Hess, Earl J.

OUR SYNOPSIS: Earl J. Hess emphasizes that “the rifle musket did not revolutionize Civil War military operations. Its only advantage over the smoothbore was longer range, but the majority of soldiers did not use it at that distance.” Instead, he argues that “there was a strong predisposition to fight at close range during the Civil War. Officers and men alike believed that it was more decisive to engage the enemy at ranges of 100 yards or less.” (12-13) He asserts that the old European linear tactical system was not only still the main approach utilized in the Civil War but was also the best strategy available. Short-range tactics were deemed most effective. However, there were some North American influences on this system, with the Revolutionary War and War of 1812 shaping how European systems were employed. He makes clear that small units were highly effective in the Civil War and that “the reduction in the size of the full regiment actually enhanced unit effectiveness by bringing the command down to a level more consistent with European battalions.” (90) Training was vital to these successes and the Civil War included “the best training yet to be seen in America’s military history, applied to a far larger mass of armed men than ever before in North America.” (113) Success required combining this training with battlefield experience. The traditional tactics used in the Civil War are additionally significant since it was the last time that they were extensively used in American military history.