Northern Victory In The Civil War

In McPherson’s “Antebellum Southern Exceptionalism” essay, it is noted that the argument is focused on the fact that although the South was seen as different and exceptional, it was actually the North who had been changing. The South was only keeping the same values and traditions it had been following for years (McPherson 41). One instance where the North’s change is noted is when McPherson demonstrates the percentage of agricultural work in the North and South; "In 1800, 82 percent of the Southern labor force worked in agriculture compared with 68 percent in the free states. By 1860 the Northern share had dropped to 40 percent while the Southern proportion had actually increased slightly, to 84

America’s transformation into the country we live in today has been formed through numerous events during its short history but the event that will split the United States into North versus South is truly one of the most defining events in American history. Through numerous events leading up to the start of the Civil War, I will attempt to show how the United States was destined for conflict and that the Civil War was inevitable. The first way I will show how the war could not be avoided will deal with the issue of slavery. Slavery should be the first mentioned because many conflicts within the United States leading up to the Civil War and the division of the United States dealt with slavery. The Missouri Compromise should also be talked

The economies of the North and South were vastly different leading up to the Civil War. Money was equivalent to power in both regions. For the North, the economy was based on industry as they were more modern and self-aware. They realized that industrialization was progress and it could help rid the country of slave labor as it was wrong. The North’s population had a class system but citizens could move within the system, provided they made the money that would allow them to move up in class. The class system was not as rigid as it was in the South. By comparison, the South wanted to hold on to its economic policy. In doing so, the practice of slavery kept the social order firmly in place. The economic factors, social issues and a growing

As we already noted – in the 1800s expediency of slavery was disputed. While industrial North almost abandoned bondage, by the early 19th century, slavery was almost exclusively confined to the South, home to more than 90 percent of American blacks (Barney W., p. 61). Agrarian South needed free labor force in order to stimulate economic growth. In particular, whites exploited blacks in textile production. This conditioned the differences in economic and social development of the North and South, and opposing viewpoints on the social structure. “Northerners now saw slavery as a barbaric relic from the past, a barrier to secular and Christian progress that contradicted the ideals of the Declaration of Independence and degraded the free-labor aspirations of Northern society” (Barney W., p. 63).

The Civil war was not inevitable; it was the result of extremism and failures of leadership on both sides. This war was long forthcoming; we see this conflict as a nation divided or as Lincoln put it a house divided (Doc 4). It was a conflict between pro-slavery southerners and anti-slavery northerners. Both sides felt strongly about their position, leading to neither side backing down. However, this war could have been avoided through a compromise of stronger leadership and less extremism.

The Reconstruction of the United States was an experiment in interracial democracy. The Civil War victory by the North brought to a close the establishment of slavery but, in turn, opened Pandora's box. The questions and answers pertaining to economical, political, and social equality for freedmen had yet to be addressed on a practical level. The Southern states, still bitter from defeat and economic stresses, strongly rejected the societal transformations thrust upon them. The Northern states' focal point remained on the necessary political powers by which to enact constitutional amendments, therefore empowering the federal government with the capabilities to enforce the principles of equal rights. On paper, slavery was abolished, but in reality, African-Americans were once again enslaved on a ship without the security or knowledge of what the next port held for them. The Civil War had not truly ended. It was still active under the guise of Reconstruction, but now coats and flags of many colors existed, and battles were merely fought on alternate battlefields. A war of ideas lacking in substantial practicality resulted in repetitious battles being won and loss. The motivating forces that set Reconstruction into motion were for the most part the North's quest for unification among states', and the emancipation of slaves. However, the primary objective of Reconstruction was to grant political, economical, and social opportunities for the freedmen. 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.

"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

There has been much historical debate over the origins of The American Civil War, with some historians arguing that it was due to the rising Abolition Movement and others arguing that it was due to economic factors, such as the fundamental differences between the Northern and Southern economies. Many Historians tend to agree that although the war did not begin because of slavery, it influenced the events and outcome of the war itself, as the cause became one of emancipation. Historiography of the Civil War doesn’t describe the origins of the Civil War as being purely economic and frequently the view of the Civil War as ‘a crusade against the evil of slavery’ is rejected. Other factors to consider when examining the origins of the Civil War include political decisions such as The Missouri Compromise and public reactions to them, economic differences and the Abolition Movement. In my opinion, I think that race had the largest influence in causing The American Civil War due to the rise and influence of the Abolition Movement.

In the time just before the Civil War, the United States was one of the most successful nations in the world. The United States had become the world’s leading cotton producing country and had developed industry, which would in the future, surpass that of Great Britain. Also, the United States possessed an advanced railroad and transportation system. However, despite its successes, the United States was becoming increasingly divided. The North and the South had many distinct differences in terms of their social, cultural, and economic characteristics that brought about sectionalism and, eventually, the Civil War.

The Civil war was the most momentous and crucial period of time in the history of America. Not only did this war bring an end to slavery but also paved way for numerous social and political changes. The country had already been torn by the negative trend in race relations and the numerous cases of slave uprisings were taking their toll on the country 's political and social structure. The country was predominately divided up into 3 sections, the North, the South, and the West. Each of these groups had different fundamental interests. The North wanted economies depending on farming, factories and milltowns, while the West relied on expansion and development of land for farming and new towns. The South mainly relied on agriculture like

The South vs. The South by William Freehling is a narrative that focuses on the civil war that affected a vast number of Southerners who opposed the Confederacy regardless of whether they were white or black. These ?anti-Confederates,? as termed by Freehling comprised Slaves and Boarder state whites who together formed half the southern population and were significant to the Union victory. By weakening the Confederacy military, contributing manpower and resources to the Union and dividing the southern home front, the anti-Confederates made a critical contribution to the Union war efforts that hastened the end of the war leading to the Union?s victory. The U.S was not the only house that was divided; Divisions between pro-and anti-Confederates, white and black, and the loyalty of both upper and lower states to slavery contributed a lot to the downfall of the confederates. ?Divisions within the South helped pave the path toward war. The same divisions behind army lines helped turn the war against the slaveholders.?(p.10). William Freehling argues that more than 450,000 Union troops from the South, especially southern blacks and border state whites, helped in the defeat of the confederates. Further, when the southern Border States rejected the Confederacy, more than a half of the South?s capacity swelled the North?s advantage.

The second effect of the North’s victory over the South is a new financial system. The American Civil War destroyed the

There has been much historical debate over the true origin of The American Civil War, with some historians arguing that it was due to the rising Abolition Movement and others arguing that it was due to economic factors, such as the fundamental differences between the Northern and Southern economies. Many Historians tend to agree that although the war did not begin because of Slavery, it influenced the events and the outcome of the war itself, as the cause became one of emancipation when many Americans thought the primary aim was to restore the Union. Historiography of the Civil War doesn’t argue that the origins of the Civil War were purely economic and frequently the view of the Civil War as ‘a crusade against the evil of Slavery’ is rejected by historians due to other factors. The other factors to consider when examining the origins of the Civil War include political decisions such as The Missouri Compromise of 1820 and public reactions to them, economic differences between the two groups, and the Abolition Movement and its influence. In my opinion, I think that race had the largest influence in causing The American Civil War due to the rise and influence of the Abolition Movement.

The Civil War was inevitable because of the conflicting views on slavery, where to divide the line between the North and the South, and politics. The country was divided on ideas of slavery: where it was allowed, what to do with Louisiana purchase, and if it had value to American society or not. The North and South could never come to an agreement in regard to slavery and there was a “bitterness over the gag rule against antislavery petitions” (Potter 379). The North wanted it abolished and the South had their people who greatly depended on it and those who could live without it.