A. Plan of Investigation This investigation analyzes what major factors led to the northern victory during the civil war? To assess the different factors and evaluate the impact each had on the victory of the northern army, the investigation focuses on both the army of the Potomac and the Confederate army during the civil war 1861-1865, the battles during the time, the economic situations of both armies, the political leadership of both the North and the South and the military leadership of the Northern and Southern armies. The two sources chosen for evaluation are Starving the south: How the north won the civil war written by Andrew F. smith and Why the Confederacy Lost edited by Gabor S. Borrit and written by James M. McPherson. These sources are evaluated for their origin, purpose, value, and limitations B. Summary of Evidence The union’s naval blockade against the South led to a gradual decrease of the shipment of war material and necessary supplies to the South and affected the export of Cotton the South’s most acceptable collateral (Beringer 54). Historian E. Merton Coulter wrote, “without a doubt the blockade was one of the outstanding causes of the strangulation and ultimate collapse of the Confederacy (Beringer 55). “None of the confederate generals ever understood the facts of modern war, that war and statecraft were one piece…. the northern generals were able to employ new ways of war (Donald 41). When the war began there was 23 northern states fighting for the union and only 11 confederate states fighting for the confederacy. (Robertson jr. 7). The population of the North was 22,000,000 people and the South’s population was 9,105,000 people. The North also had more men fight in the army than the South did (Robertso... ... middle of paper ... ...shing, 1992. Web. 30 Apr. 2014. /--abraham-lincoln-and-the-border-states?rgn=main;view=fulltext>. McPherson, James M. Why the Confederacy Lost. Ed. G. S. Boritt. New York: Oxford UP, 1992. Print. Potter, David M. "Jefferson Davis and the Political Factors in Confederate Defeat." Why the North Won the Civil War. By David Herbert Donald and Richard Nelson. Current. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State UP, 1960. 93-113. Print. Robertson, James I. The Civil War. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Civil War Centennial Commission, 1963. Ropes, John Codman, and W. R. Livermore. The Story of the Civil War: A Concise Account of the War in the United States of America between 1861 and 1865. New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1894. Print. Smith, Andrew F. Starving the South: How the North Won the Civil War. New York: St. Martin's, 2011. Print.
The North and South benefited in many different ways, and both sides would use dissimilar approaches. The Southerners were fighting for a way of life they believed in. Comparing the two, the North had an extensive amount of people which made it easier to establish armies. In the beginning, the Union army only consisted of 16,000 soldiers or less. Southerners deserted the army because they didn’t have the things they needed for fig...
Another reason the South well fell short of a victory was the obvious difference in population between the South and the North. The North at the time had twenty-two million men while the South had a meager nine-and-a-half million, of whom three-and-a-half million were slaves. While the slaves could be used to support the war effort through work on the plantations, in industries and as teamsters and pioneers with the army, they were not used as a combat arm in the war to any extent. This cuts the South's manpower by a third, leaving a fifteen-and-a-half million difference in the population of the two areas. Give the South fifteen-and-a-half million more possible soldiers, and the outcome would have been different.
In The article “Slavery, the Constitutional, and the Origins of the Civil War”, Paul Finkelman discusses some of the events that he believes lead the United States to have a Civil War. He discusses how both the North and the South territories of the Untied States did not see eye to eye when it came to ab...
When we compare the military leaders of both North and South during the Civil War, it is not hard to see what the differences are. One of the first things that stand out is the numerous number of Northern generals that led the “Army of the Potomac.” Whereas the Confederate generals, at least in the “Army of Northern Virginia” were much more stable in their position. Personalities, ambitions and emotions also played a big part in effective they were in the field, as well as their interactions with other officers.
Turner, Thomas R. 101 Things You Didn’t Know about the Civil War. Avon: Adams, 2007.
Heidler, David Stephen, and Jeanne T. Heidler, eds. Encyclopedia of the American Civil War: a
The North entered the Civil War with many distinct assets that rendered them more competent than the Southern states. Those assets consisted of having more men, more financial stability, economic strength, and far reaching transportation systems. According to the book: Why the North Won the Civil War by Donald, David Herbert, and Richard Nelson the primary cause to the North’s success was given by, “the vast superiority of the North in men and materials, in instruments of production, in communication facilities, in business organization and skill – and assuming for the sake of the argument no more than rough quality in statecraft and generalship – the final outcome seems all but inevitable.” In many ways the north, during the Civil, was more economically dominant than the South
McPherson, James M.; The Atlas of the Civil War. Macmillan: 15 Columbus Circle New York, NY. 1994.
When the war began and the union blockaded all their ports the south was out of luck. They had very little industrial workers and manufactured goods compared to the north so during the blockade they could not make their own weapons or food other than corn. (Doc 2) The north had the advantage because they supplied the south with a lot of important items such as cotton-mills and steamships. (Doc 3) They also had better means of transportation. The north had better boats because they had factories equipped to make them and they also had more railroads to transfer weapons and equipment to soldiers. (Doc 1) The north was meant to win from the beginning and even though it took longer than expected they still beat the south and defeated slavery. No one document will tell you that slavery caused the Civil War, but if it had not been for slavery the war would have never
"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 and "Stonewall" Jackson, they lacked the number of factories and industries to produce needed war materials. Therefore, the North won the American Civil War due to the strength of their industrialized economy, rather than their commanders and strategies.
The response of the North was the blockade on the southern states. This dealt a similar blow to the South that privateering would cause to the North: the loss of supplies. Since the south was a primarily agricultural area, they had few factories to produce war supplies. The goal of the blockade was to cut any supplies and allow the underdeveloped southern states to run out of war goods. Fortunately for the Confederacy, their large coastline was very difficult for the Union Navy to completely blockade.
There are various explanations as to who and what really caused the Civil War. It is even fair to say that sometimes morals stand in the way when deciding who really started the war. Therefore, the facts must be analyzed clearly and in depth. It is true that the north played a major role in the Civil War, however, the south would not release their strict traditional beliefs of slavery. As time progressed, slavery debates pressured the South more and more to stand by their strict beliefs. Fugitive acts, Uncle Tom’s Cabin and Secession all showed how the south used brutal methods to preserve slavery. Therefore, since the popular sovereignty doctrine, the pro-slavery souths’ strict use of slavery and decisions to secede from the nation, angered the north, leading to a civil war.
Sears’ thesis is the Union could have won the war faster. McClellan was an incompetent commander and to take the initiative to attack an defeat the Confederate army. The Army of Northern Virginia, under...
...f wearing down the north's patience. The south's idea of northerns as "city slickers" who did not know how to ride or shoot was wrong. Many of the men who formed the Union forces came from rural backgrounds and were just as familiar with riding and shooting as their southern enemies. Finally, the south's confidence in its ability to fund through sales of export crops such as cotton did not take into consideration the northern blockade. France and Britain were not willing to become involved in a military conflict for the sake of something they had already stockpiled. The help the south had received from France and Britain turned out to be a lot less than they expected. In conclusion, while all the south's reasons for confidence were based on reality, they were too hopeful. The south's commitment to a cause was probably what caused their blindness to reality.
Throughout the early parts of the century the North had heavily concentrated on industrial improvement while the South had mostly concentrated on agricultural means. This proved to be of great significance, as the two sides would find themselves in a high cost and high demand war. During the onset of the war the "North contained 80% of total U.S. industry" (Rivera pg.1), and many of these production facilities were quickly and easily transformed in order to support the demands of the military. The South on the other hand had very few production facilities and most of them lay along the contested Border States, and they lost most of these facilities when West Virginia, Kentucky, Maryland, and Delaware opted to...