Essay about Civil War and The South's Loss

The southern states although far less populated and without initial means to manufacture war supplies did have the strengths to be very competitive. Strong, experienced Confederate leadership in their practiced military, and the overall will power to protect their way of life would prove to be their greatest assets. Jefferson Davis became the president of the Confederacy and was a model leader. He developed a distinguished political career with many years served in the senate, he was a West Point graduate, the former Secretary of War, and a veteran of the Mexican American War. He was the ideal candidate for a president in war times. He had the advantage of having General Robert E. Lee commanding his army after Joseph Johnston was injured in The Battle of Bull run. Robert E. Lee due to strong respect, character and performance in the Mexican American war was Lincoln’s first choice as the Union general but Lee’s patriotism to his home state

Beginning as a battle of army versus army, the war became a conflict of society against society. In this kind of war, the ability to mobilize economic resources, the effectiveness of political leadership, and a society’s willingness to keep up the fight despite setbacks, are as crucial to the outcome as success or failure on the battlefields. Unfortunately for the Southern planters, by the spring of 1865, the South was exhausted, and on April 9, Lee surrendered to Grant at Appomattox Court House, effectively ending the war.

The name Civil War is misleading because the war was not a class struggle, but a sectional combat, having its roots in political, economic, social, and psychological elements. It has been characterized, in the words of William H. Seward, as the “irrepressible conflict.” In another judgment the Civil War was viewed as criminally stupid, an unnecessary bloodletting brought on by arrogant extremists and blundering politicians. Both views accept the fact that in 1861 there existed a situation that, rightly or wrongly, had come to be regarded as insoluble by peaceful means.

The Civil War that took place in the United States from 1861 to 1865 could have easily swung either way at several points during the conflict. There is however several reasons that the North would emerge victorious from this bloody war that pit brother against brother. Some of the main contributing factors are superior industrial capabilities, more efficient logistical support, greater naval power, and a largely lopsided population in favor of the Union. Also one of the advantages the Union had was that of an experienced government, an advantage that very well might have been one of the greatest contributing factors to their success. There are many reasons factors that lead to the North's victory, and each of these elements in and

It can be said that the South began the Civil War from a winning position. They had declared their independence, formed their own country and government, and they needed only to keep what they already had. But this was a monumental task as the government was required to protect every inch of land within the Confederacy. As a new country, the Confederacy needed to demonstrate the ability to defend its own territory from external threat. Without this ability, the Confederacy could never receive the international recognition and support it needed to survive. Aside from this reason, the South also needed to protect the institution of slavery from outside interference. If the Northern armies took control of a particular Southern area, the Confederates felt that they would free all the slaves, thus destroying the entire structure of society and its economic value. Because of this, Jefferson Davis was forced to devise a flawed war strategy which attempted to preserve the entire Confederacy at the cost of concentrating his forces.

“Why did the North win the Civil War?” is only half of a question by itself, for the other half is “Why did the South lose the Civil War?” To this day historians have tried to put their finger on the exact reason for the South losing the war. Some historians blame the head of the confederacy Jefferson Davis; however others believe that it was the shear numbers of the Union (North). The advantages and disadvantages are abundant on either sides of the argument, but the most dominate arguments on why the South lost the war would be the fact that state’s rights prevented unification of the South, Jefferson Davis poor leadership and his failure to work together with his generals, the South failed to gain the recognition of the European nations, North’s superior resources made the outcome inevitable, and moral of the South towards the end of the war.

Historians have argued inconclusively for years over the prime reason for Confederate defeat in the Civil War. The book Why the North Won the Civil War outlines five of the most agreed upon causes of Southern defeat, each written by a highly esteemed American historian. The author of each essay does acknowledge and discuss the views of the other authors. However, each author also goes on to explain their botheration and disagreement with their opposition. The purpose of this essay is to summarize each of the five arguments presented by Richard N. Current, T. Harry Williams, Norman A. Graebner, David Herbert Donald, and David M. Potter. Each author gives his insight on one of the following five reasons:

In war, the commander in chief makes or breaks the efficiency and effectiveness of the army. The Civil War involved 3 main commanders in chief of the Union and Confederate Army. Through letters written by these three leaders, Ulysses S. Grant, George McClellan and Robert E. Lee, it is evident that their opinions and strategies differed greatly. While Grant considered himself part of the army, Lee separated himself as a ruling commander. Grant’s humble nature and vast knowledge on war technique also made him a more efficient leader, compared to the egotistical George McClellan, another commander of the Union army. Ultimately, Grant and the union army won the war, because of Grant’s hands-on leaderships skills, while Lee lacked confidence in his troops, causing him to remove himself from his men.

Many historians have tried to offer their ideology on the outcome of the Civil War. McPherson in his “American Victory, American Defeat” writes about what other historians have decreed their answers to why the Confederacy lost. He tells us the reasons that could not be the explanation for the loss, and explains the internal reasons but leaves the true cause of the loss untold. Freehling explains the defeat by discussing what could have been and then gives reasons to negate some of the cases that he states for the outcome of the Confederacy. Both McPherson and Freehling both agreed that there were other factors besides battles that needed to be looked at.

A frequently, and sometimes hotly, discussed subject; the outcome of the American Civil War has fascinated historians for generations. Some argue that the North's economic advantages proved too much for the South, others that Southern strategy was faulty, offensive when it should have been defensive, and vice-versa. Internal division in the South is often referred to, and complaints made against Davis' somewhat makeshift, inexperienced, government. Doubts are sometimes raised over the commitment of Southerners to a cause many of them were half-hearted about. Many historians have argued that the South lost the will to fight long before defeat was inevitable. However, many of these criticisms could easily be applied to the North, had the

1 Historians assess numerous reasons in assessing North’s success over the South in the Civil War. North was more developed and industrialized like factories and workshops, had definite edge in manpower of military age males, transportation, railroads and resources. Some historians blame on weak southern economic demographics and psychological reasons for the confederate defeat. “The south “whipped itself” because it did not believe strongly in its cause... While the North could allegedly call on the full fervor of American nationalism and antislavery idealism, the south was saddled with the morally dubious enterprise of defending slavery and was engaged in breaking up a union of hallowed origin for which many southerners still had a lingering reverence. It has even been suggested that large numbers of loyal confederates had a subconscious desire to lose the war”. (Source-1) North’s victory is due or ascribed to its better cause and morale.

A question that is frequently asked by people; why did the Confederacy lose the Civil War? The larger number of union troops is what most historians think. Within the book The South vs. the South by William W. Freehling gives a whole other perspective and bring the reader an entirely new answer to the question. The Author as well splits the answer into two being, “the defeat of the Confederate nation can be attributed to two interrelated groups: Southern white anti-Confederates and Southern black anti-Confederates.” Throughout the South vs. The South the author argues that anti-Confederate Southerners specifically, border state whites and southern blacks helped cost the Confederacy the war.

“A house divided against itself cannot stand.”1 These words, spoken by Abraham Lincoln, foreshadowed the war that became the bloodiest in all of the United State's history. The Civil War was a brutal conflict between the North and South; brother against brother. With slavery as the root cause, Southern states had seceded from the Union and were fighting for their independence. They became the Confederate States of America (CSA) and were a force to be reckoned with. The Union, however, put up a fierce struggle to preserve the country. If the Civil War was to be a war of attrition, the North had the upper hand because of its large population, industrialization, raw materials, railroad mileage, and navy. But if the war was short lived, the

The South was viewed by many in the United States and elsewhere as a robust, self-sufficient economy (Surdam, 2001, p. 1). It produced much of the world's supply of cotton and Texans bragged that their cattle could feed the world. What the South lacked in manufacturing was compensated for by the immense wealth produced from raw cotton, cattle, and corn exports. Obviously, the predictions that the South could survive a war with the North due to its economic self-sufficiency were wrong. This essay analyzes the possible reasons for the failure of the Confederacy to win the Civil War.

In the Civil War the North had many advantages over the South. The South was outnumbered, out supplied, and pushed into a corner using military tactics. Many things changed because of the Civil War. The military tactics used by the North changed how war was fought from then on. Many changes were made politically; some were only temporary, while others were permanent. After the war was over, the country was reunited and the image of the soul and duty of our country redefined.