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.
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
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.
“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
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
“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.
Freehling looks at the economical factors of the Confederacy during the war to explain that the home front was not able to withstand the hard times so therefore it flowed into the cause on the battlefield. With many of the plantation owners gone, the wives were left to control the plantation and the slaves. These slaves ran away leaving the fields unworked and soldiers and families hungry. Also the railroads were being destroyed in the west and by Sherman’s March to Sea. Already plagued with low sources of food, the ability to move food to troops was virtually impossible. Freehling believes that military outcomes formed social outcomes (Freehling, 221). I disagree here with Freehling because everything he talks about seems to go the opposite way. Slave desertion, lack of food, and railroad devastation were social outcomes but they were the cause, and the battles were the effect. The feelings at home spilled onto the battlefield. Why put so much emphasis on circumstances that are obviously spurred on by what is going on at home.
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.
Every moment in history begins with a cause. When it comes to the topic of the American Civil War, the specific causation has been debated by historians. Whatever the cause, the Civil War could be defined as the most gruesome war the United States has faced. With over 620,000 casualties, the Civil War of 1861 left America crippled with pain. Some Americans will promptly agree that this bloodshed was caused by slavery whereas others favor the idea of sectionalism; a term defined as the tendency to be more concerned with the interests of one’s own region than with the dilemmas of the country as a whole. The Progressive Historians believe economic differences between the North and the South, which were rooted in sectionalism, caused the war. On
If the north was to succeed, they would forever be oppressed by their victory, and slaves of their achievements. The Confederates fought to promote the wellbeing of their family and the protection of their land “from Yankee outrage and atrocity”(Mc.Pherson 20) .
“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
After thoroughly assessing past readings and additional research on the Civil War between the North and South, it was quite apparent that the war was inevitable. Opposed views on this would have probably argued that slavery was the only reason for the Civil War. Therefore suggesting it could have been avoided if a resolution was reached on the issue of slavery. Although there is accuracy in stating slavery led to the war, it wasn’t the only factor. Along with slavery, political issues with territorial expansion, there were also economic and social differences between North and South. These differences, being more than just one or two, gradually led to a war that was bound to happened one way or another.
South Carolina and the other southern states to follow, announced their intentions to leave the Union. They believed that since they voluntarily joined the Union, they could voluntarily withdraw as well. During Lincoln’s attempt to stop the secession, more southern states joined the Confederates, and thus due to, but not only to these political factors, the civil war was slowly induced.
President Lincoln quickly realized that the South's tremendous agricultural wealth represented a significant strategic advantage if they chose to leave the Union and he was forced to suppress what he viewed as an internal insurrection (Surdam, 2001, p. 1). Lincoln was aware that Europe and other countries had become dependent on raw cotton imports from North America and were therefore potential commercial and military allies of the Confederacy. In addition, English aristocracy hoped for a diminution of the power of its greatest naval competitor, the United States, and an end to dreams of democracy in the New World (Woldman, 1952, p. 84-85). Russians were concerned about the breakup of the Union for the opposite reason, since it viewed the commercial competition between the U.S. and Britain as a