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.
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.
Turner, Thomas R. 101 Things You Didn’t Know about the Civil War. Avon: Adams, 2007.
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.
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.
...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.
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.
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
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.
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.
"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.
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...
Heidler, David Stephen, and Jeanne T. Heidler, eds. Encyclopedia of the American Civil War: a