Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Why the south lost the civil war
Causes of civil war essay.org
Causes of civil war essay.org
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Why the south lost the civil war
From 1861 to 1865, the United States participated in a Civil War that not only consisted of the bloodiest day in American history, but also a victory for the Union and a loss for the Confederacy. For years, there have been debates on what caused the South to lose the war. Fundamentally, the South lost the Civil War due to their substandard military commanders and minimal resources. One common fallacy is that the South had better generals, when really they had few decent ones. According to historian Richard McMurry, one of many generals, Joseph Wheeler, decided to go joy-riding instead of following orders from his commander. Instead of taking his obligations seriously, he decided to do something of less importance despite the fact that they
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.
The Civil War, beginning in 1861 and ending in 1865, was a notorious event in American history for many influential reasons. Among them was the war 's conclusive role in determining a united or divided American nation, its efforts to successfully abolish the slavery institution and bring victory to the northern states. This Civil War was first inspired by the unsettling differences that divided the northern and southern states over the power that resided in the hands of the national government to constrain slavery from taking place within the territories. There was only one victor in the Civil War. Due to the lack of resources, plethora of weaknesses, and disorganized leadership the Southern States possessed in comparison to the Northern States,
Therefore, neither of the generals exceeded the other when it comes to military strategies, which rather debunks Shaara’s depiction of Longstreet’s advanced knowledge of modern warfare. Despite of the importance of the Battle of Gettysburg, often marked as the turning point of the war, General Longstreet should not obey an order that results in a significant loss of men that would be extremely difficult to replace at this time. Already limited by the amount of men still able to fight, pushing additional forces in an open battle would just nearly deplete the confederate soldiers completely. Since this battle was one that went on until a majority of ones sided were depleted, the south should have played it safe against the Unions nearly surplus supply of
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.
I agree with the idea that the North had won the Civil War before it began to the extent of Lincoln’s conservative political stands. Trying to receive the favor of the South while winning in the North would require Lincoln to take neutral stands in heated political issues like slavery. It wasn’t really wan by the North until he broke away from these stands to enact the Emancipation Proclamation and turn the tides of war in favor of the North. “This Lincoln always publicly condemned the abolitionists who fought slavery by extra constitutional means – and condemned also the mobs who deprived them of their right of free speech and free press.” (Holfstadter, Lincoln and the Self-Made Myth) Other than that, the North had the upper hand in nearly all aspects that really mattered in times of war. With this information it is clear that without Lincoln’s conservative political stands a “Quick War” would have been much more realistic. Either way, the North had won the Civil War before it began. While the North thought about attacking and invading, the South thought about defending and causing attrition.
...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.
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.
... yet they strongly believed that they could be victorious. Despite numerous disadvantages, the South entered the war with some important advantages. The South adopted a strategy like that of George Washington in the American Revolution. The plan, known as attrition, called for a strategy of winning the war by avoiding losing. That is, the South did not have to match the North's resources, they only needed to avoid full-scale battles and prolong the war making it too costly for their opponents.
The Southern and Northern states varied on many issues, which eventually led them to the Civil War. There were deep economic, social, and political differences between the North and the South. These differences stemmed from the interpretation of the United States Constitution on both sides. In the end, all of these disagreements about the rights of states led to the Civil War. There were reasons other than slavery for the South?s secession. The manifestations of division in America were many: utopian communities, conflicts over public space, backlash against immigrants, urban riots, black protest, and Indian resistance (Norton 234). America was a divided land in need reform with the South in the most need. The South relied heavily on agriculture, as opposed to the North, which was highly populated and an industrialized society. The South grew cotton, which was its main cash crop and many Southerners knew that heavy reliance on slave labor would hurt the South eventually, but their warnings were not heeded. The South was based on a totalitarian system.
The North’s negligence also contributed to the end of Reconstruction. The North had failed to notice the many racially motivated atrocities that occurred in the South durin...
Then the beginning of the Civil War was on April 12, 1861 was The Battle of Fort Sumter. Northerners intruded South Carolina and the fort which wasn’t apart of the Union anymore. Confederates first started firing at the Union for holding down the fort. Then the next day on April 13, 1861, the Union surrendered and left and that was the first of many battles of the Civil War. The North has advantage in the War because of their ability to produce soldiers and supplies. The South hoped the North would give up quickly and that they would end up winning, but Lincoln was determined. As the war went on the North was getting better and the South was getting
The Confederate Army was very successful in the South.... ... middle of paper ... ... Gettysburg: A Study in Command.
The Civil War was the worst war in American history. More Americans died in this war than World War 1 and 2. The events that lead up to the Civil War show that it was a conflict that was going to arise no matter what happened.
The Battle of Antietam could have been a devastating and fatal blow to the Confederate Army if Gen. McClellan acted decisively, took calculated risks, and veered away from his cautious approach to war. There are many instances leading up to the battle and during the battle in which he lacks the necessary offensive initiative to effectively cripple and ultimately win the war. This paper is intended to articulate the failure of Mission Command by GEN McClellan by pointing out how he failed to understand, visualize, describe and direct the battlefield to his benefit.