Victory in the North: Us Civil War
| Victory in The North | A synopsis on the outcome of the U.S. Civil War | | [Type the author name] | 11/6/2010 |
|
Since the final battle of the American Civil War was fought in 1865, scholars have debated the reasons for the Union’s victory over the Confederacy. Historians have attributed the war’s outcome to many factors, some of which include Lincoln’s superior leadership, the South’s failure to diplomatically secure foreign intervention, emancipated slaves enlisting in the Union army, and the military strategies employed by the North’s generals. Both the Union and Confederacy expected a quick victory, each believing it possessed several advantages over the other. In the end, however, the North’s overwhelming superiority in manufacturing and industry proved to be far too great a hurdle to overcome by the South’s agricultural economy. While the consensus seems to be that there was no single contributing factor in the War’s outcome, there are several that should be highlighted, beginning with Lincoln’s leadership role. Lincoln’s chief priority from the beginning of his presidency was to preserve the Union. The way in which he achieved this was through skillful use of executive power provided by the Constitution. In the secession crisis, Lincoln relied on the prerogative element in the executive power to prevent the destruction of the government. His decisive action marked the first steps pointing to the reinauguration of the national authority and reconstruction of the Union in order to augment and perfect the principles of the founding (Belz par. 53). Once national authority was established, Lincoln would later use his presidential powers successfully and effectively through the emancipation of slaves; a strategy which would serve the Union well when Lincoln permitted the enlistment of Negros in the army. With the recruitment efforts of abolitionists Frederick Douglass and Henry Highland Garnet in the North, as well as Harriet Tubman,
|
Since the final battle of the American Civil War was fought in 1865, scholars have debated the reasons for the Union’s victory over the Confederacy. Historians have attributed the war’s outcome to many factors, some of which include Lincoln’s superior leadership, the South’s failure to diplomatically secure foreign intervention, emancipated slaves enlisting in the Union army, and the military strategies employed by the North’s generals. Both the Union and Confederacy expected a quick victory, each believing it possessed several advantages over the other. In the end, however, the North’s overwhelming superiority in manufacturing and industry proved to be far too great a hurdle to overcome by the South’s agricultural economy. While the consensus seems to be that there was no single contributing factor in the War’s outcome, there are several that should be highlighted, beginning with Lincoln’s leadership role. Lincoln’s chief priority from the beginning of his presidency was to preserve the Union. The way in which he achieved this was through skillful use of executive power provided by the Constitution. In the secession crisis, Lincoln relied on the prerogative element in the executive power to prevent the destruction of the government. His decisive action marked the first steps pointing to the reinauguration of the national authority and reconstruction of the Union in order to augment and perfect the principles of the founding (Belz par. 53). Once national authority was established, Lincoln would later use his presidential powers successfully and effectively through the emancipation of slaves; a strategy which would serve the Union well when Lincoln permitted the enlistment of Negros in the army. With the recruitment efforts of abolitionists Frederick Douglass and Henry Highland Garnet in the North, as well as Harriet Tubman,
Cited: Archives.gov. Teaching With Documents:The Fight for Equal Rights: Black Soldiers in the Civil War. 1 Nov. 2010 <http://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/blacks-civil-war/>. Belz, Herman, Lincoln 's Construction of the Executive Power in the Secession Crisis. Journal of the Abraham Lincoln Association 27.1 (2006): 67 pars. 22 Oct. 2010 <http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/jala/27.1/belz.html> Boritt, G.S., McPherson, James. Why The Confederacy Lost. New York: Oxford University Press, 1992. 30 Oct. 2010 < http://books.google.com/>