Essay On Why The North Won The Civil War But The South Won Reconstruction

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.

I personally think that the North war more prepared for the Civil War. Since they were using technology and machines, they were very self-sufficient and didn’t rely on questionable resources; they were moving forward and improving. The South wasn’t industrialized and relied on farming for most of their profits. The South also needed slaves in order to profit from agriculture, and I think this put them at a disadvantage. If another Civil War were to spark tomorrow, do you think the North and the South would be prepared; which side would be more

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

The truth is both sides ruined the chances of reconstruction.They are both at fault. The south and the northerners had an equal part at failing to continue the reconstruction because from the south there was an organization; a cult called the Ku klux Klan.The kkk did not accept african americans. They were so cruel and inhumane to them the kkk would slaughter , manipulate, and even taunt them till the african americans would fear them(Doc A, B)As for the North , there was a lot of corruption due to Former President grant that committed fraud and caused the “ panic of 1873 “ which caused lots of jobs to discontinue and people to worry from it.(doc C)

First of all, the North won the Civil War because they won the Battle of Gettysburg. This battle was one of the most crucial in the war. To win this was another step towards victory. The website, "Nps.gov" states, "The Union victory at the Battle of Gettysburg, sometimes referred to as the 'High Water Mark of the Rebellion' resulted not only in Lee's retreat to Virginia, but an end to the hopes of the Confederate States of America for independence" (Nps.gov). The evidence is saying that this loss for the South ended all of their hopes for victory. Since the North won the Battle of Gettysburg they are one step closer to victory, and bringing the Union back together again. The battle took away all the hope from the Southern states. The Northern states won the Civil war because they were able to defeat the Confederate armies at the battle of Gettysburg.

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.

Many think that the north could have helped more in the reconstruction of these nation but I would have to disagree due to these facts. After the Civil war, many things were changing. Things such as souths power, slavery, and all white superiority but after a war like that something is bound to change. Who killed reconstruction (time of comeback for south after the civil war) easy, the South. The south killed reconstruction by having very exact plans for the reconstruction and for allowing terror groups.

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.

"The North won the war, but the South won the peace," is a statement to explain what happened during the process of reconstructing the country. From events and evidence the south was always restricting the power that the north gained from winning the war. The north was proudly able to keep their heads up and go in the direction they set out

"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

     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

The argument that I found to be most convincing was Fredrickson’s. The argument he presents to be the best is that the South ultimately lost due to their most glaring failure being in the area of coordination, collective adaptation to new conditions, and lack modernization. He talks about how the southern commanders during the war lacked leadership. Their army’s were undisciplined and insubordinate, many men abandoned their cause. The southern government couldn’t even get their states to give up control over a large quantity of arms to give those weapons to the fighting soldiers. Instead, they had to turn away over 200,000 volunteers in the first year. The north successfully modernized in various societies, when the south did now. This supports

Perhaps the greatest outcome to the Civil War was the fact that in the end, this country stayed together and didn’t break apart to form two separate nations. Although most of the destruction took place in the South, the Northern states were able to assist with rebuilding after the war was over, Lincoln made sure that there were designs in place to return the South to normal as soon as possible following the end of the war, unfortunately he wasn’t around to make sure that it happened as planned. Because of this a lot of different opinions on how Reconstruction should proceed were brought forth, and it ended up being a long uphill battle, but nonetheless, the South was rebuilt.