Comparing the Relative Importance of Political Leadership, Military Skill and Resources as Reasons for the Outcome of the American Civil War
The American Civil war was the bloodiest conflict in American history,
with some 620,000 Americans to die in the four-year conflict. This
'inevitable conflict' as William Seward a politician named the great
animosity between the Union and the Confederacy, was the result of
years of antagonism, due mainly to the particular institution of
slavery. There are numerous reasons for the defeat of the South in the
civil war. The main factors to consider for each side, when examining
why the Confederate lost the civil war were are, political leadership,
military skill, and resources.
Political leadership is the most important reason why the South lost
the American Civil war. Jefferson Davis was the president of the
Confederacy. Davis was reluctant to accept the role of president,
however compared with Abraham Lincoln the president of the Union;
Davis was better qualified to lead a nation at war. Lincoln had an
easier task than Jefferson Davis. The Union had a well-established
trained bureaucracy. The South however had no government and so a
government had to be established from scratch. This proved a very
challenging task for the 'weak, timid, petulant, peevish, and
obstinate' Davis, as A. Stephens the vice president of the Confederacy
described him. Lincoln is generally seen as successful in
communicating with people, as he could keep political factions working
for a common cause. Davis however is blamed for the disunion of the
Confederacy. Davis interfered too much in military matters, causing
feuds ...
... middle of paper ...
...nfederacy had attempted to defend the West then this
would of left the most important industrial state Virginia open to
attack. The fact that the South decided to concentrate its efforts on
the most important states and not the west probably helped the South
to survive against the North for the four years it did.
Overall the Southern defeat by the North was due mainly to the lack of
resources. The South with the challenge of starting a government from
scratch and sustaining a war against a well established government
(Union) did surprisingly well to survive for four years, against the
Union. Davis the leader of the Confederacy did sustain the Confederate
cause for four years even if the aim of ultimate independence was not
achieved the eventual reconstruction period did greatly consider
states' rights and the people.
Jefferson Davis, president of the Confederate States of America, showed weaknesses within his leadership which may have contributed to the confederacy’s loss and the unions win . Davis failed in three vital ways. These ways were: his relations with other confederate authorities and with the people, as well as in his fundamental concept of his job as president and in his organization and specific handling of his role as commander in chief . Davis failed in maintaining communication with leaders and with his people, often unable to admit when he is wrong which led to lack organization in his role . In addition, Davis was a conservative leader, not a revolutionary one which meant that his strength was often in protocol and convention rather than in innovation . Studying each of these aspects that represented a weakness in Jefferson Davis’s leadership, Lincoln in comparison provided more admirable and outstanding qualities within his leadership which in many ways affected the outcome of the 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...
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.
The famous Battle of Gettysburg was fought July 1 to July 3 of 1863 in and around the town of Gettysburg, Pennsylvania. The battle proved to show the most casualties of the entire war and resulted in a crushing defeat of the Confederates. The Battle of Gettysburg is generally considered to be the turning point of the American Civil War. This paper will demonstrate the various reasons as to why the Confederates, led by General Robert E. Lee, were unsuccessful in the Battle of Gettysburg during their invasion of the north. General Lee’s over-confidence, the confederate army’s disorganization and failed coordination, and the shift of intelligence all contributed to the crushing defeat of the confederates at Gettysburg. Following his “flawless” battle at Chancellorsville, General Lee was instilled with absolute confidence in his men and failed to see any deficiencies in his army’s offensive capabilities. Lee was not only over-confident, but also knew less than his opponent during the most crucial stages of the battle. The final contributing factor as to why the confederates were defeated was Alexander’s failure to provide effective artillery bombardment and his failure to advise General Pickett not to make the charge after the ineffective bombardment.
Throughout the American Civil War, the north proved victorious and superior to the south. The Union had the power and wealth, and, “he who has the money has the power” proved so as the north defeated the south and embraced the trophy of power. There were many key factors in this accomplishment, the factories, the money, the resources, the commanders, the manpower, the skill and determination, but most importantly, the weapons.
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 North and the South had different perspectives. For a while these different perspectives only caused nonviolent arguments until neither could get past their differences and compromise. This led to the numerous battles of the Civil War and eventually the victory of the North. Both the North and the South had their strengths and weakness throughout the war, however, in the end the North was stronger. Factories, railroads, supplies, and population contributed to the strengths and weaknesses of the Union and Confederacy.
The North had many advantages at the onset of the Civil War. One advantage that the North had over the South was population size. The North contained more than 60% of the population while the South contained less than 40%. This difference in population plays an important role in the North’s ability to supply troops into military service and continuing the production of industries. If the North did not have a significant amount of the population, their production of war materials could have fallen behind (He...
Since the beginning of the Market Revolution, the institution of slavery became the leading factor that intensified the relations between the North and the South. Regarding the geographic differences between the North and South, the South was primarily agrarian and the North was mainly urban. Therefore, the North rapidly industrialized while the South remained relatively rural and cotton-slave based. As a result, the Market Revolution economically separated the North and the South and created a second party system. Thus, the issues of pro-slavery and anti-slavery arose between the Southern Democrats and Northern Republicans in the 1850s. The North desired to halt the expansion of slavery into western territories while the South strongly opposed. These two opposing parties led to radical abolitionism in the North, William Henry Seward and John Brown, and extreme secessionism in the South, James Henry Hammond, and South Carolina Ordinance of Secession. Due to their strict ideologies regarding slavery, both parties could not compromise on the issue of the expansion of slavery. Therefore, according to Americans in the years prior to the Civil War, conflict was inevitable.
In conclusion, confederate military leadership was superior to that of the Union’s. General Lee is more pragmatic, realistic, and has better interpersonal skills. He is smart, quick, knows how to apply experience, and boosts the moral of his troops. Lee’s boldness and self-reliance combine with his other strengths made him the superior leader when compared to General Grant of the Union. Satisfying that this is true, the confederate could have won the war due to unsurpassed leadership if only they had the amount of supplies and soldiers the Union possessed.
The majority of speculations regarding the causes of the American Civil War are in some relation to slavery. While slavery was a factor in the disagreements that led to the Civil War, it was not the solitary or primary cause. There were three other, larger causes that contributed more directly to the beginning of the secession of the southern states and, eventually, the start of the war. Those three causes included economic and social divergence amongst the North and South, state versus national rights, and the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Dred Scott case. Each of these causes involved slavery in some way, but were not exclusively based upon slavery.
The Civil War is one of the most important events in United States history. The conflict changed the lives of millions and forever left an indelible mark on this country. The enormity of the conflict makes us wonder how “We the People” became a people divided. It is important to understand the core themes and narratives that led to the war between the states. In my view, there were numerous issues that led to deep sectional divisions that eventually led to war. However, I feel there are three core themes that drew the sections into war were nullification, radical abolitionism, and political realignment. Additionally, I feel the ideas of these three themes were represented by Dred Scott, John Brown, and Stephen A. Douglas, respectively.
Michael F. Holt, in his article The Political Divisions That Contributed to Civil War, argued the American Civil War was caused by the breakdown of the two-party political system, which generated a local loss of faith in the entire political system, justifying the creation of a new political system in the South. It was the agency of individuals attempting to solve their political grievances. While Bruce Levine, in his article The Economic Divisions That Contributed to Civil War, maintained unresolvable economic divisions between North and South made the Civil War inevitable, as the two different economies could not indefinitely coexist. While the conflicting economies of the North and the South played a major role in fashioning the war,
“A house divided against itself cannot stand.”1 These words, spoken by Abraham Lincoln, foreshadowed the war that became the bloodiest in all of the United State's history. The Civil War was a brutal conflict between the North and South; brother against brother. With slavery as the root cause, Southern states had seceded from the Union and were fighting for their independence. They became the Confederate States of America (CSA) and were a force to be reckoned with. The Union, however, put up a fierce struggle to preserve the country. If the Civil War was to be a war of attrition, the North had the upper hand because of its large population, industrialization, raw materials, railroad mileage, and navy. But if the war was short lived, the South had the strong advantages of knowledge of the land with a friendly population, superior commanders, an adaptable lifestyle, and a passion for “The Cause”. It took four years (1861-1865) before the Civil War was resolved. The first two years proved to be successful for the CSA, but as the war dragged on and after the battle of Gettysburg, the tide turned in favor of the North. Ultimately, the seceded states were reunited with the Union and are part of the United States as we know it today.
The Civil War that took place in the United States from 1861 to 1865 could have easily swung either way at several points during the conflict. There is however several reasons that the North would emerge victorious from this bloody war that pit brother against brother. Some of the main contributing factors are superior industrial capabilities, more efficient logistical support, greater naval power, and a largely lopsided population in favor of the Union. Also one of the advantages the Union had was that of an experienced government, an advantage that very well might have been one of the greatest contributing factors to their success. There are many reasons factors that lead to the North's victory, and each of these elements in and amongst themselves was extremely vital to the effectiveness of the Northern military forces. Had any one of these factors not been in place the outcome of the war could have been significantly different, and the United States as we know it today could be quite a different place to live.