Why the South Lost the War
“A house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe this government cannot endure permanently half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved—I do not expect the house to fall—but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing, or all the other.” These words, spoken by Abraham Lincoln during his campaign to be a senator from Illinois, ring eerily true with the truth about the country’s uncertain future. Only three short years after Lincoln gave this speech, civil war would break out between the northern and southern states, and it would end four years later with the South running away with its tail between its legs. Why did the South lose the war? The South entered into the Civil War unprepared to fight and, ultimately, was starting a fight it was destined to lose. In the end, there were five factors that led to the defeat of the South: The fundamental economic superiority of the North, a basic lack of sound military strategy strategy in the way the South fought the war, the inept Southern performance in foreign affairs, lack of a dominating civilian leader in the South, and President Abraham Lincoln (Hersch, 2002).
The first contributing factor to the South’s loss of the war is the fact that the North had a fundamentally sturdier and superior economy. Economically, the Civil War was not a contest between equals. The South had no factories to produce guns or ammunition, and its railroads were small and not interconnected, meaning that it was hard for the South to move food, weapons, and men quickly over long distances. In addition, though agriculture thrived in the South, planters focused on cash crops like tobacco and cotton and did not produce enough food crops to feed the southern population (“Economy” 2004). The North, on the other hand, had enough food and enough factories to make weapons for all of its soldiers. It also had an extensive rail network that could transport men and weapons rapidly and
The first contributing factor to the South’s loss of the war is the fact that the North had a fundamentally sturdier and superior economy. Economically, the Civil War was not a contest between equals. The South had no factories to produce guns or ammunition, and its railroads were small and not interconnected, meaning that it was hard for the South to move food, weapons, and men quickly over long distances. In addition, though agriculture thrived in the South, planters focused on cash crops like tobacco and cotton and did not produce enough food crops to feed the southern population (“Economy” 2004). The North, on the other hand, had enough food and enough factories to make weapons for all of its soldiers. It also had an extensive rail network that could transport men and weapons rapidly and
Cited: Blackett, R. J. M. Divided Hearts: Britain and the American Civil War (2001) 273pp. Harrison, N. (2005, October 15). Why the south lost the civil war. Fredricksburg Chronicle. Retrieved From http://fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2005/102005/10152005/136948 /index_html?page=1. Hersch, E. D. (2002). History and geography. (pp. 234-280). Parsippany, NJ: Pearson Learning Group. Kelly, M. (2009, April 30). Top 9 events that led to the civil war. About.com, 1. Retrieved from http://americanhistory.about.com/od/civilwarmenu/tp/secessionevents.htm Resch, John P. et al., Americans at War: Society, Culture and the Homefront vol 2: 1816–1900 (2005). Unknown. (2004, June 12). Economy in the civil war. 001-003. Retrieved from http://www.shmoop.com/civil-war/economy.html