Essay: Why The North Won The Civil 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:

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

During the time of the Civil War, both sides had to plan and make strategies if they wanted to win the war. The Union had their own plan and so did the South. The North specifically had five major points that they wanted to accomplish if they wanted to win. The first goal they had was to fully blockade all southern coasts. This strategy, known as the Anaconda Plan, was used to eliminate the possibility of the Confederacy getting help from places abroad, such as Europe.

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

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.

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 was one of the bloodiest wars in American history. So many lives were lost in battle in this war any many were severely harmed. Many believe that the war was fought over the expansion of slavery to the West. This is true, however, it is not the only reason the Civil War took place. Missouri wanted to enter as a slave state and many people were worried that this was going to alter the balance of the Senate (“Political Issues Leading to Civil War”, 2015). The court decision in the Dred Scott case caused an up-roar in the states and contributed to the reasoning behind the Civil War. It was said that “once you’re a slave, you are property, and you have no rights”

     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

There are many reason that the North won the civil war. Some of the main reasons are, the North had many advantages over the South, The North has a very distinct and well thought out plan, and foreign aid plays a big part in the north’s victory over the south. The advantages the North had over the South is a large factor in their victory. One of their advantages was the amount of people on their side.

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.

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.

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.

For one, the North wasn’t as united as the South. While the Confederacy fought for their way of life, the North fought for politicians (Confederate States). They were also fighting in unknown territory. In order to win, they would have to seize control over a large area of land (Davidson and Stoff pg 488). Finally, the North couldn’t find a good military leader for most of the war. Most of the military colleges were in the South, so the North was at a huge disadvantage in leadership and skill (Confederate States).

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.

"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