":null,"abstract":"This chapter examines the First Battle of Bull Run, also known as the First Battle of Manassas, and argues that the Civil War’s first battle represented the last battle of antebellum military cultures of free and slave states. Before the Civil War, Americans refused to maintain a large U.S. Army. In the antebellum era, states organized local militia units based on their perception of internal and external threats; fear of slave revolt prompted slave states to maintain larger, more effective units, particularly cavalry units. Troopers who manned cavalry militia also staffed the slave patrols that brutally enforced the slave regime. In contrast, free states had no such fears, and their militias were moribund before the Civil War. When war came, slave states’ superior military capability led to Confederate victory at Bull Run/Manassas. Later, volunteer units from the free states achieved a level of competency that overcame this initial disadvantage.","PeriodicalId":121271,"journal":{"name":"The Oxford Handbook of the American Civil War","volume":"10 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-10-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"133794963","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"The Kentucky Campaign of 1862 and Drought","authors":"Kenneth W. Noe","doi":"10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190903053.013.18","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190903053.013.18","url":null,"abstract":"In the late summer and early autumn of 1862, Gen. Braxton Bragg’s Kentucky Campaign failed to regain Tennessee or add Kentucky to the Confederacy. Starting in Mississippi, Bragg’s Confederate army had first entered Tennessee. After Maj. Gen. Edmund Kirby Smith’s smaller Confederate army invaded Kentucky, Bragg followed. Maj. Gen. Don Carlos Buell’s Federal army trailed Bragg north before diverting to Louisville. Summer heat and a massive drought made campaigning onerous, while supporting Confederate actions in northeastern Mississippi failed to divert troops from Bragg’s path. Bragg won a confused tactical victory at Perryville, but his outnumbered army retreated to Tennessee along with Kirby Smith. Throughout the campaign, enslaved Kentuckians seeking emancipation sought protection from Union forces. On the fringes, a brutal guerrilla war flared up. Bragg’s ultimate failure secured Union control of Kentucky for the remainder of the war.","PeriodicalId":121271,"journal":{"name":"The Oxford Handbook of the American Civil War","volume":"7 2","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-10-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"114127008","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"The Red River Campaign, 1864","authors":"T. Parrish","doi":"10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190903053.013.33","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190903053.013.33","url":null,"abstract":"The Red River Campaign in the spring of 1864 was the disastrous culmination of the Union high command’s persistent efforts to conquer Louisiana and Texas. Abraham Lincoln ordered Maj. Gen. Nathaniel P. Banks, commander of the Department of the Gulf, to lead a large force from New Orleans up the Red River Valley, capture Shreveport (the Confederacy’s Trans-Mississippi capital and major commercial center), and invade Texas. Lincoln delayed an important campaign against Mobile and diverted significant manpower from the western theater and Arkansas, along with a large fleet of naval vessels, to support Banks in order to accomplish sweeping economic, political, and foreign policy goals. Mismanaged by Banks from the start, the campaign suffered defeat before reaching Shreveport, but it created havoc in the Red River Valley by allowing many slaves to flee to Union forces, compelling many civilians to flee with their slaves to Texas for safety, and inducing defeated Union soldiers to destroy a vast array of civilian properties and towns. As a result, northern Louisiana suffered economically for many years, while Texas emerged from the war continuing to grow into an economic powerhouse.","PeriodicalId":121271,"journal":{"name":"The Oxford Handbook of the American Civil War","volume":"283 1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-10-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"127480639","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"The Campaign for Atlanta","authors":"Earl J. Hess","doi":"10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190903053.013.31","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190903053.013.31","url":null,"abstract":"The Atlanta Campaign produced more refugees than any other operation of the Civil War, both inadvertently and on purpose. Most residents fled Maj. Gen. William T. Sherman’s advancing army group, taking slaves and movable property along. The Federals also removed hundreds of women factory workers from industrial plants along the north side of the Chattahoochee River, exiling them north. Sherman’s artillery bombarded Atlanta for several weeks, and he removed 3,500 residents after capturing the place to turn the city into a garrison town. Historians believe the fall of Atlanta had a direct impact on helping Pres. Abraham Lincoln win reelection in the fall of 1864. Even if the Atlanta Campaign was not the turning point of the latter part of the Civil War, as some historians assert, it was a major episode of the conflict that resonated on the national as well as regional level.","PeriodicalId":121271,"journal":{"name":"The Oxford Handbook of the American Civil War","volume":"24 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-10-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"116302666","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"The Carolinas Campaign","authors":"Christopher Phillips","doi":"10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190903053.013.38","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190903053.013.38","url":null,"abstract":"This chapter examines the destructive Carolinas Campaign of 1864–1865 as a strategic culmination of the war by means of the transferal to the eastern theater of hard-war tactics that had long characterized the American Civil War’s western theaters. Infliction of property damage and psychological warfare expanded to wholesale destruction of towns and cities, widespread targeting of White civilians, male and female, summary punishment for irregular warfare, and the liberation of slaves in South Carolina as retribution for that state’s overwhelming and initial decision to secede. Federal commanders and soldiers alike, most from the West, were eager to implement this harder form of warfare in a theater known for a more traditional, limited mode of war making. The use of Black troops was most fully employed in the eastern theater in the Carolinas, much as it had been in the West in the Lower Mississippi Valley. As the war neared its end, the desperate Confederate commander in North Carolina, Gen. Joseph E. Johnston, unsuccessfully sought to prevent Maj. Gen. William T. Sherman’s troops from accomplishing destructive warfare, and thus victory, there. Sherman’s conciliatory surrender terms for Johnston’s army, which occurred days after Pres. Abraham Lincoln’s assassination, were rebuffed by angry Republicans in the cabinet, the War Department, and Congress, for whom leniency was now furthest from their minds.","PeriodicalId":121271,"journal":{"name":"The Oxford Handbook of the American Civil War","volume":"33 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-10-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"131136583","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"The 1864 Invasion of Missouri","authors":"Joseph M. Beilein","doi":"10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190903053.013.34","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190903053.013.34","url":null,"abstract":"In the fall of 1864, Confederate Maj. Gen. Sterling Price led a raid into his beloved state of Missouri that combined the efforts of guerrilla forces with those of his own Army of Missouri. Although the campaign proved disastrous for the Confederacy, it demonstrated the strategic potential of guerrilla and “conventional” troops working in concert with one another, if only for an instant. Missouri’s Southern-sympathizing guerrillas created havoc and served to distract Union troops away from Price’s invasion force. Price, meanwhile, restored some measure of hope to the state’s Southern White populace. By the end, though, it was too little too late: Price was unable to retake St. Louis or any other population center before the presidential election in November of that year, and many of the most powerful guerrilla leaders who came out to support the raid were killed and their supporters’ supplies all but exhausted.","PeriodicalId":121271,"journal":{"name":"The Oxford Handbook of the American Civil War","volume":"12 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-10-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"122039223","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Vicksburg and Port Hudson","authors":"Earl J. Hess","doi":"10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190903053.013.24","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190903053.013.24","url":null,"abstract":"Two sieges of Confederate bastions on the Mississippi River resulted in the Union conquest of the Mississippi Valley in July 1863. The fall of Vicksburg deeply wounded Confederate Mississippi, fractured White support for the Southern cause, and cracked open slavery in the west central part of the state. Tens of thousands of Black refugees fled plantations for the Union Army, many joining newly created Black regiments that would occupy Union posts in the valley. The fall of Vicksburg eliminated the most powerful Confederate blockade to Northern commercial use of the Mississippi River and played a pivotal role in boosting Northern and depressing Southern war morale. Problems associated with Confederate repatriation of thirty thousand paroled soldiers contributed to the breakdown of the prisoner exchange system. The fall of Port Hudson, overshadowed by Vicksburg, nevertheless completed Union conquest of the valley and allowed Northern merchant vessels to steam to New Orleans once again. The emotional benefit of these twin victories was worth the physical effort in reducing both strongholds, emboldening the North and dispiriting the South.","PeriodicalId":121271,"journal":{"name":"The Oxford Handbook of the American Civil War","volume":"31 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-10-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"127729913","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"The Chattanooga and Knoxville Campaigns","authors":"A. Astor","doi":"10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190903053.013.29","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190903053.013.29","url":null,"abstract":"Confederate Gen. Braxton Bragg’s Army of Tennessee besieged Union forces in Chattanooga after the Battle of Chickamauga in September 1863. Union Maj. Gen. Ulysses S. Grant and Maj. Gen. George Thomas took control of the Union Army there and exploited the complex mountainous topography to create a “Cracker Line” to the west. With the siege effectively broken by late October, Bragg sent Lt. Gen. James Longstreet’s Corps to Knoxville to retake that railroad city, which had been occupied by Maj. Gen. Ambrose Burnside’s Army of the Ohio since early September. In late November the Union Army of the Cumberland and Maj. Gen. William T. Sherman’s recently arrived Army of the Tennessee broke out of Chattanooga while Burnside’s men defeated Longstreet’s attack on Knoxville’s Fort Sanders. The Union Army’s successful Chattanooga and Knoxville military campaigns opened Georgia to Union invasion, confirmed Grant’s suitability for leadership over all Union forces, and recalibrated the politics of loyalty in a bitterly divided section of the South.","PeriodicalId":121271,"journal":{"name":"The Oxford Handbook of the American Civil War","volume":"39 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-10-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"129335308","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"New Mexico and the Central Great Plains in the Civil War","authors":"S. Smith","doi":"10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190903053.013.12","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190903053.013.12","url":null,"abstract":"This chapter investigates campaigns of the American Civil War in New Mexico Territory and the Great Plains. It contends that the U.S. federal government fought a multifront war during the 1860s that spanned the Confederate South and the American states and territories of the Far West. The war in the Far West aimed to establish U.S. territorial sovereignty and political authority over the nation’s vast North American empire. Across the 1860s, federal officials sought to defend the West against Confederate invaders, compel Native Americans to submit to U.S. rule, force Spanish Mexican citizens to give up systems of Indian slavery and peonage, and rein in rogue White Americans living in federal territories. Federal officials, however, often lacked the political clout or military force to achieve these goals. The Civil War in the Far West reveals the unevenness and weakness of the American state in the mid-nineteenth century.","PeriodicalId":121271,"journal":{"name":"The Oxford Handbook of the American Civil War","volume":"113 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-10-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"132838044","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"The Civil War in Arkansas, 1862","authors":"Thomas W. Cutrer","doi":"10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190903053.013.11","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190903053.013.11","url":null,"abstract":"The Civil War in Arkansas in 1862 saw only two major battles, at Pea Pidge (or Elkhorn Tavern) and Prairie Grove, both of which were substantial Union victories. But of at least equal importance, the war in this sparsely populated, largely rural and impoverished region was characterized by deep and bitter divisions in loyalties of the states’ citizens, the marked indifference of the administration of Confederate Pres. Jefferson Davis in Richmond, and a notable lack of effective leadership and cooperation among the various Confederate generals. The result was the loss of the state to the Southern cause and the onset of brutal partisan warfare behind the lines between secessionist and Unionist neighbors.","PeriodicalId":121271,"journal":{"name":"The Oxford Handbook of the American Civil War","volume":"65 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-10-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"133868212","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}