Why Did The North Win The Civil War Essay

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

“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:

During the American Civil War, leadership within the Union’s army was constantly an issue. Within the Union, various generals were found at times to be at odds with the political leaders in Washington. This was especially evident in the relationship between General George McClellan and President Lincoln. This tension was the result of McClellan’s approach to waging war. By examining the differing approaches to waging war of U.S. Grant and George B. McClellan one can gain a better appreciation for the decision making that was necessary by leaders like Lincoln, in selecting military

Although James McPherson presents Lincoln as having numerous qualities that defined him as a brilliant leader, he wastes no time in revealing what he believes to be Lincoln’s greatest strength. In his Introduction, McPherson states regarding Lincoln’s political leadership: “In a civil war whose origins lay in a political conflict over the future of slavery and a political decision by certain states to secede, policy could never be separated from national strategy…. And neither policy nor national strategy could be separated from military strategy” (McPherson, p.6). Lincoln could not approach the war from a purely martial standpoint—instead, he needed to focus on the issues that caused it. For the catalyst of the war was also the tool for its solution; a war started by differing ideologies could only be resolved through the military application of ideology. This non-objective approach to the waging of the war almost resembles the inspired approach McPherson brings to his examination of Lincoln himself.

Union officer William Tecumseh Sherman observed to a Southern friend that, "In all history, no nation of mere agriculturists ever made successful war against a nation of mechanics. . . .You are bound to fail." While Sherman 's statement proved to be correct, its flaw is in its assumption of a decided victory for the North and failure to account for the long years of difficult fighting it took the Union to secure victory. Unquestionably, the war was won and lost on the battlefield, but there were many factors that swayed the war effort in favor of the North and impeded the South 's ability to stage a successful campaign.

Both sides in the civil were fighting for a reason, and both sides had their advantages and disadvantages. But why did the Union win,Was it because of their number of men, was it because the government was on their side, or was it because they were richer. The North (Union) actually won the civil war because they Government on their side,they had more men, had more money,and had a skilled military. One reason the north won the civil war is because they had more money than the south and they had more more people.

The Civil War was a war fought between the United States of America and the Confederate States of America. There was a great divide between the North and South because of slavery, states rights, and expansion. The war was fought to preserve the Union, but eventually it became more focused on slavery. In the end, the North won the Civil War, because of their industrial economy, winning the Battle of Gettysburg, and the Emancipation Proclamation.

The Emancipation Proclamation was not a prime factor in the Union's victory over the Confederacy during the US Civil War, from 1861 to 1865. The main factors which contributed to the defeat of the Confederacy included the superior and far more advanced industrial capability of the North and a larger amount of people fighting for and in favour of the Union side. Two other major factors which tipped the scales highly in favour of the Union side were the Battle of Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, and the Battle of Vicksburg, Mississippi. There were many other small factors which aided the Union, but none with the importance or impact of the factors mentioned above. However, without the Emancipation Proclamation, it is possible that the Union would have

The Civil War, which began in April 1861,was the battle of the Northern and Southern states of America. After Lincoln pledged to get rid of slavery in new territories, Southern states seceded to form the Confederacy to fight against the Union. Both the Union and Confederacy and strengths and weaknesses, however, ultimately the North was victorious and slavery was abolished from the United States. The North had many strengths, including a strong military and a strong economical/political system, which would help them win the war. James McPherson backs this up as he argues that the North had superior numbers which would help them during the war.

To What Extent did the North’s Industry lead to Northern Victory? The North’s industrial dominance was a major factor of why the won the war as it was an underlying factor to the other aspects of how they won. Through the North’s industrial prominence it allowed them to be a much more versatile and flexible army through transportation, population and financial supremacy. The Northern industry allowed them to produce war goods and to be an independent economy, which had a major play to their success in the war.

The Civil War was a very gruesome war. The war had become the Union (North) and the Confederacy (South). During the war the union and confederacy had many weaknesses and strengths. Some of them are technology, army/military and government.

When we compare the military leaders of both North and South during the Civil War, it is not hard to see what the differences are. One of the first things that stand out is the numerous number of Northern generals that led the “Army of the Potomac.” Whereas the Confederate generals, at least in the “Army of Northern Virginia” were much more stable in their position. Personalities, ambitions and emotions also played a big part in effective they were in the field, as well as their interactions with other officers.

The battle of Gettysburg was detrimental to both sides thousands of casualties were ultimately lost with the Union securing the victory. This was accomplished through various factors that included a more economically stable environment for the north. Strategy also played a central role in orchestrating a blockade that prevented the South from exporting any goods to other nations and its inability to gain any diplomatic recognition from Britain or France. If the South had won at Gettysburg, the final outcome of the war would not have changed because of the North’s strategic and economic advantages that ultimately won the Civil War.

Introduction: On the twelfth of April 1861, Union troops had just taken refuge in Fort Sumter under the cover of darkness. They were out number out gunned and running out of time. The newly formed Confederate States of America (CSA) had now occupied the five other military installations within the Garrison. At 0430, the first shot of the American Civil War rang out and Fort Sumter was fast under the barrage that the surrounding garrison forts occupied by the confederate forces (sumter). Major Anderson was reluctant to return fire, as his previous orders were not to be the aggressor. The first shots returned in volley to the confederate forces was by a private under the Major Anderson, who raced up to the third story of Fort Sumter where the largest artillery guns were loaded and ready to fire. In following his lead, other soldiers in the fort also began firing on the confederate antagonists (Civil War Journal: Destiny of Fort Sumter, 1993). Thirty four hours later Major Anderson surrendered the fort over to General Beauregard without a single loss of life on either side of the battle. However, death was soon to befall the soldiers of Fort Sumter. Thesis: The complete lack of organized military and government intelligence solidified the abysmal start to the civil war. If the Union leadership during the Buchanan administration had anticipated the treachery of the southern officers and leaders within the federal government then they could have prevented the secession