Section 1: Identification and Evaluation of Sources The American Civil War is a profound event in history which ended the Southern attempt for secession upon the victory of the Union. Since the conclusion of the Civil War, historians have debated why the South lost the war or why the North won the war but to determine the true reasons for Confederate defeat, the effectiveness of the man in power on the Southern side must be judged. Jefferson Davis, the president of the Confederate States of America, is often blamed by historians for leading the Confederate states to the ultimate defeat in the Civil War. The purpose of this investigation is to explore how the actions of Jefferson Davis as president of the Confederacy were ineffective in leading …show more content…
In fact, a notable expert on the Confederacy revealed that “the single greatest weakness of the Confederate government, he thought, was in the mishandling of finances” (Eaton 196). Due to the excessive amount of time Davis spent in military affairs, the reigns of the Confederate economy remained in the hands of the Secretary of the Treasury, Christopher Memminger. As the war raged on, the economy of the South declined because Memminger was forced to issue paper money to maintain the ailing Confederate army because the states failed to collect effective taxes and tariffs during wartime (197). Excessive amounts of paper money flooded the economy with no gold backing by government reserves which led to massive inflation and a low valued currency. Davis’s failure to react in a timely manner to the declining economy led to the desperate by Congress measure which “enacted law taxing all property, real and personal (slaves), 5 percent, and jewelry and articles of luxury ten percent” but only raised “about one per cent income in taxes” (200). The discrepancy between the large increase and taxes and the minimal increase in income created insurmountable inflation in the economy. Although Memminger and Congress were responsible for fixing the faltering economy, Davis failed to effectively oversee his Secretary of Treasury to ensure the economic state of the
On the question as to whether states’ rights was the cause of the Civil War, Dew references a speech made by Jefferson Davis, president of the Confederate States of America, during his inaugural address as one that “remains a classic articulation of the Southern position that resistance to Northern tyranny and a defense of states’ rights were the sole reason for secession. Constitutional differences alone lay at the heart of the sectional controversy, he insisted. ‘Our present condition…illustrates the American idea that governments rest upon the consent of the governed, and that it is the right of the people to alter or abolish governments whenever they become destructive of the ends for which they were established’”(13).
The Civil War in the United States from 1861 to 1865 serves as a dark reminder of how disjointed a nation can become over issues that persistently cause heated debate among party factions. Most students that have taken courses in American history understand the disadvantage possessed by the Confederate States of America as they fought against the powerful Union army for what they perceived as a necessary institution of slavery. Historians have debated over the effectiveness of the blockade and if it was important in creating the failures faced by the Confederate States of America. This debate has generated the contested question of “Did the Union blockade succeed in the American Civil War?” The blockade, whether considered a success or an absolute failure on the part of the Union, holds grand significance in the history of the United States. The increased development in the Union’s naval department correlates directly with the necessity of possessing ships that could withstand the threat of blockade running.
According to Michael F. Holt, economics did not play much of a role leading up to the American Civil War. Although, one can argue that political and economic issues go hand in hand. Mr. Holt does not see economic differences as the main cause for the American Civil War. He points to the fact that these economic an industry differences had been around for many years prior to the war with little friction.
In the beginning of the 1830s, the United States experienced a short period of expansion and a prosperous economy. Land sales, new taxes, such as the Tariff of 1833, and the newly constructed railroads brought a lot of money into the government’s possession; never before in the history of the country had the government experienced a surplus in its national bank. By 1835, the government was able to accumulate enough money to pay off its national debt. Much of the country was happy with this newly accumulated wealth, but President Jackson, before leaving office in 1836, issued what is called a Specie Circular. Many local and state governments liked to save specie, or gold and silver, and use paper money to take care of transactions. President Jackson, in his Specie Circular, said that the Treasury was no longer allowed to accept paper money as payment for the sales of land and the like. Most, if not all, of the country did not like this, and as a result many banks restricted credit and discontinued the loans. The effects of Jackson’s Specie Circular took effect in 1837, when Martin van Buren became president. All investors became scared, and in 1837, attempted to withdraw all of their money at once. Soon after this, unemployment and riots occurred in many cities, and the continued expansion of the railroad ceased to be.
"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.
“Why did the North win the Civil War?” is only half of a question by itself, for the other half is “Why did the South lose the Civil War?” To this day historians have tried to put their finger on the exact reason for the South losing the war. Some historians blame the head of the confederacy Jefferson Davis; however others believe that it was the shear numbers of the Union (North). The advantages and disadvantages are abundant on either sides of the argument, but the most dominate arguments on why the South lost the war would be the fact that state’s rights prevented unification of the South, Jefferson Davis' poor leadership and his failure to work together with his generals, the South failed to gain the recognition of the European nations, North's superior resources made the outcome inevitable, and moral of the South towards the end of the war.
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.
If Civil Wars could be represented by a single person, the personification of the struggle in the United States between the North and the South would be a frightful individual to behold. Unfortunately, for Jefferson Davis, his life and temperament came close to embodying the gruesome inward fight of the American Civil War (or at least the Southern part). As men go, he was labeled an enigma. He was both a contradiction and a confirmation of himself, unpredictable yet foreseeable. His insecurities were major weaknesses. Without the special skills of a “people person”, he was thrust into a position of leadership over unorganized and untrained men. Despite these things, Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederacy, attempted to overcome all of it. In this way, he exemplified the Civil War and the further internal strains of the American South.
In the book Jefferson Davis and His Generals: The Failure of Confederate Command in the West author Steven E. Woodworth describes many personality traits of the Confederate President Jefferson Davis which led to several repeat mishandlings of the western theater that was fatal to the Confederate war effort. Although Davis had a strong dedication to the Southern cause, and a political and military education he was insecure and indecisive. This resulted in him making and repeating three major errors as commander in chief. First Davis habitually relied on many of his pre-war friends. In fact, Davis commonly chose personal friends to military roles which were often quickly proven to be a bad choice. This examination leads to Davis’ next weakness,
Military policy and tactics are a major contributing factor to what ultimately wins or loses a war. In a war in which two sides of a single country are fighting each other, one can only imagine the difficulties in conceiving the proper strategies to win a war of such nature. Both Presidents Abraham Lincoln and Jefferson Davis found themselves facing this unfathomable situation at the infancy of the American Civil War. The role of Commander in Chief is undoubtedly an important one, but it is made paramount during wartime. Although both certainly performed admirably, the Northern Union ultimately beat the Southern Confederacy. There are many reasons for this victory, but having the competent and determined Lincoln at the helm had a tremendous
The Civil War was caused by a myriad of conflicting pressures, principles, and prejudices, fueled by sectional differences and pride, and set into motion by a most unlikely set of political events. From the colonial period in America where the institution of slavery began, through the period of the revolution whereby blood was shed to validate the notion that all men were created equal (yet slavery existed in all thirteen colonies), to the era of the Civil War itself, it is undoubtedly clear that the main causative factor of the war was slavery itself. With that said, it is the objective of this brief essay to shed light on three of the causative factors that led to the Civil War while subsequently considering the question of whether or not the conflict solved any of the issues that contributed to the war.
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.
I submit that Lincoln’s strategy in the Civil War to bring the South to its knees and forge reconciliation with the North to save the United States is one. Though a war and strategy inflamed by passion on both sides, Lincoln was able to focus the strategy on the outcome he intended. In Supreme Command, Eliot Cohen discusses how Lincoln’s leadership was articulate, discerning and decisive. He tells of Lincoln’s five interlocking propositions that provided a clear strategy and of the swift rebuke for those who fell short. Cohen also notes how Lincoln continued to question his assumptions, read the intelligence reports for himself, and went to the front continually assessing the war’s progression, all strengths of his leadership and the
Abraham Lincoln (12 Feb. 1809-15 Apr. 1865) the 16th president (civilwar.org) of the United States of America was one of the main public persons that influence the civil war in many aspects. Even though the civil war may have been the last resource the nation had, it could be argue that Lincoln’s governments try its best to find a different solution. The civil war was a conflict that destroyed the nation; it perhaps could have been avoided if the second party had work for a solution. But it is true that maybe both parts could have looked out for the benefits of the people as a whole instead of their personal benefits. Lincoln principal positive effect on the civil war was actually before and during the war when Lincoln’s government had many attempts to prevent the confrontation, and when this one began he took the right decisions to win the war. One of the biggest effects on the civil war was the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863, which gave the slaves their liberty. Many would agree is that Abraham’s Lincoln effect on the civil war was positive but Lincoln made many mistakes or misjudgments during the war as well. Perhaps the biggest mistake Lincoln did was underestimating the South what caused many unnecessary deaths. He also did had misjudgments that cause many causalities. Since the beginning of time humanity has fought for what they thought was right. In April 12 of 1861(civilwar.org) The US would begin a fight for civic and moral rights, a civil war that perhaps was the last option for a country to reunite its values. Abraham Lincoln was the president of the time and the person the influence the most the course the war took. I strongly believe that Lincoln’s decisions influence or had more positive effects on the country. Being the president at times like the civil war is without doubt it is one of the toughest jobs, and one way or another there is going to be correct and incorrect decisions but I can agree president Lincoln did what he thought it was the best at that moment.
The Civil War, known to be one of the bloodiest wars in the United States, has been a significant factor in the American history. The issues that caused this gory battle between the citizens of the country had been brewing since the nation was formed. Four years of fighting caused about 2% of the populations’ lives. Lives were killed in the field, many dead from illnesses, some wounded, and others taken as prisoners. In retrospection, the Civil War seemed to be inevitable, but there were a few major factors that led to the war. Some of the most important causes Southerners listed for the war were the economic differences between the North and the South, the states' rights, and the issue of whether states would be slave or free.