Essay: Why The North Won The Civil War

"If wars are won by riches, there can be no question why the North eventually prevailed." The North was better equipped than the South, with the resources necessary to be successful in a long term war like the Civil War was, which was fought from 1861 – 1865. Prior, and during the Civil war, the North's economy was always stronger than the South's, boasting of resources that the Confederacy had no means of attaining. Compared to the South, The North had more factories available for production of war supplies and larger amounts of land for growing crops. Its population was several times of the South's, which was a potential source for military enlistees. Although the South had better naval leadership and commanders, such as Robert E. Lee

The available resources of The North and South determined the outcome of The Civil War. The North’s superior industry and manpower paved the way for modernization and the ultimate victory. The South was destined for defeat due to insufficient resources to compete with the North. Once The North decided to fully utilize their industrial advantage, The South was doomed.

Although the North dominated the Civil War reconstruction it is a whole different story. It would be understandable to presume that the North, who the war would have easily won reconstruction because they could have given the South as harsh punishment as they see fit. That didn’t happen, far from it. Abraham Lincoln proposed a plan which allowed the South to come back to the Union with little to no. This plan also would help rebuild the the war torn South after it was destroyed by numerous battles. Abraham Lincoln’s plan was not able to go through because he was assassinated, but Andrew Johnson proposed a similar plan that fell through. First off the South was able to rebuild a whole new railroad system which made travel easier. This was huge because now travel was faster, cheaper, and it created more jobs. One thing that at first seemed like it was going to a major affect on the South was the loss of slaves, yet the South but they were able to find a loophole through

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

Several factors played in to the American Civil War that made it have the outcome that it did. Although the South had better trained officials due to their military school, the North was far more advanced than they. The North had the advantage over the South in several ways. However, the outcome of the Civil War was not inevitable: it was determined as much by human decisions and human willpower as by physical resources, although the North’s resources gave them an edge over the South.

First, the South couldn’t have won the civil war because state’s rights prevented unification of the South. The very issue that created the Confederacy helped to destroy it. In waging war, the South faced problems of politics and government that greatly complicated its problem of economic mobilization. No one would deny the troublesome effect of the conflict generated by differing ideas of how best to protect liberty and to organize southern society for the war effort. Southern people insisted upon retaining their democratic liberties in wartime, which proved fatal for the South. They had to struggle with a “confederacy formed by

In my opinion, the North had a reasonable chance of success because it had industry which meant more wealth than the South enjoyed. The wealth allowed them to manufacture more artillery and ammunition needed to win a war. As shown in the movie, officers had lavish parties in wealthy homes and even used watermelons for sword practice. Watermelons are usually grown in the warmer climate of the South where there was more poverty. I doubt very much the Southerners would have wasted watermelons on sword practice as many tended to be poor. All of this does not mean the American Civil War was proportional. In fact, I don’t believe it was. When Fort Wayne was attacked in the movie, “Glory”, almost half of the Union soldiers perished in that battle. They were sitting ducks, running to the slaughter. The goal of freeing slaves or not freeing slaves was NOT worth the gain of killing more enemy soldiers than the opposing side and the destruction of thousands upon thousands of men.

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:

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

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.

     I agree with the idea that the North had won the Civil War before it began to the extent of Lincoln’s conservative political stands. Trying to receive the favor of the South while winning in the North would require Lincoln to take neutral stands in heated political issues like slavery. It wasn’t really wan by the North until he broke away from these stands to enact the Emancipation Proclamation and turn the tides of war in favor of the North. “This Lincoln always publicly condemned the abolitionists who fought slavery by extra constitutional means – and condemned also the mobs who deprived them of their right of free speech and free press.” (Holfstadter, Lincoln and the Self-Made

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.