Union Joint Operations In North Carolina During The Civil War

During the Civil War some of the earliest examples of joint operations in American military history were undertaken. Except for General Scott's landing at Veracruz during the War with Mexico, joint undertakings in the form of amphibious operations were rare. Army and navy commanders had little experience dealing with the problems associated with the ideas of jointness. Doctrinal guidance was unavailable and commanders worked together often with mixed results. In eastern North Carolina, the Union attempted several joint operations during the course of the war. Attacks were crudely planned and executed by modern standards. The North appeared not to have drawn lessons from preceding campaigns in any systematic way. Nevertheless, a basic pattern did develop and was improved upon over time as seen by the progressive sophistication of the operations against Hatteras, New Bern, and Fort Fisher. Today, the United States military has certain fundamental principles of joint warfare that it employs. When they are applied to Civil War campaigns certain trends become evident. The success rate increased when careful planning and preparation were present and the modern principles of joint warfare were followed. Where these elements were missing, Union forces often met with defeat. Failure to anticipate and provide for contingencies doomed many Civil War campaigns and would do the same to modern-day joint operations. The principles of joint warfare are a tool; one designed to make the transition to fighting as a team easier. Using them does not guarantee the warfighter success, but can greatly improves his chances.

During the Civil War some of the earliest examples of joint operations in American Military history were undertaken. Except for General Scott's landing at Veracruz during the War with Mexico, joint undertakings in the form of amphibious operations were rare. Army and navy commanders had little experience dealing with the problems associated with the ideas of jointness. Doctrinal guidance was unavailable and commanders worked together often with mixed results. In eastern North Carolina, the Union attempted several joint operations during the course of the war. Attacks were crudely planned and executed by modern standards. The North appeared not to have drawn lessons from preceding campaigns in any systematic way. Nevertheless, a basic pattern did develop and was improved upon over time as seen by the progressive sophistication of the operations against Hatteras, New Bern, and Fort Fisher. Today, the United States military has certain fundamental principles of joint warfare that it employs. When they are applied to Civil War campaigns certain trends become evident. The success rate increased when careful planning and preparation were present and the modern principles of joint warfare were followed. Where these elements were missing, Union forces often met with defeat. Failure to anticipate and provide for contingencies doomed many Civil War campaigns and would do the same to modern-day joint operations. The principles of joint warfare are a tool; one designed to make the transition to fighting as a team easier. Using them does not guarantee the war-fighter success, but can greatly improves his chances.

This study is a historical analysis of Union joint operations that occurred during the American Civil War in northeastern North Carolina. The study begins with a historical overview of joint operations then transitions into the events that occurred in northeastern North Carolina between February 1862 and June 1865. Joint operations in the sounds began with the assault of Roanoke Island in February 1862. This study documents the Roanoke Island operation and the missions that supported the capture of New Bern, Plymouth and Washington, North Carolina during 1862. Specific emphasis is placed on the difficulties encountered conducting joint riverine warfare in the restricted waters of North Carolina without the benefit of a unified commander. Although the concept of a unified commander was not utilized in the sounds of North Carolina, this study documents the maturation of the joint relationship that did exist. It further displays how the joint forces overcame the challenges of communications and both natural and manmade obstacles. Overall, this study shows how success in the waters of northeastern North Carolina was dependent on a joint effort but could have been more successful had a unified commander been appointed. Conclusions include present day application and considerations.

Despite a wealth of books on the campaigns of the American Civil War, the subject of combined or joint operations has been largely neglected. This revealing book offers ten case studies of combined Army-Navy operations by Union forces. Presented in chronological order, each essay illuminates an aspect of combined operations during a time of changing technology and doctrine. The essays cover the war along the "rebel coast," including the operations in the North Carolina Sounds in 1861, the Union thrusts up the York and James rivers during the Peninsular Campaign in 1862 and 1864, and the various Union efforts to seize rebel seaports from the Texas coast to Charleston and Wilmington in 1863-65. Concluding the volume are two essays that evaluate the impact of Union combined operations on subsequent doctrine in both the United States and England.

History has demonstrated that amphibious assaults are among the most complex and challenging of all joint operations. The myriad of factors that evolved independently throughout the war did not become fully integrated until the winter of 1864-65. This thesis explores the maturation of joint amphibious operations during the U.S. Civil War, specifically through the assaults on Fort Fisher. This analysis will use modern joint doctrine as the framework to compare and contrast the two assaults. It will elaborate on how seaborne assaults differ from riverine assaults. Utilizing Fort Fisher as the focus develops an understanding of the interrelationship of these various factors and the challenges posed in their synchronization to achieve success. This study concludes that the operations reflected jointness, but also marked the emergence of modern amphibious assault concepts.

Provides a glimpse into Civil War politics and how it affected the Union's prosecution of the war.

American Amphibious Warfare offers analysis of the early amphibious landing operations from the Revolutionary War to the Civil War. Through a case study approach, the operational and strategic significance of each action is analyzed and its impact on the development of the United States is assessed. By focusing on seven major campaigns, Gary J. Ohls provides readers with a richer appreciation of the origins of American amphibious warfare. For many Americans, the concept of amphibious warfare derives from the World War II model in which landing forces assaulted foreign shores and faced determined resistance. These actions usually resulted in very high casualty rates, yet they proved uniformly successful. The circumstances of geography coupled with the weapons and equipment available at that time dictated this type of warfare. During the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, no such equipment or weapons existed for assaulting defended beaches. Commanders attempted to land their forces in areas where the resistance would be light or nonexistent. The initiative and maneuverability inherent in naval forces permitted the delivery of combat power to the point of attack faster that the land-based defenders could react. Ohls explains how amphibious traditions began in this era and shows how they compare with modern amphibious forces, particularly the tactics of today’s U.S. Marine Corps. The author makes a compelling case for a continuing tradition of American amphibious warfare learned and honed through a set of key battles and carried forward. Further, Ohls argues that the Marine Corps is the true inheritor of this warfare tradition formed in early America, concluding that weapons and equipment, coupled with new doctrine, actually allow modern forces to return to the sort of amphibious tactics and operations practiced more than two centuries ago. Both a work of history as well as an analysis of operational conflict, this study should please readers looking for a clearer understanding of U.S. amphibious operations. Since the concepts presented in this book continue to serve as excellent tools for both the professional officer and the analytical historian, American Amphibious Warfare as a whole provides a much-needed comprehensive history of naval and military warfare.