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
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.
In, “Apostles of Disunion: Southern Secession Commissioners and the Causes of the Civil War,” Charles B. Dew analyzes the public letters and speeches of white, southern commissioners in order to successfully prove that the Civil War was fought over slavery. By analyzing the public letters and speeches, Dew offers a compelling argument proving that slavery along with the ideology of white supremacy were primary causes of the Civil War. Dew is not only the Ephraim Williams Professor of American History at Williams College, but he is also a successful author who has received various awards including the Elloit Rudwick Prize and the Fletcher Pratt Award. In fact, two of Dew’s books, Tredegar Iron Works and Apostles of Disunion and Ironmaker to
There were many reasons that the Civil War broke out. There were differences in the politics, society, and economies of the North and South. Each side had their own reasons for fighting in the war and for not being willing to compromise. The North felt they needed to hold the Union together and end the institution of slavery, while the South felt their rights were being encroached upon and secession was the only way for them to be free. Through the book I was able to see a variety of viewpoints and examine the battle of Gettysburg from individual perspectives. The Civil War was a low point in American history but many valuable lessons came from the war as well. You can see the importance of compromise and gain an appreciation for those that held our country together.
More than 25,000 letters and 250 private diaries from men on both side of North and South. Talking about the soldier's ideals for which they fought over conflicts and beliefs of each side. McPherson took all of the soldier’s ideas and beliefs and made this powerful and important book on an often-overlooked aspect of the Civil War. Also, it brought great honor and powerfully moving account for the men that fought in the civil war.
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
I felt like the author could clearly show the true contributing factors of the civil war. As an admirer of history, I could use utilize his book for references later on in my academic studies. The book is 127 pages chronicling the events that led to the civil war. Holt gives novices history readers a wonder firsthand look into the world of young America pre-civil war. His book brought out new ways to approach the study of pre-civil war events. The question whether the Civil War was inevitable or could have been derailed was answered in The Fate of Their Country. Holt places the spotlight on the behaviors Politicians and the many congressional compromises that unintendedly involved the actions of the residents of American. These factors at hand placed the Civil war as inevitable. Most of the politician’s views in The Fate of Their Country were egotistical and shortsighted which left gaps in American’s social future. To consider the subject of why, first we need to understand the contributing causes, America’s great expansion project, the Manifest Destiny the driving factor behind the loss of virtue and political discord.
"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.
Historian J. J. Cosgrove sees Lincoln’s election as the straw that broke the camel’s back. He claims in his book, co-written with J. K. Kreiss, Two Centuries that the civil war can be put down to five causes; slavery; political collapse that eliminated compromise; sectional economic rivalry; Southern nationalism; and the effect of fractional minorities such as abolitionists. This can be summed up as a rift between the north and south states.
...iduals plotting conspiracy and selling out their promises for a considerable length of time before 1860, and that they were not going to stop short of their objectives. The main thing that might have avoided war might be the acknowledgement of bondage by the United States or the surrender of the United States of every last one of states and regions it held that called itself the Confederacy. Since that might not have finished subjugation, then the response is that there was no elective however to have a clash, a war. Subjugation was the issue, it was the reason. It was an ascertained arrangement by the individuals who decided to ensure servitude by selling out their kinsmen and turning rebellious--to secure subjugation, and not a legendary thought of "state's rights" on the grounds that the main right they thought about was the right to subjugate an alternate race.
...om’s Cabin in 1852, the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854, the Dred Scott Decision of 1857, John Brown’s raid on Harper’s Ferry in 1859, and the outcome of the Presidential Election of 1860—created conditions where Southerners felt the need to secede from the United States (they felt that their “way of life” was being threatened), as well as created conditions where the Northerners decided to go to war against the Southern Confederacy in order to maintain the Union. It is not surprising, however, that the Civil War occurred; since the Industrial Revolution, the Industrial North had always been different than the Agricultural South. If each region paid more attention to resolving the issues that separated them, instead of trying to prove themselves right, they could have stopped the bloodiest battle in American history (even though this is using hindsight knowledge).
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.
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.
The famous Battle of Gettysburg was fought July 1 to July 3 of 1863 in and around the town of Gettysburg, Pennsylvania. The battle proved to show the most casualties of the entire war and resulted in a crushing defeat of the Confederates. The Battle of Gettysburg is generally considered to be the turning point of the American Civil War. This paper will demonstrate the various reasons as to why the Confederates, led by General Robert E. Lee, were unsuccessful in the Battle of Gettysburg during their invasion of the north. General Lee’s over-confidence, the confederate army’s disorganization and failed coordination, and the shift of intelligence all contributed to the crushing defeat of the confederates at Gettysburg. Following his “flawless” battle at Chancellorsville, General Lee was instilled with absolute confidence in his men and failed to see any deficiencies in his army’s offensive capabilities. Lee was not only over-confident, but also knew less than his opponent during the most crucial stages of the battle. The final contributing factor as to why the confederates were defeated was Alexander’s failure to provide effective artillery bombardment and his failure to advise General Pickett not to make the charge after the ineffective bombardment.
Why did the southern states believe they could win the civil war? The southern states, known as the Confederacy were very confident going into this war that they could successfully defend their rights' and their way of life. They had many reasons for being so confident. First, the southern leaders were sure the north was not going to have a full-scale military conflict. They thought that a compromise and peace agreement could be reached after a short period of fighting. Second, the south was going to fight a defensive war. Third, the southern lifestyle made them familiar with firearms and horseback riding. Therefore they would be better soldiers than the northerners. Fourth, the south had a great source of wealth in its cotton exports and felt they would be able to fund the war. Last, the south thought that France and Britain would come to its aid. The south didn't want to defeat the north they wanted a compromise. Therefore, the north would not have the authority to govern them. The south did not have to win the war, it just had to keep the north from winning. On March 7, 1861 Jefferson Davis selected John Forsyth, A. B. Roman, and Martin J. Crawford to represent the Confederacy in a meeting with Lincoln's administration. Not trying two overpower anyone, the Confederate leaders said they simply wanted to be left alone. The Confederates thought to defend its region from being taken over and to keep its armies from destruction they would have to fight a very well planned out defensive war. The Confederate armies did not have to invade the north to win that kind of war. They need only to endure long enough to force the north to the decision that th...
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.