Why the North Won the Civil War

It was well believed until Jackson’s forces began unloading rounds on the Union army stopping McDowell’s forces from advancing, holding the line like “a stone wall.” As the new Union recruits witnessed battle for the first time and felt the lack of preparation, they were quick to retreat back to Washington DC. The Southern victory and the tens of thousands of lives lost proved to the Union that this war was not going to be easily won.

Despite the lack of economic and political power, the South was also at a loss of collective will. Certainly the course of the war, the military events, had a lot to do with the loss of will. The Southerners hoped that they would win spectacular victories on Northern soil, and that they would be able to exhaust the will of the Northern people, and they failed to do so. The battle of Gettysburg with the largest number of casualties is often described as the war’s turning point. The Union defeated attacks lead by Confederate General Robert E. Lee, ending Lee's invasion of the North. With regard to military turning points, the outcome of the war also became inevitable in November 1864 with the reelection of Lincoln and the utter determination to see the things through, and the finding of leader U.S. Grant, the man to

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

     Even in farm production the northern states overshadowed the rural South, for most of the North’s population was still rooted in the soil. The Confederacy produced enough foodstuffs to meet minimal needs, but the disruption of transport caused shortages in many places. The North, meanwhile, produced a surplus of wheat for export at a time when drought and crop failures in Europe created a critical demand. King Wheat supplanted King Cotton as the nation’s main export, becoming the chief means of acquiring foreign money and bills of exchange to pay for imports from abroad.

The Civil War, composed of the Union run by numerous generals replacing one another, and the Confederacy lead by Robert E. Lee, was and still is one of the most gruesome wars in American History, and the Battle of Gettysburg is considered by most as an incredible turning point of the war. This is due to how the Union brought down the Confederacy’s winning streak, and gave the Confederacy a huge blow to their manpower, supplies, and overall strength to win (Battle of Gettysburg, 1). Robert E. Lee, though a great general throughout the Civil War, was a failure during the Battle Gettysburg because he was not able to get his men to their jobs done in time. Another reason he was a failure was because of his plan to attack again on July 3rd which

“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.

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

the Confederate army could win this one with a series of charges. On the second

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

From the onset of the war, the Union had its obvious advantages. They simply had large amounts of resources of which the South did not. "In all history, no nation of mere agriculturists ever made successful war against a nation of mechanics. You are bound to fail" --Union officer William Tecumseh Sherman to a Southern friend. Over 85 percent of the nation's industry and significant material resources were controlled by the North. The North was able to use take power of their economical advantages to produce military supplies, and replace damaged equipment more rapidly than the Confederacy. On top of that, forces for the field could be re-supplied rapidly because

     Battles have been fought since the dawn of time. Weapons have gradually become more technological and sophisticated each and every time. People learn from their mistakes, as did the Indians in the late 1700s, as well as the Confederate troops from the Civil War. The Union was victorious in this war for freedom, and to this day, the north is more the heart of the country’s economy.

“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

Both the Union and the Confederacy had good military leaders who used and/or invented promising war tactics. The North used a strategy known as the Anaconda Plan. This is where the Union Forces would surround the Confederacy, cut its trade, divide it into two at the Mississippi River, and squeeze it to death. At first the Anaconda Plan was ridiculed, because both sides were originally stuck on old fashion tactics of using mass troops to attack a certain point. When both sides found the new technology in weaponry, made this old strategy suicide the Anaconda Plan was implemented. New technology caused old war tactics to change. Another strategy, I personally like to call “The Jaw” was demonstrated by the brilliant Robert. E. Lee from the South. One war tactic used by Ulysses S. Grant from the North in The Siege of Vicksburg changed the way war was fought from then on. It was called Total War. Total War involves not only war against the opponent’s soldiers but war against their civilians and economic system, in hopes of breaking their moral and in hopes that they give up the thought of winning because victory is just not worth the losses, so defeat may be welcomed. The combination of the ancient technique of total war, which