Preview

Why the North Won the Civil War

Powerful Essays
Open Document
Open Document
2915 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
Why the North Won the Civil War
The American antebellum South, though steeped in pride and raised in military tradition, was to be no match for the burgeoning superiority of the rapidly developing North in the coming Civil War. The lack of emphasis on manufacturing and commercial interest, stemming from the
Southern desire to preserve their traditional agrarian society, surrendered to the North their ability to function independently, much less to wage war. It was neither Northern troops nor generals that won the Civil War, rather Northern guns and industry. From the onset of war, the Union had obvious advantages. Quite simply, the North had large amounts of just about everything that the South did not, boasting resources that the Confederacy had even no means of attaining (See Appendices, Brinkley et al. 415). Sheer manpower ratios were unbelievably one-sided, with only nine of the nation's 31 million inhabitants residing in the seceding states (Angle 7). The Union also had large amounts of land available for growing food crops which served the dual purpose of providing food for its hungry soldiers and money for its ever-growing industries. The South, on the other hand, devoted most of what arable land it had exclusively to its main cash crop: cotton
(Catton, The Coming Fury 38). Raw materials were almost entirely concentrated in Northern mines and refining industries. Railroads and telegraph lines, the veritable lifelines of any army, traced paths all across the Northern countryside but left the South isolated, outdated, and starving (See Appendices). The final death knell for a modern South developed in the form of economic colonialism. The Confederates were all too willing to sell what little raw materials they possessed to
Northern Industry for any profit they could get. Little did they know,
"King Cotton" could buy them time, but not the war. The South had bartered something that perhaps it had not intended: its independence
(Catton,

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Satisfactory Essays

    The South did have some advantages though. Several Indian tribes joined the Confederacy, and the Union troops would have to move in and conquer the land, then force it to be a part of the Union again. They also had more talented military leaders than the North. But the North had more men, most of the railroads, and they controlled the sea. The government of the North was well established, and functioned with little difficulty in comparison to the new and hastily made government in the South. Both sides had disadvantages as well. The South began to run out of supplies, they did not have a major transportation system, and they had a weak economy. Some of their troops refused to fight outside their own states. The North’s disadvantages were the men being unprepared for military life, and poor choice of commanders.…

    • 298 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    FRQ APUSH North vs. South

    • 411 Words
    • 2 Pages

    Economically, the South had one relied resource and one only: cotton. It was the root of their profits, their lives, their surroundings. Despite the white majority of the 1860’s not being a part of the planter aristocracy, it was still their personal American Dream: to own slaves on a plantation with a pretty wife and white kids. The Southern economy depended primarily on the production and working of slaves, as the cheap labor force. On the industrial hand, the North was all about hard work and…equal rights, but mostly hard work. Their primary focus for economic gain was industry. Railroads, telegraphs, machines…oh my! The North also had the advantage of economic stability from the California Gold Rush which aided them to flourish dramatically, though plummeted during the Panic of 1857, which negatively affected the North due to the inflation caused by the gold. Once California was accepted into the Union (as a free state), its abundance of gold deposits held the North on its high horse before the reoccurring panics.…

    • 411 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    The South wanted to use their cash crops in order to help them during a war if one ever ensued. They thought of a plan that could help them do just that: The Cotton Diplomacy. This idea was first brought up by a senator from South Carolina, by the name of James Henry Hammond. In an 1858 speech to the Senate, Hammond claimed that "Cotton was King" and the European nations with whom the South sold cotton to would back them up if there ever was a war (Dictionary of American History, 12/2/07).…

    • 513 Words
    • 3 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
  • Good Essays

    The South's predominant economic principle before the War of Northern Aggression was "Cotton is King." The South, as it was known around the turn of the 19th century, was solely dependent upon its cotton production. Low prices, unmarketable goods, and over-used land were driving the necessity for slavery and the need for cotton production out. Were it not for a Yankee's ingenuity, the South as we study it now may have been vastly different.…

    • 1029 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    The union was more industrialized and better equipped to make products that were made of iron like railroads and ships which was a big advantage for the north. The union could easily transport goods and soldiers compared to the confederacy. The confederacy had a hard time to feed and clothe their soldiers because they little railroads. The north had another advantage…

    • 636 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Time. Time was the key reason for the North's victory and was achieved through a combination of the first and second reasons. As the war progressed the Union's blockade, largely a paper tiger at the beginning due to the fact that the Navy didn't have enough ships to properly enforce it, became a real blockade that slowly strangled the Confederacy to death. And as the war progressed the South, even before the end of the prisoner exchange, was losing men it could not afford to lose to attrition. Supplies and transportation of supplies. As stated in the first reason, the North was less dependant on Europe than the South was for supplies. There should be little doubt that the South was able to manufacture supplies needed to fight the war, but never in amounts it needed. Industry in the North was a bit larger than it was in the South and was thus able to out produce that of the South. But being able to out produce the South was all well and good unless the South could get the supplies to its troops in the field faster. It then became important to capture major railroad junctions and thus cut off the South's ability to move supplies in a timely…

    • 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

    In the eyes of Lincoln it was an insurrection rather than a revolt, and sought to put it down as one, which lead to early successes for the confederacy. Despite this the many advantages of the north; ranging from more citizens, to more income, caused the inevitable collapse of the south. While the south did have more officers, and skill sets more akin to warmaking; none of this would be enough to beat the union defending it's ideals. The war itself didn't strt as the union had expected.…

    • 426 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    As the United states acquired new land, there was not a precedent set regarding how the issue of slavery would be handled in these vast new territories. The map explains how much land was acquired and the spread of slavery throughout the years of 1790 to 1860. The Missouri compromise admitting Missouri into the union as a slave state and Maine as a free state, but also stating slavery would be prohibited anywhere north of the southern boundary of Missouri in the future. The Missouri compromise had initially handled the status of slavery before 1846, from the procurement of the Louisiana purchase, which was the first large purchase of land. The question of western expansion of slavery into these new territories was now the beginning of what started the era of the civil war and the great divide of the American people.…

    • 667 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    In order to win the war, the Union had to think smart and play it to their advantage. In the book The Civil War: A Visual History, author John E. Stanchak declared, “During the 19th century, the new era of rail and steam that marked the Industrial Revolution was centered in the Northern states, and a summary of economics and human resources shows their advantages” (Stanchak 54). The North had a lot of railroads which helped them travel faster. They also had more money and organizations than the South. These advantages boosted them further into victory.…

    • 913 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    In 1862 many people truly believed that the Confederacy was winning the Civil War. The Union believed it and the other countries believed it. The Union struggled with their military leaders and they weren’t familiar with the South's land. The struggles that the North had before Gettysburg led to everyone believing that the South was going to win the Civil War.…

    • 331 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    The Union won the Civil War, because the North had more people able to join the war, better economic to support the war effort, the North had experience and a credit history, and larger navy then the south. The North had “97% of nation firearms” (Carnes 378). The South had 9 million people with 3.5 million of the 9 million being slaves and unable to join the army. The North had 20 million people and were able to have former slave enlist into their army. The North had bigger and better navy then the South.…

    • 313 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays