What kept Civil War commanders from using fire and movement?

That is an awesome question. The commanders of the time had to face a new threat and were slow in reacting to it. The Civil War was the first time that rifles were issued to entire armies and not just to a select group of sharpshooters. This increased the range and firepower of individual units. This should have changed the way that units were attacked but failed to do so. It boils down to the fact that Generals tend to fight the war they are in with the tactics of the last war they were in. In other words, armies are slow to change their tactics.

Because even thou this country fought to be free from European influence our military still prescribed to European military tactic's "IE" Massed troop formation's ,Fix bayonet's fire one volley then charge across an open field of battle. This tactic only work's when the enemy is using the same tactic. The tactic did not work for the British in the revolutionary war. But 80 years later our Generals on both sides were still using it. Knowing full well the invention of cap and ball weapons with rifled barrels with the capabilities of killing at 200 yds. The thought of going around and attacking from a weak point or a flanking movement or unconventional warfare Against an fortified or dug in emplacement was completely "foreign" To the established gentlemanly way of fighting a civilized war. Three classic examples of this are Gettysburg, Antietam and Franklin ,Tn, Not to forget Fredricksberg and Shiloh.

All the tactics you mention in your question were used during the Civil War, but not on a large enough scale and usually not used effectively. When most people think ofa typical Civil War battle they imagine a Pickett's charge style attack. But Calvary was often used to attack an enemies flank(side). Thats basic fire and manuever. Overwatch tactics would'nt have worked well then due to the single shot , muzzle loading rifles used in that war had a way to slow rate of fire for overwatch to be of much use. The Gatlin gun was available back then but not widely used because commanders believed it was to complicated for the average soldier to operate and it wasted ammo.

Fire and maneuver was a notable new tactic that the European powers watched carefully. It's just a matter of perspective of scale. Keep in mind that communications at the tactical level were by runner, and firepower was dictated by the ability to load and fire three rounds a minute. That calls for a greater density of manpower than was needed in later wars with more advanced weaponry. Look forward a few more years, with modest improvements in weapons, and you'll see that essentially the same tactics worked pretty well for the Prussians against the French, despite the Chassepot being remarkably better than the Dreyse.

only by today's standards does picket's charge at gettysburg seem foolish.

given the general knowledge of the day, this was a sound, if somewhat risky tactic.

it's also the exact same kind of gamble that general lee had been making and succeeding with for a couple of years at that point.

but you must remember the time - this was a time when soldiers were relatively confident that they would be able to use the strategies that they were taught at west point for the rest of their lives.

if picket's charge seems a little crazy, read up on the assaults of world war one, where hundreds of thousands would be lost in one campaign.

generals seriously thought that a good soldier could assault a heavily entrenched machine-gun defensive position if only the soldiers making the assault had enough courage.

millions died and still the general staffs of the various powers hesitated at the advances that brilliant minds brought to them.

general hindenburg thought tanks were 'peculiar motor cars.' the british stated that they didn't want their men to have machine guns because they would 'waste ammunition.' as late as 1918 general pershing (usa) would clutter up his supply lines with fodder for useless horses to be used in calvary attacks - not the modern idea of calvary, but amassed horses, mounted by soldiers with sabres drawn.

samuel morse had doors in congress slammed in his face for years before a single telegraph line was strung - no one saw the military value in immediate communication.

but when a soldier got the hang of a modern tactic, like general sherman using the railroads to move troops around the south in the american civil war, or the germans doing the exact same thing in the beginning of WWI, it generally devastated the enemy.

hard to imagine, i know, but almost every long conflict has it's crazy stories where brave soldiers are basically being asked to pound a square ped into a round hole...

Keep in mind that while being defensively weak, Civil War attacks were offensively strong. Take a bunch of muzzleloading rifles, with one shot each, and have them all packed together to deliver a volley all at one time and in the same direction.

This kind of firepower cut down trees in forests and must have been withering to face. Just the morale loss must have been huge at having to look at a group of guys all firing in your direction and at the same time. Must have been like a giant cannon firing a huge cannister of grape shot.

But yes, modern tactics might have served them better.

That was the way it was done back then. We did use the way of Indian fighting at the start of the Revolutionary war, but then went back to attacking formations.