Read full version essay Why The North Won The Civil War
Why The North Won The Civil WarPrint version essay is available for you! You can search Free Term Papers and College Essay Examples written by students!.
Join Essays24.com and get instant access to Why The North Won The Civil War and over 30,000 other Papers and Essays
Category: American History
Autor: anton 08 December 2010
Words: 1271 | Pages: 6
Why the North Won the American Civil War
Union officer William Tecumseh Sherman observed to a Southern friend that, "In all history, no nation of mere agriculturists ever made successful war against a nation of mechanics. . . .You are bound to fail.â€ While Shermanâ€™s statement proved to be correct, its flaw is in its assumption of a decided victory for the North and failure to account for the long years of difficult fighting it took the Union to secure victory. Unquestionably, the war was won and lost on the battlefield, but there were many factors that swayed the war effort in favor of the North and impeded the Southâ€™s ability to stage a successful campaign.
The advantages of the Union going into the war are numerous. The system of government had long been established in the North and along with that came the benefits of a treasury and a prepared army and navy. The South had no preexisting system of government or infrastructure prior to the war. While the North was preparing to fight, the South faced the issue of jumpstarting a nation. They were charged with creating institutions and a culture separate from the North that did not rely on slavery as its center. That is, it was not enough for the Confederacy to merely be the Union with slavery; they needed to create a sense of nationalism through an autonomous and cohesive Southern identity. The war effort united Southerners under a unity of purpose in the early days of fighting, but after 1863, as the war waged on and years passed, Southerners began to lose faith in the Confederacy (Perman, 229).
In addition to a crumbling national identity, the necessities of war diminished morale among citizens of the Confederacy. Early on, the South believed that Europe would assist them because of the continents reliance on King Cotton, but the Northern naval blockade of Southern ports was extremely successful and Europeans began purchasing cotton from Egypt and India. With no navy to mount a defense, the Southern government was forced to control production of cotton and raise taxes, which only furthered the disillusionment of its population (Perman, 224). Poor Southerners in particular began to see the war as benefiting a section of society that did not include them, as they were not slave owners. They were the very people forced to make the most sacrifices for the war and the governmentâ€™s control of their ability to produce led to bread riots (Perman, 219). Moreover, as enlistment numbers in the Confederate army dwindled, the government had no option but to turn to forced conscription and impressments of slaves, which Southerners viewed as the impounding of personal property (Perman, 221). The realities of war created a conflict that Southerners did not foresee when they had created an aloof central government.
Furthermore, the South had little preexisting industry and lacked an infrastructure for dispersing goods (Perman, 14). From an early point in the war the Union army cut off railways and blockaded Southern ports, and roads in the South were primitive. Farmers were forced to contend with government controls on production and marauding thieves who would take whatever they could from them. With no means of transporting goods and no slave labor, Southerners could barely produce enough to feed their families and even if they were able to sell goods, inflation was rampant and the Confederate coinage was of no value outside the South.
The demographic advantage in the American Civil War was dramatically tilted toward the Union, with the North having more than three times the population of the South (Perman, 12). Not only did the Union have more manpower for fighting, but it also possessed industry which was capable of producing ammunition and firearms, uniforms, locomotives, and ships for the war effort. Such industrial prowess insured that the army would be equipped for fighting the war and boosted the Northern economy (Perman, 203-204). The South, on the other hand, was fatally dependent on outside resources for its war needs and eventually was forced to raid Northern forts and arsenals for supplies (Perman, 95). The Union was also capable of providing industry with the raw materials necessary for production. Mines and refineries existed in abundance in the North, which also had large amounts of land available for growing food crops, unlike the South which had devoted most its arable land to cash crops like cotton (Perman, 12). The existing infrastructure of roads and railways allowed the Union to transport weaponry, clothes, food, soldiers, and other supplies to almost any location in the entire theater, which greatly benefited the Northern army.
The war, however, was not won on attitude and preparedness alone. Military leadership played a large role in winning the war. The land advantage went to the Confederacy at the beginning of the war as it did not need to conquer the North. It could win the war simply by defending its territory and by waiting for the North to become discouraged. Fighting in the South also provided an advantage to the Confederacy as the men were fighting on their own land and had a better knowledge of it than the Yankees as well as a better incentive to defend it against invasion (Perman, 235). Confederate General Robert E. Lee managed to outmatch almost every Union general with the exception of Ulysses S. Grant, who eventually overcame Lee by force of numbers and determination of will. The fatal flaw of Lee was that he held on to the belief that his army would win the war in a single, decided Napoleonic victory. This is perhaps best illustrated at the battle of Antietam when Leeâ€™s men invaded the North in attempt to reach a Union arsenal at Harperâ€™s Ferry and retrieve supplies. Instead of returning to Confederate ground once he had taken the supplies, General Lee tried to remain in the Northern territory in an effort to worsen Northern morale and convince Europe to become involved in the fighting (Perman, 95). If Lee had fought a purely defensive war his men would have had a much better chance of holding back the Northern onslaught, however he remained in Maryland and fighting went on for three days. Leeâ€™s hope for a Napoleonic victory that never came led to the single bloodiest day of fighting in US history and the loss of one-third of his men.
While Lee was searching for a battle that did not exist, Grant famously responded that his men would â€œwhoop â€˜em tomorrow,â€ following a day of setbacks. Grant knew the war he was fighting was not an epic Napoleonic battle but a war of attrition. He proceeded with his plan to slowly shrink Confederate territory and destroy Leeâ€™s army to the point that the South could no longer mount a viable defense. Eventually Grant succeeded and Leeâ€™s men were all that remained of the Confederate army. Grant surrounded them in trenches at Richmond until Lee was forced to surrender.
While there were many significant elements that aided the Unionâ€™s ability to wage war, the South was not without advantages. The years of fighting and bloody battles prove that the match between Union forces and the Confederacy was more even than either side believed at the beginning of the war. However, the Unionâ€™s inherent advantages in size and industry as well as infrastructure and leadership wore on longer than the Southâ€™s ability to defend its lands.