Why the North Won the Civil War by David Donald: Reflection on the economic, military, diplomatic, political, and social reasons the South lost.

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) .

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 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

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.

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.

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.

For one, the North wasn’t as united as the South. While the Confederacy fought for their way of life, the North fought for politicians (Confederate States). They were also fighting in unknown territory. In order to win, they would have to seize control over a large area of land (Davidson and Stoff pg 488). Finally, the North couldn’t find a good military leader for most of the war. Most of the military colleges were in the South, so the North was at a huge disadvantage in leadership and skill (Confederate States).

“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 South was viewed by many in the United States and elsewhere as a robust, self-sufficient economy (Surdam, 2001, p. 1). It produced much of the world's supply of cotton and Texans bragged that their cattle could feed the world. What the South lacked in manufacturing was compensated for by the immense wealth produced from raw cotton, cattle, and corn exports. Obviously, the predictions that the South could survive a war with the North due to its economic self-sufficiency were wrong. This essay analyzes the possible reasons for the failure of the Confederacy to win the Civil 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

Another major reason why the North won the Civil War is the because they had a reason to fight. After the Emancipation Proclamation, the Northern armies were more motivated to win the war because they wanted to end slavery once and for all. Abraham Lincoln made the Emancipation Proclamation to announce that slaves are free, and this idea gave the Northern Armies a reason and motivation to keep fighting. The Emancipation Proclamation states, "all persons held as slaves within any State or designated part of a

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.

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

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.[7] 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.

"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