Why the Confederacy Lost the War Many historians have tried to offer their ideology on the outcome of the Civil War. McPherson in his “American Victory, American Defeat” writes about what other historians have decreed their answers to why the Confederacy lost. He tells us the reasons that could not be the explanation for the loss, and explains the internal reasons but leaves the true cause of the loss untold. Freehling explains the defeat by discussing what could have been and then gives reasons to negate some of the cases that he states for the outcome of the Confederacy. Both McPherson and Freehling both agreed that there were other factors besides battles that needed to be looked at. Each author agreed that the battles were not the only reason for the fall and death of the Confederacy. While battles were being fought on the battlefields, the home fronts were had their own battles to fight. McPherson discusses what he calls as the “internal conflict” thesis, which blames the uneasiness among the southerners. The government was being blamed. Southerners were opposing conscription, taxes, and habeus corpus. McPherson points out that these could not have been reasons for the loss. The same thing was happening in the North. Therefore this internal conflict with the home front government does not have a plausible role in why the South lost the war. If the North was fighting the same type of opposition at home, then shouldn’t the war have ended in a stalemate? Also, the non-slaveholding whites and the slaves were feeling alienated. Rich slaveholders who wanted to keep slave labor alive were fighting the war. The two alienated groups were fighting a war on the wrong side. The non-slaveholders opposed sec... ... middle of paper ... ... office. In both of the instances, the two authors cannot speculate of what could have happened. These speculations cannot be cause for war or even effects of the war. It is not a plausible explanation. In conclusion, I believe that neither authors gave sufficient ideas for why the Confederacy lost the war. McPherson stated what historians have said was the reasoning for the Confederate loss. He negates their ideas, but he never gives his ideas. So I still do not know what could have been the reason why the South lost. Freehling places a lot of emphasis on speculation and what could have been but wasn’t. He does say that the reason behind the loss was due to social conflicts and not battles. He is closer to telling us why the Confederacy loss than McPherson because he uses more of his owns ideas. Bibliography: Freehling, McPherson
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...
The causes of the war and reasons for fighting parallel each other. The primary cause of the Civil War was the issue regarding slavery. The issue of slavery is brought up several times throughout the book. Arthur Fremantle, the British observer, believed that the South was fighting to protect slavery and their way of life. Colonel Chamberlain also mentioned slavery as a reason for the war and stated that he found it to be appalling. Despite racism and prejudice in the North, many northerners still believed that the slaves should be freed. They saw the institution of slavery as contradictory to the Bible and civilized society. Colonel Chamberlain mentioned that he was fighting for the “dignity of man” (pg. 27). The South was feeling pressure from anti-slavery and abolitionist groups in the North. The South felt that the North was trying to destroy the southern way of life. The North on the other hand, had become more successful in industry and didn’t seem to understand the importance of slavery in the South. The South’s entire society and social structure was based on slavery and they were not willing to end the entire system. The South argued that slaves had their place at...
The book “For cause and comrades” written by James M McPherson is not one of your typical civil war books. This book is completely different than what everyone would expect, McPherson tries to explain the why of the war behind the scenes of it. He goes into great detail onto how dissects the initial reason of both sides North and South by concentrating not on battlefield tactics and leaders but what emotional and great experiences the men had to face in the battle field.
Thesis: The world today is blinded from the truth about the "Civil War" just like they are the truth of the creation vs. evolution debate. They're blinded in the same way as well, misleading text books. The truth is that the North, Lincoln, etc. weren't as great as they claimed to be, and that they went to illegal measures for an unjust cause.
In Apostles of Disunion, Dew presents compelling documentation that the issue of slavery was indeed the ultimate cause for the Civil War. This book provided a great deal of insight as to why the South feared the abolition of slavery as they did. In reading the letters and speeches of the secession commissioners, it was clear that each of them were making passionate pleas to all of the slave states in an effort to put a stop to the North’s, and specifically Lincoln’s, push for the abolishment of slavery. There should be no question that slavery had everything to do with being the cause for the Civil War. In the words of Dew, “To put it quite simply, slavery and race were absolutely critical elements in the coming of the war” (81). This was an excellent book, easy to read, and very enlightening.
D. W. Griffith's film "Birth of a Nation" shows that the South fought the war not only to protect slavery, but also to preserve a whole culture, a way of life. Their wealth and identity belonged to the land they lived on. Southerners fought to protect sovereignty, pride, identity, and their decision to secede which was under attack by a despot - President Lincoln. Few of the southerners could give up their culture without a fight.
McPherson’s primary goal in writing this book is to hit three main points: “Initial motivation, sustaining motivation and combat motivation” . Initial motivation “consists of reasons why men enlisted” the next point deals with “factors that kept them in the army and kept the army in existence over time” ; the last point “focuses on what nerved them to face extreme danger in battle” . All of these points are related, to an extent. They all come together to form the foundation of why men fought in the Civil War. McPherson then goes onto finding support for his three points which builds up upon his foundation which in turn, creates this book.
"The South could never have won the Civil War," is a true statement, reflecting the various ways in which the Southern states attempted to fight a losing battle from the beginning. The economic dependency of the South on cotton on slavery was obvious, whereas the North had diversified and sufficiently. The advantage also lay with the North for reasons such as better communication and transportation, and even more soldiers. The leadership in the North under Abraham Lincoln was far superior to the less savvy Jefferson Davis. It is also a fair argument to say that the just cause always overcomes, and morally, slavery was not just at all.
The ending of this battle is tragic and enlightening as well, the great idea of sneak attacks at dawn by the Confederates and the righteous timings of reinforcement by the Union, brought this story to my attention. Gathering this information brought me believe that this is a movie, a novel, but this was actual real life. Losing lives in a battle like this one bring only one thing to mind, that each side was fierce on fighting for what they believe in. No other battles before this have had this much bloodshed in less than a day, the planning done by Grant and Johnston was phenomenal. The steady mind of Johnston and the brave hearts that were under Grant is what brought this battle to what is today’s history. Working on this essay has been excellent in my learning process and I hope to be doing another one soon.
She argues that both sides fought for their perceived liberties. Southerners felt that not only was their property at risk, slaves, but their way of life. The success of the anti-slavery movement spelled the doom of southern society. While northerners felt that slavery offered unfair competition to labor and represented a backwards way of life that was in direct contention with the liberties that the founding fathers outlined in the constitution. To Etcheson, this caused both sides to turn a vote for popular sovereignty into a full-fledged war rife with murder and atrocities committed by both side sides of the
After thoroughly assessing past readings and additional research on the Civil War between the North and South, it was quite apparent that the war was inevitable. Opposed views on this would have probably argued that slavery was the only reason for the Civil War. Therefore suggesting it could have been avoided if a resolution was reached on the issue of slavery. Although there is accuracy in stating slavery led to the war, it wasn’t the only factor. Along with slavery, political issues with territorial expansion, there were also economic and social differences between North and South. These differences, being more than just one or two, gradually led to a war that was bound to happened one way or another.
"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.
...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.
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.