Preview

Why Did the South Lose the Civil War

Powerful Essays
Open Document
Open Document
1825 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
Why Did the South Lose the Civil War
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 outcome been different, and a simple superiority in resources is an insufficient explanation, when one considers the many examples in history, not least the American War of Independence, when a weaker defender has kept a far stronger attacker at bay. There were four distinct turning points in the war which led ultimately to Southern defeat. However, while a presentation of the war's events and key points may explain how the South lost the Civil War, it fails to explain why they lost. Why did the Southern war effort fail at three key stages?

The North's superiority in manpower and resources must not be omitted in any answer to this question. Lincoln had at his disposal a population of 22,000,000, compared with a Southern population of 9,000,000, which included 3,500,000 slaves whom they dared not arm. This provided a far larger base from which to draw troops, although it has been suggested that Southerners were keener to join up than their Union counterparts. Furthermore, in terms of resources, the Union advantage was huge: New York alone produced manufactures of a value four times greater than the total Southern output; the North had a virtual monopoly on heavy industries; coal, iron, clothing, armaments, shipyards, machine

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Good Essays

    This book focuses on the of number southern black and white who opposed the confedecy. He documented in The Road to Disunion, that anti-Confederates got strength from the weakness of slavery in the Border South, while slavery stunted population growth. The author argues that the varying support of the upper and lower South contributed to the fall of the Confederacy placing most of the blame on anti confederalist. He states that anti-Confederate whites undermined the Confederacy by remaining outside the nation while slaves unified form within and enlisted into the Union Army. Both groups guaranteed that the Union would have more men for the army which cause the Confederacy to lose because anti-Confederates waged war against Confederate southerners. That author also discusses the neutrality of the border slave states that made the Confederate war effort vulnerable. Losing nearly half of the slave states neutrality and the support for the Union army's invasion damaged the geography and population that the Confederacy could use for its defense.…

    • 232 Words
    • 1 Page
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    This first entry into the book showcases the side of the southern Confederate armies, who were comparing the Civil War to the Revolutionary War. They saw their enemies, the Northern Yankees, as nothing more than tyrants trying to oppress the south. Just as the British had done to the colonists a century and a half ago. This gave them a "holy cause of southern freedom", a reason to step into the shoes of their famed forefathers and once again fight for their liberties and constitutional rights.…

    • 497 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    In Why the North Won the Civil War, Henry Steele Commager believed that there were multiple causes that led the confederacy to their defeat and that it was “an inevitability in history.” While many historians believed the North won due to their economic, military, diplomatic, and social aspects, Richard N. Current stated that the Union won the Civil War due to their “fundamental economic superiority.” He believed the North sustained a vast and overwhelming economic superiority in men and materials, giving them “an advantage of almost five to two” in everything. The Union succeeded because they were productive with their economy, unlike the Confederates.…

    • 241 Words
    • 1 Page
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    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: economic, military, diplomatic, social, and political, respectively.…

    • 1300 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    3.Due to the substantial differences between the North’s industrial economy and the South’s agricultural economy they both had distinct advantages and disadvantages during the war. To begin with, the North’s economy was far superior to the South’s because the North had two-thirds of the nation’s population, two-thirds of the railroad mileage, and almost 90% of the nation’s industrial output. Also, many of the North’s arm factories were equipped with mass production which allowed them to compete with the gun manufacturing centers and armories of the South. The Northern economy helped them have much greater supply of resources compared to the South. On the other hand, the Confederacy had slaves which helped provide food for the army and provide the most important good of all, cotton. The South was able to use cotton as diplomatic weapon which they thought they could use to persuade France or Britain to assist or side with the Confederacy. We can also see this as a disadvantage to the Northern economy because they had no such tool or weapon to use to obtain foreign assistance or aid. Unfortunately this same advantage for the South also led to a severe disadvantage. Because the majority of the people living in the South did not own slaves, they were not the ones producing cotton. This meant that the majority of the…

    • 831 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    After the Constitution was received by the greater part of the States in 1789, uniting the States into one country, contrasts between the States had been worked out through compromises. By 1861 these contrasts between the Northern States (which incorporated the Mid-Western and Western States) and the Southern States had turned out to be great to the point that compromise would no more work. Along these lines, a contention began inside of our country that was known as the Civil War. This Civil War was absolutely encouraged by the vigorous requests of numerous Northerners for the prompt abrogation of subjugation. Yet, an examination of the occasions driving specifically to war will demonstrate that Southern politicians likewise must share a great…

    • 159 Words
    • 1 Page
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    Based on the information from above , the North should win the war due to their advantages in the number of railroads in the North and a greater amount of soldiers fighting in war. In the Civil War, the North had a far greater amount of soldiers fighting for them than in the South. While the South only had 750,000 to 1,000,000 soldiers fighting for the Confederate Army, the North had, “2 million soldiers fighting for the Union. ”(Society Infographic) Not only did the Union have more soldiers, but 179,000 slaves fought for the South.…

    • 199 Words
    • 1 Page
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    The North took victory in the civil war against the South. The North had several of advantages when it came to defeating the other side.The blockade. As the war progressed the blockade of Southern ports slowly became more effective, closing the ports and thus cutting off the vital supplies needed to fight the war. This includes medicine. The South had to rely on Europe even more so than the North for supplies with which to fight the war so by eliminating more and more ports into which the supplies could come into the Confederacy the North slowly deprived the South of it's ability to properly fight. By the end of the war many Confederate soldiers didn't have the ammo, food, or even effective weapons required to campaign with. Attrition. The Union had more men…

    • 510 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Better Essays

    The loss of the South in the Civil War was the result of various contributions. First of all, they were underequipped in artillery and production factories. The South’s population was about one fourth of the North’s excluding slaves. They were not united and lost because their own philosophical beliefs that destroyed them. Further, the South was underequipped and outclassed in everything industrially. They’re only hope of taking a military advantage was support from European countries. However, those connections were cut when the North blockaded the South and when the North incited the European public to support the North’s effort preventing European interference. Although there was a high morale to serving the Confederacy and to destroying the Union cause, they didn’t have the materials to do so. Many would just fight with stones or any primitive makeshift weapon they could use when they were depleted of bullets because of their low artillery production. The South also had much less supply lines. Their railroads were half that of the North’s and became less as the North decimated the South’s rail lines. The North figured that it would be wiser to destroy their supply lines and weaken the troops. However destroying food lines wouldn’t be a problem because the South couldn’t even supply food because as men were drafted into the army, the agricultural farms withered away due to lack of maintenance. Another disadvantage would be the size of the South. The ratio of people of South to North was about 3 to 7. However 3.5 million of those Southern people were slaves, so the actual ratio would be about 1 to 4. Considering the North’s territorial advantage over the South, it is impressive to see that the South could sustain such a defense over the four years of the war. The reason could be that the South had better trained generals such as…

    • 1221 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Good Essays

    During the 1860 Presidential election Abraham Lincoln’s campaign was struggling. Stephen A. Douglas, the Southern Democrat nominee, was picking up steam as he broke the political standards by instituting a traveling campaign. His campaign knew no boundaries as he ventured across the broken nation from New England to the Deep south where he gave speeches, shook hands, and kissed babies. Lincoln’s campaign however was lacking as he was firmly rooted in Springfield. Lincoln knew that he could not afford to lose this election.…

    • 714 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Better Essays

    Although each event of the American Civil War may provide valuable sentiment to the outcome of the overall occurrence, there are four critical turning points that define lasting consequences of the war. Ranking in order from least significant to most significant, as well as subtly diverging from Professor McPherson’s interpretations, the four events marking crucial turning points of the Civil War were Antietam and Emancipation; the Battles of Gettysburg, Vicksburg and Chattanooga; Sherman’s capture of Atlanta and his following March to the Sea; and the Presidential Election of 1864.…

    • 2591 Words
    • 11 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    The North outgunned and it had more people than the South. During the Civil war the North had a little over 20 states apart of the union and the South had half that. the South had only 11 states. Out of the 2 million troops the North had 350,000 died during the war. the North went under the name of the union they were against owning slaves.…

    • 408 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Better Essays

    When the Confederate Army General Robert E. Lee surrendered to the Union Army General, Ulysses S. Grant at the Appomattox Courthouse on April 9, 1865, many considered the Civil War to be over. The fact that the North was victorious over the South was accepted and the process of reconstruction began in America. It was never openly discussed on why the North defeated the South. However, the question began to slowly arise over time on why the South lost the Civil War. Many historians have become interested in this question and many reasons have been given on why the South lost the Civil War. Lack of manpower, shortages of supplies, and inferior leadership and government were the three main reasons on why the South was defeated in the Civil War.…

    • 1101 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Good Essays

    If the south won the Civil War The civil war started when the confederates bombarded Union Soldiers at Fort Sumter, South Carolina on April 12, 1861. The civil war ended in spring 1865. Robert E. Lee surrendered the last confederate army to Ulysses S. Grant at Appomattox Courthouse on April 9, 1965. In addition the last battle was fought at Palmito Ranch, which is located in Texas on May 13, 1865.…

    • 584 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    The Fate of Their Country

    • 1065 Words
    • 5 Pages

    "To locate the most direct causes of the American Civil War," he contends in the preface, "one must look at the actions of governmental officeholders in the decades before that horrific conflict." Professor Michael F Holt needs no introduction among historians. He is single handedly regarded as one of the scholars who is most responsible for the emergence of what some call a neo-revisionist interpretation and outlook about the origins and circumstances that resulted in the Civil War. His ideas which are reflected throughout his books especially “The Fate of their country” emphasize that the reasons which caused The Civil War could have been and should have been averted. Defending this ideology Holt criticizes historians who stand by their argument of “Sectional conflict over slavery and slavery extension caused the Civil War”. Instead he preaches throughout his works that include many influential books including “The Fate of their Country” that, contingent political factors played a very huge and predominant role is stimulations factors causing disunion among the states.…

    • 1065 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays