Civil War

Name:

Course:

Lecturer:

Date:

Civil War

 During the spring of the year 1865, the sounds of the Civil War guns were heard no more. There has always been a debate between the veterans and historians on the war. This debate is mainly about the power of the rifle musket. The mostly quoted traditionalist interpretation says that the rifle musket transformed the war because its variety and correctness was higher as compared to those of the smoothbore musket. Allegedly, the rifle musket reduced the task of weaponry and cavalry, made up to the war’s high casualty rate, and thus made most battles uncertain, thereby the war was fought in a longer period. In the book “The Rifle Musket in Civil War Combat”, Hess confronts this interpretation, saying, “the power of the rifle has been given more credit than it is due” (Hess 10). Instead of transforming the Civil War combat, Hess feels that the rifle only had an additional small effect on the war (p. 4). The view with most people of the rifle musket transforming combat is a “myth”; Hess gives us what he feels is “the real thing” (Hess 19) of its power.

The book “Fredericksburg! Fredericksburg!” by Rable, gives an account of the war as given in Rable’s point of view. This battle was fought on 13 December 1862. Unfortunately, it has always been a symbol of military catastrophe. To them he is a symbol of military ineffectiveness, although some attempts to boost his rather wretched reputation have hit a dead end. The North Virginian Army of Robert E. Lee could have boasted of a victory so easily achieved. People describe the war as a far more catastrophic experience than that seen by Union forces at the Cold Harbor, one a half years later. The midterm elections were not as smooth going as expected due to the results of the battle. These same results gave a threat to the Emancipation Proclamation, which was short of three weeks away. All these prompted a political crisis in Lincoln’s administration including important members of his cabinet (Rable 258). Apart from the results of the outcome, our concentration is on what happened in the battlefield as far as the rifled musket is concerned. However, Hess has his take. He has supported his arguments with several points. The fundamental basis of the rifle musket transforming war is that the weapon gave a much bigger range of about 500 yards.

According to Hess, the Minie ball’s curved trajectory nearly canceled out the advantages the weapon may have presented on the battlefield. This parabolic trajectory gave dual killing areas. The first one was within the first 100 yards of the shot and the second one was as the bullet came down. This killing area for this weapon was much smaller, and went on becoming smaller the more distant a shooter was from a target. Most soldiers could accomplish this without a lot of training. Between the dual killing areas was a relatively safe area of approximately 300 yards, where bullets went over the nearing target. The smoothbore musket, in contrast, gave obvious advantages. The weapon that one could easily aim with gave a comparatively flat trajectory. To make up for the rifle musket’s trajectory, soldiers required proper instructions, an estimation of the sight and a lot of practice upon the target. They did not get all these to the required measures. As a result, advantages presented by the weapon on the battlefield may have been blown away.

Another argument that Hess raises over the effectiveness of the weapon is founded on the distant that soldiers started shooting from. He explains and agrees that the short distance of Civil War combat came from a number of factors. One of them was the rifle’s curved trajectory and the densely wooded terrain of many of the war’s battlefields. In addition, the soldiers were used to waiting until they could see the target before starting to shoot. The commanders also commanded the soldiers not to shoot until the enemy was at a close distant. According to Hess, there is no “rifle revolution theory” (Hess 111). Hess feels that an increased effective distant did not mean that it resulted to more casualties. This effectiveness was also enhanced by the careful assessment and handling of the rifle. This is because it required the total concentration of both the body and the mind in aiming at what was to be shot or eliminated. In addition, Hess agrees that the musket of the rifle was a vital step that signified improvement in rifle as compared to the smoothbore musket during the civil war in America.

Hess in his evidence tries to bring the arguments that reveal the harmful effects of the revolution of the rifle in the civil wars. The rifle was harmful because it was used by the people of the same continent and thus the continental development was barred. This fight involved people who are related and hence the use of rifle was not important because more blood and deaths were reported. This actions relatively symbolized hatred and bad norms that were associated with violence and humanity. The rifle musket was a very dangerous weapon in the civil war for it involved a lot of destruction and deaths. It was considered as dangerous weapon because it did not spare life and hence it killed with violence. The rooting trace of the Hess’ work was related to the western theater works. Sequentially, it covers more of the western history than the side of the eastern way of living.

Hess’ work tries to elaborate the inefficiency that was associated with the illiteracy of the soldiers. The mathematical estimation and calculation of distances was vital in the determination of the shooting level of the rifle. Thus, the corresponding inefficiency in the way the soldiers were fighting became the only root cause of these imperfections. Sequentially, the soldiers lacked knowledge that involved the estimation of shooting distances. There was emphasis that in the heating point of the battle, the soldiers needed to use all the tactics to suppress or counterbalance the resistance from the other opposing group. Therefore, the lack of knowledge in the firing and rifle estimation distance was the major cause of defeat in any kind of war. Hence, for the war to respond to the changes in the technology, the user of the technology was to use the weapon in the right way. This was aimed at matching events such that the soldiers were familiar with the rifle and hence having the capability of winning the war.

Hess is very elaborate in bringing the methods that soldiers acquired their rifles while in the war. The exceeding resistance and rebellion brought a feeling of defeat as the war was advancing. Therefore, many soldiers responded to this resistance through retreating hence others were leaving their rifles on the battlefield. This mistake was done due to the severe actions of their opponents in the war who were presumed to have weapons that are more superior. Many soldiers retreated with haste when they finished their ammunitions. In addition, when the soldiers abandoned their rifles, it meant that they were going to get others new in order to continue fighting their opponents. For instance, it is reported that four thousand rifles were collected after the Tennessee had finished their ammunition and quickly retreated. This situation was of beneficial to others because they had ammunition and they did not have enough rifles. This event was beneficial to those armies that had insufficient weaponry for they acquired rifles irrespective of their shape and structure. This provided for the opportunity whereby the skilled soldiers could benefit from the provision of free weapons from the defeated lot. In this civil war, the use of firearms was intensively used.

From the work by Hess, the civil war was caused by the production of new weapons in which each manufacturer wanted to put his work into test. This works also explored the relationship between the civil war and the introduction of the new weapons. He extensively explained the structure of instruments and devices that were used during the war. From this occurrence, the civil war was characterized by the inventions of more advanced weapons, which had the strength to perform a much better task than in the past. This was enhanced by the development of new technology that also improved the materials for constructing and molding new items. In other words, the industrial revolution of the mid 18^th century came with another view about the materials that were used during the constructions of the new weapons that were now made using metals rather than the wood. This had a great impact on the lives of the people because they felt more secure. The advancement application of the metals had great use in the modern development because many devices were durable and long-lasting goods were constructed out of metal.

The rifle musket did not perform work as it was expected due to the errors that had been done during its construction. This gun model had many complications because it used a lot of energy and it was prone to destruction. Its long life span was limited because it was made of wood hence this material was very much delicate in terms of maintenance and thus not being able to last for long. The muzzle velocity of the gun was also slow thus making it not to be able to target the far enemy. Thus, its efficiency was limited due to the high use of energy and its ability to be destroyed quickly. The civil war in America was caused by many reasons that included the innovation of the rifle, which used the gunpowder. The social and economic disparity between the north and South American people also led to the development of the civil war. The southern economy was dominated by the agricultural activities whereby in mid 1793, the cotton produce was on top of the market demand.

This led to increased economical growth because as the demand increased, people resolved to increase more plantations of the cotton. This resulted to tremendous increase in the revenue since the slaves provided cheap labor. The northern side of America was concerned with the city life and hence the only economic activity that took place was the purchasing of the row materials from the southerners and making them into finished goods. Therefore, this social disparity increased hostility that resulted to the eruption of civil war. In many instances, the city dwellers had to struggle to earn a living for which the southerners did not struggle because they were the producers of the food. In addition, the interactions between the southerners who were termed as uncivilized and the northerners (the modern people) brought a lot of friction to the social order. Consequently, this erupted to hostility that led to fighting between the North and the South. The worst factor that geared much to this war was the introduction of the rifle musket that provided people with security. Thus, they resolved to fight each other using the dangerous gun and this led to a lot of blood shade since many people in America had it.

The idea of the federal rights according to the American people was a great source of social and political imbalance. This was because it was alleged that some states had more federal rights than the others and hence there was disparity in the political authority together with command in the states. The disadvantage that encompassed this political disparity was associated with the controlling concept that was vested on the states that had many federal powers. Hess gives a summarized outline of the events that were associated with the disparity in the controlling power of the states. In his overview, he highlighted the issue of the constitution that was perceived to deny each of the states independence. Sequentially, as many states wanted to rule themselves and control their own affairs, this created difference because the federal government was entitled to control all the states uniformly. However, other states had the desire to control their own states alone without the incorporation of other states. Therefore, there was an upsurge of hostility due to the disagreements that evolved after the whole issue. Thus, they resolved to fight because each state felt it had a lot of power due to the increase in the production of superior weapons. Hess bases his argument of the issue of the weapons to be the origin of the political instability. Therefore, the introduction of the weapons was the key source of superiority that imparted confidence into many states to defend their states. Thus, “through this confidence many people lost their lives fighting to maintain their political, social, and economic status” (Rable 167).

Hess argues that the effectiveness of the weapon is associated with the distance at which the soldiers started shooting. In a more elaborate manner, he agrees that the short distant of Civil War combat came from a number of factors. One of them was the rifle’s curved trajectory and the densely wooded terrain of many of the war’s battlefields. In addition, the soldiers were used to waiting until they could see the target before starting to shoot. In addition, the other delay in fighting was caused by the commanders who commanded the soldiers not to shoot until the enemy was at a close distant. Hence, this led to the killing of many soldiers because in the act of waiting for the enemy to come closer, the enemy could always surround them hence killing them.

The mostly quoted traditionalist interpretation says that the rifle musket transformed the war because its variety and correctness was higher than those of the smoothbore musket were. In addition, the rifle musket reduced the task of weaponry and cavalry, made up to the war’s high casualty rate, and thus made most battles uncertain. Therefore, the war was fought in a longer period. In the book “The Rifle Musket in Civil War Combat”, Hess confronts this interpretation, saying that the power of the rifle has been given more credit than it is due. Instead of transforming Civil War combat, Hess feels that the rifle only had an additional small effect on the war (p. 4). The view with most people of the rifle musket transforming combat is a “myth”; Hess gives us what he feels is “the real thing” of its power. Therefore, the introduction of the rifle in Europe and commonly in America resulted to arising of the civil war. This was due to the feeling of superiority that many people gained, as they possessed the rifle.

.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Works Cited

Hess, Earl. The Rifle Musket in Civil War Combat: Reality and Myth. Lawrence, Kan: University Press of Kansas, 2008. Print.

Rable, Garble. Fredericksburg! Fredericksburg!. Chapel Hill, NC: UNC Press Books, 2002. Print.