Why the South Could Not Win the Civil War
Ever since the day the South surrendered to the North in May of 1865, Americans have argued on why the South lost. Others argued that the South never had chance to win the war, yet more than half a million people were killed, homes were lost and destroyed and families were torn apart. There are many theories to explain this, many arguing that the South never had a chance to win the Civil War to begin with, for the North out numbered and had better resources than the South at almost every point, militarily.
Industrially the South couldn't keep up in output of weapons, ammunition and other supplies. That is one of the main reasons the South looked overseas for help. Jefferson Davis knew that the South was at a disadvantage so he looked to England and France. By the end of the war, the South had, more or less, plenty of weaponry still, but it just didn't have enough men to use the guns. By getting either England or France on the Confederate side, supplies would have been more plentiful and also it would have inevitably ended up doing great damage economically to England's maritime trade. However, the fact remained that foreign recognition was denied to the Confederacy in all its attempts.
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 right military strategy is the key to a war. In order for the South to win the war, they would have needed to apply what is now called a blitzkrieg strategy. This would have been a quick decisive attack on the North to follow up its early victories of Manassas in the East and at Wilson's Creek and Lexington in the West.
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,
...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
In conclusion, it is imperative to observe that not many people could have foreseen the outcomes of the war. In fact, for many people who actually lived during the time that this war took place; the civil war to them was a thing that would just happen and end after a short while. The northerners on the other hand did not expect that the south would chose to put up a very spirited defense and the people from the south knew exactly the weaknesses of the northerners that they really felt they could face Washington and coerce the authorities to identify the confederacy. Sadly, both warring sides had an impractical outlook into the war which turned out to take a very long time that any of the factions had wanted it to last.
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.
The Civil War marked a defining moment in United States history. Long simmering sectional tensions reached critical when eleven slaveholding states seceded from the Union and formed the Confederate States of America. Political disagreement gave way to war as the Confederates insisted they had the right to leave the Union, while the loyal states refused to allow them to go. Four years of fighting claimed almost 1.5 million casualties, resulting in a Union victory. Even though the North won the war, they did a horrible job in trying to win the peace, or in other words, the Reconstruction era. Rather than eliminating slavery in the South, the Southerners had a new form of slavery, which was run by a new set of codes called "Black Codes”. With the help of President Johnson, the South continued their plantations, in essence becoming exactly what they were before the war. Overall, the South won Reconstruction because in the end they got slavery (without the name), they got an easy pass back into the Union, and things reverted back to the way they had been prior the war.
The North had about 2,129,000 soldiers while the South only has about 1,082,000 soldiers in their army. This means that in almost every battle in the civil war the South was being overpowered by the Norths numbers alone. The North's economy was much stronger than the Souths. The North's economy got so powerful because of their large amount of small farms and large factories. The North's production value was about $1.5 billion meanwhile the Souths was only about $155 million.
Why the North Won the Civil War, edited by David Herbert Donald, is a short collection of six essays. Each essay argues from a different perspective as to why the Confederate States of America could not defeat the Union in the American Civil War. The factors considered for Confederate defeat include: economics, military strategy, diplomacy, ideology, and politics. In the end, the most convincing argument is given by Richard N. Current regarding economics.
The South was fighting against a government that they thought was treating them unfairly. They believed the Federal Government was overtaxing them, with tariffs and property taxes making their lifestyles even more expensive than they already had been. The North was fighting the Civil War for two reasons, first to keep the Nation unified, and second to abolish slavery. Abraham Lincoln, the commander and chief of the Union or Northern forces, along with many other Northerners, believed that slavery was not only completely wrong, but it was a great humiliation to America. Once we can see that with these differences a conflict would surely occur, but not many had predicted that a full-blown war would breakout.
"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 authors describe some of the advantages of a MMP system: “Mixed electoral systems provide fairly proportional outcomes, maintain the geographic link between constituents and members, provide for greater choice, and allow the opportunity for smaller parties to represented in Parliament” (p. 11). This system works better than the current FPTP or plurality system, because it allows citizen’s a second opportunity to have a voice. This is important because it would allow our minority groups to have a greater political influence. As mentioned earlier, in the current system all votes for candidates who lost, were insignificant to the election outcome. The authors explain: “Only those votes that go to the eventual winner count towards electing a representative, which may discourage people from voting or promote disaffection with the system” (p. 3). Alternatively, the MMP system allows citizen’s a second opportunity to elect party members in order to proportionally represent the popular
The Constitution of the United States, Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5. The United States
Water is fundamental to relieving hunger in the developing world. 84% of people who don't have access to improved water, also live in rural areas, where they live principally through subsistence agriculture. Sometimes, areas that experience a lack of water suffer because of poor water management, but more often it is a relatively simple economic issue that can be
While electoral systems do have an impact on the proportionality of electoral outcomes and to a lesser degree on the shape of party systems, it is not realistic to expect a change in electoral system to transform the style of politics in a country. For example, PR-STV was not responsible for the economic boom in Ireland and neither is it responsible for the economic crisis. In their cross-national study of the impact of a number of political reforms, including change to an electoral system, Shaun Bowler and Todd Donovan (The Limits of Electoral Reform, Oxford University Press, 2013) strike a cautionary note, arguing that such reforms tend to have minimal or zero impact. Expecting an electoral change to result in a transformation in the style of politics in a country is completely unrealistic. It is far too easy to blame PR-STV for the happenings in our country, the power is with the people and, therefore, it is down to us to try to create the best possible government that we can. In the words of Martin Luther King Jr. “and so we shall have to decide to do more than register and more than vote; we shall have to create leaders who embody virtues that we can respect, who have moral and ethical principles we can applaud with enthusiasm.” (Martin Luther King, Jr. Quote,
Most people never give attention to the importance of water or the purity of what is provided. Water is a universal necessity, which is becoming a crucial issue in insufficiency. The deficiency is a global crisis around the world, and leads to many detrimental effects. The lack of water affects the entire continent without worldwide knowledge. Water is used in almost every entirety of human life; the careless usage causes profuse issues for living. There are several resources that provide the necessity of water, which are in poor situations in provision. Water scarcity is rapidly becoming a global crisis that is often neglected, but the driving forces, the consequences, and the ability to reduce the problem are crucial to assert.