Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Causes of american civil war
The reasons for civil war
The social / economic impact of the civil war
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Causes of american civil war
"Don't kneel to me. You must kneel to God only, and thank him for the liberty you will enjoy hereafter" (Brinkley 414). President Abraham Lincoln spoke these words to a former slave that kneeled before him while walking the streets of the abandoned Confederate capitol of Richmond in 1865. Although there are several different questions of why the North won the Civil War, factors involving manpower, economy, military tactics and leadership, and presidential leadership, are all parts of a puzzle historians have tried to put together for years. I believe that these four factors should prove to be the most powerful reasons for the Union's destruction of the Confederate States of America. The presidential leadership of Lincoln will be revealed as the major influence over the other three factors.
According to Robert Krick, an interviewee of Carl Zebrowski's article "Why the South Lost the Civil War," "the basic problem was numbers. Give Abraham Lincoln seven million men and give Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee twenty-one million, cognitive dissonance doesn't matter, European recognition doesn't matter, the Emancipation Proclamation and its ripple effect don't matter. Twenty-one to seven is a very different thing then seven to twenty-one" (Zebrowski 223). Despite the North's enormous population advantage over the South during the Civil War, other wars proved that size doesn't matter. For example, the Colonist's success in the American Revolution proved to Great Britain that America was an insignificant, but a successful opponent. "While Northern superiority in numbers and resources was a necessary condition for Union Victory, it is not a sufficient explanation for that victory," says James McPherson (Zebrowski 224).
When looking at economic factors in the Civil War, we find that the war had a devastating effect on the South and a converse effect on the North. Because of the Northern blockade and the disconnection of Southern farmers from markets in the North, sales of cotton became nearly impossible. In the North, the war produced the same suffering as in the South, but "it also produced prosperity and economic growth by giving a major stimulus to both industry and agriculture," says Brinkley (Brinkley 384). Since all Southern products were out of reach for Northern Americans, the North enacted a completely natio...
... middle of paper ...
...rs a sense of nationalism by letting them know that they didn't need help from other countries or from the seceded Southern states. Conversely, Confederate soldiers often disapproved of the Confederate president's own decisions for the South, rather than joint decisions with his cabinet. According to David Herbert Donald, of the article "Died of Democracy," "an Englishman reported that he had never heard such handsome cursing as when Confederate privates, off duty and "squatted cross-legged on beds," spent their evenings damning their superiors' "eyes and limbs" (Donald 84). Meaning the Confederacy's soldiers mocked their own government. In the North, Lincoln gave the Union armies the sense of enthusiasm and nationalism it needed to help breakdown the Confederate States of America. Lincoln and the North were destined to defeat the South.
Regardless of whether it was manpower, resources, economy, or military, Lincoln knew he had the advantage and was not willing to let it go. Referencing the first quote of this report, Lincoln knew that God was on his side and that he was the man that would lead the slaves to their God-given right to freedom.
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
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.
The American Civil War not only proved to be the country’s deadliest war but also precipitated one of the greatest constitutional crises in the history of the United States. President Lincoln is revered by many Americans today as a man of great moral principle who was responsible for both preventing the Union’s dissolution as well as helping to trigger the movement to abolish slavery. In retrospect, modern historians find it difficult to question the legitimacy of Lincoln’s actions as President. A more precise review of President Lincoln’s actions during the Civil War, however, reveals that many, if not the majority, of his actions were far from legitimate on constitutional and legal grounds. Moreover, his true political motives reveal his
Several factors played in to the American Civil War that made it have the outcome that it did. Although the South had better trained officials due to their military school, the North was far more advanced than they. The North had the advantage over the South in several ways. However, the outcome of the Civil War was not inevitable: it was determined as much by human decisions and human willpower as by physical resources, although the North’s resources gave them an edge over the South.
In the South, however, the economy was predominantly agricultural. Cotton and tobacco plantations relied heavily on the free labor of slaves for their economic prosperity. They saw the urbanization and industrialization of the North, and the economic connection between the North a...
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.
The Union Army was able to match the intensity of the Confederacy, with the similar practice of dedication until death and patriotism, but for different reasons. The Union soldiers’s lifestyles and families did not surround the war to the extent of the Confederates; yet, their heritage and prosperity relied heavily on it. Union soldiers had to save what their ancestors fought for, democracy. “Our (Union soldiers) Fathers made this country, we, their children are to save it” (McPherson, 29). These soldiers understood that a depleted group of countries rather than one unified one could not flourish; “it is essential that but one Government shall exercise authority from the Gulf of Mexico to Canada, and from the Atlantic to the Pacific” (Ledger, 1861).
The perfect society always exist in one form or another in everyone’s minds. The only problem with this is that no one ever thinks about the negatives of these societies. Comparing and contrasting this book and movie will show us how great and how terrible these places really are. The book 1984 and the movie Minority Report, have many striking differences as well as similarities. These differences and similarities can be seen throughout the setting, main characters, and themes in both 1984 and Minority Report.
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.
Alabama: A Documentary History to 1900 states “it is a truism that the Civil War altered the economic life of the south” (Griffith, Alabama: A Documentary History to 1900). Before the Civil War Alabama’s economy many depended on agriculture and a work force of slaves. A new south had been created that brought “free labor and greater diversification” (Griffith, Alabama: A Documentary History to 1900). This is in part due to the boom in the iron industry. Mills and mines had existed before the war, although not as influential as they became after the war. Even though cotton was still the dominant export of Alabama, coal iron and steel were becoming an increasing source of income (Griffith, Alabama: A Documentary History to 1900).
Orwell shows the Party has taken strict measures in order to maintain the established status quo that suppresses the majority of Oceania. They have shaped and constructed history so that children grow up as servants to the party. Propaganda stating how rich and prosperous Oceania is the news of the day even though real conditions show buildings are dilapidated and resources are sparse.
By doing this, Lincoln was capable of manipulating countries, such as England and France who had not been fond of slavery for decades, in making them loath the Confederacy and ensure other nations would not recognize the Confederacy as a nation. Lincoln intelligently uses the rhetorical devices of juxtaposition, parallelism, and repetition in the address.... ... middle of paper ... ...
The North and South were forming completely different economies, and therefore completely different geographies, from one another during the period of the Industrial Revolution and right before the Civil War. The North’s economy was based mainly upon industrialization from the formation of the American System, which was producing large quantities of goods in factories. The North was becoming much more urbanized due to factories being located in cities, near the major railroad systems for transportation of the goods, along with the movement of large groups of factory workers to the cities to be closer to their jobs. With the North’s increased rate of job opportunities, many different people of different ethnic groups and classes ended up working together. This ignited the demise of the North’s social order. The South was not as rapidly urbanizing as the North, and therefore social order was still in existence; the South’s economy was based upon the production of cotton after Eli Whitney’s invention of the cotton gin. Large cotton plantations’ production made up the bulk of America’s...
Contrary to what today’s society believes about Lincoln, he was not a popular man with the South at this period in time. The South wanted to expand towards the West but Lincoln created a geographical containment rule keeping slavery in the states it currently resided in. Despite his trying to rationalize with the South, Lincoln actually believed something different ”Lincoln claimed that he, like the Founding Fathers, saw slavery in the Old South as regrettable reality whose expansion could and should be arrested, thereby putting it on the long and gradual road ”ultimate extinction” (216). He believed it to be “evil” thus “implying that free southerners were evil for defending it”(275). Lincoln wanted to wipe out slavery for good and the South could sense his secret motives. By trying to trick them, the South rebelled as soon as Lincoln became president and launched what is today known as the Civil war.
The power of the federal government can also be seen during Lincoln’s presidency at the time of the Civil War. He swayed the entire purpose of the war to something far off from what had been the initial purpose. From fighting for the preservation of the Union, Northerners readily began to accept that the abolition of slavery was the cause of the war for them, not the Union. Lincoln and his power made this happen.