The Reasons For Confederate Defeat Of The Civil War

The challenges that the Union and the Confederacy faced during the Civil War were very different. Critical weaknesses that seemed unfit for war, plagued the opposing American forces, and would serve to be a continuous obstacle that would need to be conquered by patriotism of the people, for their opposing views. To allow for both sides to be competitive, the efforts put forth had to mold to the varied needs of the armies by both the civilian population and their militaries. To the people in the south the similarity to the colonists in the Revolutionary War, was assimilated to their separatist cause in the Civil War and would be their drive to compete with the dominating Northern states. This mindset started the Confederacy in the Civil

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.

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.

The romanticized version of the Civil War creates a picture of the North versus the South with the North imposing on the South. However, after reading “The Making of a Confederate” by William L. Barney, one can see that subdivisions existed before the war was declared. The documents analyzed by Barney primarily focus on the experiences of Walter Lenoir, a southern confederate and a member of the planter elite. His experiences tell a vivid story of a passionate and strongly opinioned participant of the Civil War as well as demonstrate a noticeably different view involving his reasoning when choosing a side. Between analyzing this fantastic piece of literature and other resourceful documents from “Voices of Freedom” by Eric Foner, one

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:

In war, the commander in chief makes or breaks the efficiency and effectiveness of the army. The Civil War involved 3 main commanders in chief of the Union and Confederate Army. Through letters written by these three leaders, Ulysses S. Grant, George McClellan and Robert E. Lee, it is evident that their opinions and strategies differed greatly. While Grant considered himself part of the army, Lee separated himself as a ruling commander. Grant’s humble nature and vast knowledge on war technique also made him a more efficient leader, compared to the egotistical George McClellan, another commander of the Union army. Ultimately, Grant and the union army won the war, because of Grant’s hands-on leaderships skills, while Lee lacked confidence in his troops, causing him to remove himself from his men.

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.

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

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.

Many of the nations experienced leaders/generals and the best military minds belonged to Southerners, where there were also more military leaders in general as well as a broader base of recruits with some military or martial experience. The list of brilliant Southern generals is extensive, while even at the highest command the North struggled to find a competent leader for most of the Civil War. The South had the leadership of great commanders, including Robert E. Lee, Joseph Johnston, and "Stonewall" Jackson. Robert E. Lee was the South's greatest general during the Civil War. He graduated from West Point Military Academy and became a colonel in the army before the Civil War began. He was from Virginia and decided to fight on the side of the Confederates even though President Lincoln asked him to be commander of the entire Union Army. General Lee wanted to fight for the South and remain loyal to his home state. General Lee was a fierce fighter and helped his soldiers win many battles at the beginning of the Civil War. But the Union Army was bigger and stronger. Lee felt he had to surrender to the North to stop so many of his soldiers from being killed. Ulysses S. Grant being the leader of the Union Army rather than the army population.. He had all the qualities President Lincoln wanted for the commander of his army. Grant fought very hard in battles, as he did not like to be defeated. When the Civil War began and the North began losing so many battles, Grant joined the Army for a second time. He was an excellent military leader because of his training and skill. General Robert E. Lee, The leader of the Confederate Army had to surrender to General Grant in 1865. Later General Grant became president of the United States twice. Due to Robert E Lee and the South surrendering many say this aspect was not an advantage for

President Lincoln’s skills as a political and military leader proved far superior to those of his counterpart, Jefferson Davis. Although Lincoln had no previous military experience, he possessed a basic common sense for understanding the strategy of war. Lincoln’s innovative leadership, adaptability, and the ability to provide quick resolutions, gave the North a decisive advantage. He also understood that his time was limited and did not try to micromanage his generals. Lincoln knew that he needed qualified individuals to handle the day-to-day military operations. He found such a person in General Grant and handed over complete military control to him in 1963.[vii]

The Civil War began in the year 1861 and ended four years later. The end result was the Union becoming victorious in 1865. There are many advantages and disadvantages that both sides faced during the war, which ultimately contributed to the final outcome. The advantages and disadvantages that each side faced shared many similarities, but the Northern advantages ultimately outweighed the Southern’s. These advantages thus contributed to the North winning the Civil War.

“A house divided against itself cannot stand.”1 These words, spoken by Abraham Lincoln, foreshadowed the war that became the bloodiest in all of the United State's history. The Civil War was a brutal conflict between the North and South; brother against brother. With slavery as the root cause, Southern states had seceded from the Union and were fighting for their independence. They became the Confederate States of America (CSA) and were a force to be reckoned with. The Union, however, put up a fierce struggle to preserve the country. If the Civil War was to be a war of attrition, the North had the upper hand because of its large population, industrialization, raw materials, railroad mileage, and navy. But if the war was short lived, the