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…
the Confederate states against the Union. The first source which is pertinent to the research question is the book The American Civil War; an interpretation written by Carl Russell Fish, an historian at the University of Wisconsin- Madison, and published in 1937 by Longmans, Green and Company. This book focuses on the weaknesses of the North and South during the war while providing insight on where blame should be placed for Confederate defeat in the war. Since the book does not focus specifically on Jefferson Davis but on every factor of Confederate defeat, an appropriate judgement of Davis’s actions is present in the context of the complete circumstances of the war. Another value is that Fish was born in the generation after the Civil War which means he is not politically biased in favor of any individual Southern state. The book was produced in the United States which means that there was no political schism to influence the opinion of Fish in favor either the North or South. In spite of the overarching perspective provided by Fish, the book, as a secondary source, does not account for first hand perspectives of Southern legislators in the Confederacy on the decisions made by Davis as president. The book contains the ideas of Fish but was edited by another historian, William Ernest Smith, who may have distorted the original ideas initially written by Fish. The second book, Jefferson Davis by Clement Eaton published in 1979 by Free Press, sympathizes with Jefferson Davis and attempts to prove that Davis performed to the best of his abilities as president of the Confederacy under the critical circumstances which he faced. In contrast to the interpretation of most historians, Eaton advocates in favor of the actions of Jefferson Davis during his presidency as he believed no one man could have performed better than Davis. Eaton’s purpose for writing is solely for historical insight on Davis’s life which promotes the accuracy of the work as a secondary source because he was not politically influenced. Eaton’s book is limited because as an historian specialized in the study of the American South, he narrows his opinion to a sympathetic Southern viewpoint. The narrowed perspective on only the life of Jefferson Davis in the setting of the Civil War limits the comparison of Davis’s actions to other factors of Confederate defeat. As an American historian, a domestic perspective is provided which limits an external perspective on Davis’s role in the war. Word Count: 530 Section 2: Investigation At the conclusion of the Civil War in 1865, the Confederacy was left in shambles due to the sheer destruction imposed by the Union on their offensive campaign in the Confederate States of America. Upon Confederate defeat, the former Confederate officers and government searched for a scape goat for the loss in the Civil War to the Union army. The failure of the Confederate states in the loss to the Union is often attributed to the misguided actions of the president of the Confederate States, Jefferson Davis. In addition to criticism of his political decisions, former Confederate officers, such as Robert Toombs of Georgia who lost the role of presidency of the Confederate States to Davis, accused Davis of hypocrisy and narrow-mindedness to diminish his reputation in regards to the Civil War (McPherson 5). Other officers continued hostility towards Davis because of his tendency to assert his dominance over subordinate officers by ejecting them from positions simply to readjust his tactics. As a result of Davis’s bitter cold nature, the Confederacy lost loyal domestic support of the Southern cause in the Civil War (Allen 172). Under the circumstances of the Civil War, the hostile actions of Davis may have promoted disunion among the states but his absolute blame for the loss of the War is in question. An important contributing factor to the destruction of the Confederate states was disloyalty within the boundaries of the Confederacy. Although certain citizens of the Confederate states opposed secession by remaining neutral in the fight for secession, others organized with the purpose of inflicting “injury to the Confederacy and [providing] aid to the Union” (Tatum 3). As these disloyal Confederates banded together to form organized units, sleeper treason cells became a prominent hindrance on the success of the Confederate states in their quest for secession. One of the primary reasons for the disaffection towards Jefferson Davis was his support of the Conscription Act which enforced the enlistment of all white males between the age of eighteen and thirty- five (Keegan 49). Forced enlistment into the army, advocated by Davis, of such a large portion of the population inadvertently created disloyalty as people prefer to voluntarily support their state. However, Congress was responsible for establishing the Act which means that Davis did not create the disunion but promoted division by his support of conscription nonetheless. In spite of the fact that Congress was responsible for legally enforcing the Act, Davis’s enforcement of the Conscription Act created bands of frustrated soldiers who opposed the movement for Confederate secession because conscription opposed states’ rights ideas (Coleman 43). As Commander in Chief of the Confederate States, Jefferson Davis mishandled operations which had catastrophic consequences for the Confederate Army at war. Members of Davis’s war department such as George W. Randolph emphasized that Davis had “no practical knowledge of the workings of our military system in the field” but he insisted on commanding every detail of the army’s actions (Donald 107). Due to the misallocation of Davis’s effort in the military field instead of the political field, the presiding officers in the field were not able to give pertinent input on the tactics and were often left blinded by the commands of the misinformed president. On the onset of the war in 1861, Davis maintained his conservative attitude when he “hesitated to use his force […] remaining on a tame defensive” (Eckenrode 161). Through Davis’s cautious act, the Confederacy remained in a stagnant defensive position against the North which provided the Union time to allocate resources and bolster their army. In the military sector, Davis not only asserted his dominance over the tactics of the army but did so inefficiently with negative consequences for the Confederate states. As a result of Davis’s focus on the military details and excessive concern for success on the battlefield, the oversight of the economy was neglected.
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
Confederacy. Although Davis exemplified questionable judgement in regards to the management of the military, Davis lacked the legislative support as Southern states often resisted the Confederate government in favor of the desires of their home state. Specifically, the governments of the states in the Confederacy “hampered the Confederate control of man-power, injuriously competed for the management of the vital foreign trade, […] and secured the repeal of the system of improvement of war supplies” (Fish 171). The present competition among states hindered the true power of the Confederacy as they failed to function in unison like the Union government. Economically, the Confederate government was unable to facilitate an economically beneficial foreign trade policy which would sustain the condition of the Confederate states due to the lack of unity among the states. In addition to foreign trade, the repeal of the system of war supplies at fixed prices inhibited effective funding for the army throughout the war. In response to state segmentation, Davis established powers over foreign trade and impressment of goods which Lincoln did not consider “because of greater economic pressure in the South” (171). In contrast to Lincoln who did not need to establish excessive power over the Union, Davis needed to assert his dominance over the divided states which he hoped to lead to victory. As Davis approved more legislation, Southern congressmen and governors as well as Davis’s own vice president grew suspicious of a tyrannical government. In response to Davis’s suspension of habeas corpus and the strong presence of martial law, James L. Orr, a South Carolina Senator, expressed his suspicion of excessive military power of the central government which he believed would lead to despotism (Beringer 289). Other Southern legislators also feared they would “wear the chains of a Domestic tyrant” if they were to fight for the South led by Jefferson Davis (289). In spite of the fact that the political actions of Davis were justified by historians for the economic pressure he faced, the Southerners of his time opposed his actions completely and wavered to fight in the Civil War as a result. As the president of the Confederacy, Jefferson Davis grew unpopular among the people of the South for his despotic rule over the South. Although Davis faced the situation of controlling a divided pool of states in the Civil War, he still made ill informed decisions on the battlefield which proved to be costly for the South. Davis placed himself against the winning odds as he focused his efforts on the well-managed military instead of the financial arena. The collective perception of Jefferson Davis’s rule during the Civil War promoted disunion and ultimately the end of the Confederate States of America. Word Count: 1310 Section 3: Reflection Through the process of evaluating a historical event from different perspectives, I encountered the difficulties historians face when determining the causes of an historical event. As a historian, I must consolidate a complex event that took course over multiple years into a simple cause and effect relationship. In the case of the Civil War, I sought to determine who may be responsible for the loss on the Southern side. Even though the actions of Jefferson Davis may have contributed to that loss, there were too many moving parts during the time period to pinpoint the loss on a single individual. When I evaluated the perspectives of different historians on Jefferson Davis’s role as a president, I was limited by attributing his actions to only one portion for the reason for Confederate defeat. This limiting factor led me to the realization that I cannot state with complete certainty the causes of a Confederate defeat but only plausible factors that could have influenced the loss. In the hopes of gaining a true interpretation of the Civil War, I evaluated the perspectives of different historians on Davis’s role in Confederate defeat but I was limited on the primary perspectives of the Civil War era and I depended on reliable secondary sources. I found the documentation of Davis’s role in the Confederate government to be limited to first hand perspectives of only Southern legislators. The views of the common man on Jefferson Davis’s role as president are often ignored and shallow my view to a Jefferson Davis created by former Confederate officers. The Southern Officers had the intentions of blaming Davis for the loss in the war and thus their statements regarding Davis are biased towards Davis’s ineffective role as President. Indeed, I encountered bias in every document I evaluated but I was forced to recognize the bias in every document and had to determine the underlying circumstances of the Civil War which created that bias. Thus, my true role as an historian is to read past what is objectively presented before me and delve into the subjects which have produced the historical evidence. Word Count: 350
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 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.
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
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.