Not too many actually, In thebeginningboth sides believed it would take a few months instead of years to beat the other, But the north was bound to win since they had better equipment and numbers on their side.
no. both sides thought it would be a quick and simple war.
The prevailing opinion of the people from both sides was that the war would be short and nearly bloodless.
I think you would find that a battle is deadly even you fought it in a very untraditional "dove of peace" formation...
"Civil War" is a proper noun. So would be any of the names of the battles or the soldiers who fought in them.
Because both sides knew they would win!
That the war would end by Christmas and they would win.
No why would you ask that ask your teacher
contrary to popular belief that the whole civil war took place in america, a mojority of the battles took place in Canada and if it wasn't for those battles the union would never had stood a chance in the war.
In 1861 the civil war was mostly fought in the eastern theater. Battles such as the first Bull Run defined what the next 4 years of war would be like.
Because both sides were certain that they would win.
I dont think it would be.
The usual pattern was of confusion (even confusion over which side whole battalions and even regiments were on); Union attacks on Confederates with poor planning and outdated tactics; Confederates holding on despite losses; and the Union forces falling back but not retreating with heavy losses. This pattern held for nearly every battle in the east for the first two years. Battles in Kentucky and Tennessee, however, resulted in heavy losses for both sides and a fairly steady Union advance.