Why The North Lost The Civil War Case Study

In early 1850, the legendary statesman and orator, Daniel Webster, convened with Henry Clay of Kentucky to accumulate approval for Clay’s plan to conserve the Union from itself. This Compromise, appropriately recognized as the Compromise of 1850, guaranteed to address five principal issues at the time. The foremost, was the recognition of California as a free state. At the time, California had not yet amalgamated with the United States, leaving its situation questionable. Next, was the acknowledgement of both New Mexico and Ohio as unresolved states, to refrain from biasing the amount of slave and free states and subsequently, annulling the Wilmot Proviso. As expected, the two Northern politicians wished to expel slave exchange from the prestigious United States capital of the District of Columbia. However, even as Northern men, the Compromise included one last circumstance; a harsher enactment of the Fugitive Slave Law, guaranteeing runaway slaves in the North an unfortunate return to slavery, so as to gain the approval of slave owners and abolitionists

“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 issue of western expansion was an important topic in the middle of the 19th century, and with the admittance of new territories, there was the controversy on whether or not new western territories should be admitted to the Union as slave states or free states. Sam Houston was supportive of western expansion, but he was not supportive of the spreading of slavery. Houston’s opposition came to Congress in the form of a bill in 1854. The Kansas-Nebraska Act was proposed, and it repealed the Missouri Compromise, which put a ban on slavery above a line called the 36 °30 line. The Kansas-Nebraska Act applied a concept called “popular sovereignty”, which let the voters of each territory decide whether or not it would be admitted to the Union as a slave or a free state. Houston stood against his political party and voted against it, which outraged Southerners. Houston’s attitudes towards slavery may seem contradictory because he was, after all, a slave owner, but despite popular belief, he did not oppose the institution of slavery. Houston defended slavery as a necessity because the South

The Compromise of 1850, as it was called, was a bundle of legislation that everyone could agree on. First, congressmen agreed that California would be admitted to the Union as a free state (Utah was not admitted because the Mormons refused to give up the practice of polygamy). The fate of slavery in the other territories, though, would be determined by popular sovereignty. Next, the slave trade (though not slavery itself) was banned in Washington, D.C. Additionally, Texas had to give up some of its land to form the New Mexican territory in exchange for a cancellation of debts owed to the federal government. Finally, Congress agreed to pass a newer and tougher Fugitive Slave Act to enforce the return of escaped slaves to the South.

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:

As a result of the Compromise of 1850, California was admitted as a free state, the territory disputed between Texas and New Mexico was surrendered to New Mexico, the slave trade was abolished in the District of Columbia, the Mexican Cession was open to popular sovereignty, and a stronger Fugitive Slave Law was enacted. In a speech to the Senate on March 7, 1850, Senator Daniel Webster stated his opinion that the North is wrong for not obeying the Fugitive Slave Law and that succession is amiss [Document D].The tone of Webster’s speech is objective as he attempts to see both sides- the North and the South. Webster is unbiased because as a Northern man, he agrees with the South. The peace was only temporary. The Fugitive Slave Law upset Northerners and the Underground Railroad became more active, peaking between 1850 and 1860. Massachusetts went so far as to making it a penal offense for a state official to enforce the act. The act also brought the issue of slavery into the limelight before the entire nation. In fact, by 1858, there was no avoiding the subject of slavery. During the Lincoln-Douglass Debates in a speech at Alton, Illinois on October 15, 1858, Abraham Lincoln stated that slavery was no longer just a political issue [Document G]. Slavery was splitting the nation and during the Second Great Awakening, even churches split over the issue. Lincoln’s speech is

In 1819, the nation created a balance Senate with eleven free states and eleven slave states. In the other words, the free states and slave states have equal representation in Senate, but the balance eventually destroyed when the Missouri Territory wanted to enter the United States as a slave state. The Northern states opposed Missouri to enter the United States as a slave state while the Southern states favored it. They, later on, created the Missouri Compromise that Maine enters as a free state, Missouri enters as a slave state, and any territory/state north of the 36°30′ latitude line would be free territory/state and below it would be slave territory/state. President Thomas Jefferson viewed this compromise as being temporary because as the nation moves west (manifest destiny), slavery would increase. The United States expand from just the west of Mississippi River to the Pacific Ocean and to Mexico when America fought in the Mexican-American War. America won but the Massachusetts House of Representation believed that the war would lead to the expansion of slavery or slave states (Doc.#4). Mexico gave up California, Nevada, Utah, Arizona, part of Colorado, and part of Mexico, but California’s admission created conflict. It created an unbalance

South and had cost the Union dearly. Later, Antietam had given the Union a small victory and prompted President Lincoln to issue the Emancipation Proclamation announcing all slaves in the Confederate territory still in rebellion were freed. Unfortunately for the North, this was soon followed by another Confederate victory at the battle of Fredericksburg. So, why did the South eventually lose? When the question is asked that way, it somewhat implies that the South lost the war all by itself and that it really could have won it. One answer is that the North won it. The South lost because the North outmanned and outclassed it at almost every point, militarily.

On January 29th, 1850 Senator Henry Clay Set forth a series of Conflicts in an attempt to seek a compromise and to turn away from a crisis between the Union (North)and the Confederate(south) The United States had recently Received a large territory from the result of its war with Mexico.The question that was asked about the land was Should the territory sanctions slavery, or should it be declared free? Or maybe the incipient people should be sanctioned to optate for themselves? California a territory that had grown rapidly with the gold rush of 1849, had recently petitioned Congress to enter the Cumulation as a free state. Should this be sanctioned? Ever since the Missouri Compromise, the balance between slave states and free states had been maintained; any proposal that threatened this

This stayed true, until the forming of California came into discussion. California demanded to keep its long borders, due to the oil, which was blocked by the Sierra Nevada, of the Rocky Mountains (OI). Congress would allow California to keep its unusual shape, but the Missouri Compromise’s lateral line went through the middle of California and gave Henry Clay an idea of a new compromise (OI). The Compromise of 1850 was relief for the nation (Doc. 3). Its provisions included Utah and New Mexico territories being decided if they were free or slave states by popular sovereignty (Doc. 3). California would enter the Union as a free state, border disputes between New Mexico and Texas was settled and slave trade, but not slavery, was banned in the nation’s capital, Washington D.C. (Doc. 3). One other decree was enacting the Fugitive Slave Law, which meant that escaped slaves in the North would be returned to their owner, and even Northerners were required to help find escapees (Doc. 3). If people were found to have been harboring slaves, they were faced with either a $1,000 fine or 6 months in prison

They had a strong motivation to fight for their way of living with slaves. The south was fighting on the territory that they knew. Most southern soldiers were very skilled at riding horse and using guns because the were isolated. Some disadvantages were that they had lack in leadership because of the jefferson davis skills. They had very little navy ships because of their location in the U.S, they had no factories all they had was mostly cotton plantations and cash crops.

The prospect of slavery’s extension into the American West most certainly shaped sectional politics by inflaming grievances and tensions, and sparking heated and occasionally violent protests, yet compromise sometimes was reached – occasionally among strange political bedfellows – in the interest of holding off the specter of civil war. This paper will focus on the issues surrounding the possible extension of slavery into the following areas: the Missouri Territory and the Louisiana Purchase in general, Texas (annexation), the Oregon Territory, California (annexation), Nebraska (unorganized), and the Kansas Territory.

The Union won the American Civil War and reunited the country for several different reasons that changed over time. The North had advantages and successes that ebbed and flowed throughout the course of the war, while the South continued to make the same mistakes. A combination of Union success and Confederate failures ended the war in favor of the North and without one of them; it is hard to judge the outcome of the war. At the start of the war, the Union had a clear advantage in manpower and resources, which lasted throughout the war.

An army of soldiers requires an enormous amount of supplies, so one would therefore need to have the means to thereby create those supplies. The North was well industrialized by the time of the Civil War, whereas the South was still highly dependent on slave labor, which hindered their ability to industrialize.4 When it came to producing weapons, uniforms, shoes, preserved food, tools for more effective farming to feed soldiers, the telegraph, and other necessities, the Union was way in the lead. They could not only create these products, but they could produce them in mass amounts in a fraction of the time it originally took to make them.5 The South had a hard time enduring the war because they did not have the factories necessary to produce the quality and mass amount of supplies they needed.

In efforts to better understand the Civil War most historians examine the Sectional Crisis and the Compromise of 1850 in the decades leading up to the worst years in American History. Some historians prefer to focus on the underlying theme of the war, others tightly examine individual leaders, events, and political parties, connecting them all together like puzzle pieces to define the years prior to the war. Despite the contrasting views, it is clear to realize the constant prevailing issues of the Antebellum Period, the Sectional Crisis and the Compromise of 1850. In particular, the Compromise of 1850 is deceivingly taught as only establishing 3 pivotal elements: the status of slavery in future territories (popular sovereignty), California statehood, and the fugitive slave law. Granted these elements of the compromise provide a great amount of controversy long after their birth, but one element of the compromise perceives to fail in obtaining recognition. The Texas-New Mexico boundary resolution seems to find itself fading away from its relevancy to the civil war, shadowed by more prominent issues regarding the stability of the Union. Abandoning the traditional teaching of the compromise, the Texas-New Mexico border decision figuratively and literally changed the identity of Texas. This was the long awaited result caused by deep rooted social and political issues dating back to the Texas Revolution.