The Civil War's single-shot; muzzle-loading musket revolutionized warfare-or so we've been told for years. Noted historian Earl J. Hess forcefully challenges that claim; offering a new; clear-eyed; and convincing assessment of the rifle musket's actual performance on the battlefield and its impact on the course of the Civil War. Many contemporaries were impressed with the new weapon's increased range of 500 yards; compared to the smoothbore musket's range of 100 yards; and assumed that the rifle was a major factor in prolonging the Civil War. Historians have also assumed that the weapon dramatically increased casualty rates; made decisive victories rare; and relegated cavalry and artillery to far lesser roles than they played in smoothbore battles. Hess presents a completely new assessment of the rifle musket; contending that its impact was much more limited than previously supposed and was confined primarily to marginal operations such as skirmishing and sniping. He argues further that its potential to alter battle line operations was virtually nullified by inadequate training; soldiers' preference for short-range firing; and the difficulty of seeing the enemy at a distance. He notes that bullets fired from the new musket followed a parabolic trajectory unlike those fired from smoothbores; at mid-range; those rifle balls flew well above the enemy; creating two killing zones between which troops could operate untouched. He also presents the most complete discussion to date of the development of skirmishing and sniping in the Civil War. Drawing upon the observations and reflections of the soldiers themselves; Hess offers the most compelling argument yet made regarding the actual use of the rifle musket and its influence on Civil War combat. Engagingly written and meticulously researched; his book will be of special interest to Civil War scholars; buffs; re-enactors; and gun enthusiasts alike.
#2178301 in Books Univ Pr of Kansas 2012-05-31Original language:EnglishPDF # 1 9.20 x .90 x 6.30l; 1.10 #File Name: 0700618449232 pages
Review
4 of 6 people found the following review helpful. War's Desolating ScourgeBy ronald r nurmiJoseph W. Danielson's new book looks at both the Union occupation of Northern Alabama beginning in 1862 and how the Union moved from a conciliatory war effort to a "hard" war effort. When the Third Division of the Army of the Ohio under General Ormsby Mitchel occupied the 9 northern counties of Alabama many thought they would be welcomed by Union sympathizers; but it was not to be and that is the tale of this book. With many of the men serving in the Confederate army there was little military opposition to Mitchel's forces; but the women proved to be a more difficult foe than expected. At first General Mitchel followed the instructions of his commander General Don Carlos Buell who was the chief advocate of conciliation in the west. Buell in General Order 13a instructed his men to treat Confederate civilians in a cordial manner and that the Southerners were our "fellow citizens." In the attempt to end Confederate hostility the Union forces met a difficult challenge and soon a more punitive effort took over. This set a pattern that was duplicated in other areas of the South and led to Sherman's "hard war" during his March to the Sea. It would be helpful if readers had a basic understanding of the Civil War and how it was waged to fully understand this book. I can recommend this effort by Danielson.3 of 6 people found the following review helpful. War Crimes In 1861-65 Now Reputiated By Today's MilitaryBy LtCol ret E. Kennedy; Jr.The period of 1861-1865 still affects attitudes and beliefs of Southerners. For many; it is subtle and beneath the surface. The war impacted the economy and life of the inhabitants well into the 20th Century since the South bore the brunt of the war on its land. Because of the nature and breadth of the conflict across conventional and unconventional bounds; it still makes great study for professional officers. The interest in the conflict continues unabated and volumes of books are published on the period and people annually. We use it frequently at the Army's Command and General Staff College in our studies as there are many applications to current conflicts."War's Desolate Scourge" is a very well-documented and written account the war on the "fringes" where large-scale conventional combat quickly transitioned into what we now label as "stability operations". The book covers the war across northern Alabama; primarily north of the Tennessee River; from early 1862 through 1865 when Union forces occupied the area. Forty-three pages of endnotes and bibliography demonstrate excellent research and study by the author. However; this otherwise excellent book misses some opportunities in critical analysis. The analysis is; unfortunately; abysmally weak. While the information is solid; it plows no new ground and does not link the information to what we call the "so what?" factor.For military students the use of history should be used to draw a linkage to current-day tactics and operations; leadership; and logistical issues. Analyzing the cause-and-effect relationships provides critical thinking opportunities that assist in the synthesis of ideas for dealing with modern problems. Critical thinking requires questioning "facts" and premises. This is where Danielson's work begins to suffer under scrutiny. The end result of the book should be an analysis that the Union Army's policies were counterproductive in the long run. The reason is that the application of war crimes to suppress a populace will always result in a reaction not conducive to reconciliation. In 2006 the Army and Marines began to publish doctrine that explicitly recognizes these truisms. FM 3-24; Counterinsurgency Operations and FM 3-07; Stability Operations both address the issues faced by the Union Army in the South. Ironically; both manuals completely repudiate the actions of the Union Army and its actions from 1862-1875.Danielson unfortunately falls into the same trap many other historians do. He parrots the terminology and logic of the times that they write about. For example; stealing food from the occupied populace is called "foraging"; or "confiscation" -- neutral terms for outright robbery. Taking of hostages is defended as a technique to not only punish the populace but to terrorize them into compliance. Use of human shields is cited as a technique to justify protection of Union forces. All of these actions are completely; and totally condemned as not only immoral; but grossly illegal under the rules of war today. Most of these policies were prohibited from 1863 onward in General Order 100; the "Lieber Code". These actions are directly repudiated in what are known today as "The Soldier's Rules". These current law of warfare standards are a summary of the most fundamental LOW (law of warfare) rules. The list is not a completely comprehensive list of law of warfare rules; however; they reflect the major principles: distinction; proportionality; unnecessary suffering; and military necessity. These rules provide a foundation for most counterinsurgency and stability operations in accordance with DOD Directive 5100.77.What becomes apparent in "War's Desolate Scourge" is that the Federal Army fell into the same situation the U.S. Army initially did in Iraq in 2003. After seizing northern Alabama in 1862; conventional combat ended. The Federals were left to administer a hostile populace but without the doctrine or tools to do so. Using Maslow's adage that when you only have a hammer; you tend to see every problem as a nail; the Federals proceeded to employ "harsh tactics". This is clearly a euphemism for terrorism as the destruction of property; theft of food sources; and the arbitrary arrest of non-combatants on just suspicion of being Confederate sympathizers were widely used means to physically intimidate and force compliance of the populace. Interestingly; General James Garfield; sent to northern Alabama; initially seems to have supported "strong punitive policies" but became "horrified of rapes and outrages" perpetrated on the citizens in the Tennessee Valley.The author's handling of the slavery issue attempts to strike a balance in-between the causes of the war; the motivations of former slaves to assist Union troops; and the treatment of Southerners. Interestingly; no mention is made of any other war causes such as the crippling effects of the Morrill Act that unfairly and disproportionately taxed Southerners. Nor was there any mention of the blacks ---- free and slave ---- who supported the Southern cause. The attitude of the occupying Union troops towards blacks was addressed by noting that opposition to slavery did not translate to an endorsement for equality. In fact; northerners' racist attitudes resulted in mistreatment of former slaves in numerous cases; including rape and theft by Union forces.What the author demonstrates is that the occupation of southern areas was not as easy as the U.S. Army imagined it might be. "Harsh tactics" to force compliance backfired in many cases causing civilians to resist; not just ideologically; and join or support unconventional Confederate guerilla or Partisan Ranger units. By explicitly using "every means" to "[bring] terror to disloyal hearts"; the U.S. Army transitioned from a force of liberty to one of oppression and brutality to attempt to force commitment to the Union. Suspension of habeus corpus; suppression of speech; suppression of religion; hostage taking; censorship; theft; destruction; and murder caused many southern people to steel their resolves not to accept Union ideology.The U.S. Army's predilection with "cultural awareness" today does not seem to retroactively fit its study of the inability to practice such techniques 150 years ago. Apologists such as Andrew Birtle even call the War Between the States an "insurgency" in an uncritical logic stretch to justify COIN application. When the uncritical acceptance of brutality and war crimes against a populace ---- more so because it was against fellow Americans ---- is sanctioned by historians; it leads to grossly faulty analyses.There is an underlying theme that Danielson brings out in "War's Desolate Scourge". This theme is that the northerner's desire to impose their cultural values and norms by force largely did not work. He aptly points-out that "...secessionists' ideological devotion...remained as vibrant as ever." It wasn't all about slavery that southerners resented the U.S. Army. It was based on the actions that garnered BG Turchin a courts martial in 1863 ---- one that Lincoln exonerated him from ---- implicitly approving of the war crimes committed.If there is a lesson to be learned from "War's Desolating Scourge"; it should be that compliance as a short-term technique might work; however; long-term commitment suffers drastically. Those who have lived in the South understand that there is a deep-rooted antipathy towards the government that tried to exercise compliance through terror. This same type of feeling is felt by the Ukranians towards the Russians; the Scots towards the English; the Kurds towards the Arabs; and the Serbs towards the Bosnians. It would do well for the U.S. Army to reevaluate its actions of 1861-1877 through the same lens. Danielson does us a service by providing a tube in which to put those lens.
