The most popular explanation for the North’s victory has always been simply to stress the size and industrial power of the North (with its population 2.5 times greater than the South, its factories, and impressive railway network), that a Northern victory was inevitable because it had more men and more guns. Indeed, most Northerners and even Southerners initially accepted this explanation, mostly because it preserved notions of Southern courage and honour, which had in turn been cut down by bigger forces of history. However, it did little to credit the South’s intelligence, why if loss was inevitable did the South take on the North? Thus, this explanation began to be questioned. Furthermore, to win the South had never need to invade and conquer the South, it merely needed to hold onto its territory and force the Union to concede it was not worth the effort to continue fighting. Indeed, America had taken on the mighty British and won in the War of Independence in much the same way.
Further explanations have stressed internal division in the South; that the crucial mantra of “State’s Rights” undermined a centralised war effort (increased taxation, conscription, troop deployments etc), and that the South failed to hold onto two key demographics, its non slave owning white population and its slave population, who had little incentive to fight to preserve slavery. However, it seems the hindrance of non-cooperate states has been exaggerated. And its hard to blame internal division when we see that the North was bitterly divided also, with the New York Draft Riots, a vocal democratic anti-war movement and even holding a presidential election during the war, in 1864. Furthermore Southern slaves had little incentive to escape until Northern victories on the battlefield brought Union armies close, and thus can’t be credited with destabilising the South pre-emptively.
Thus, it seems the most convincing argument, as McPherson argues, concerns the role leadership played in the final result. Quite simply, despite its early losses, the North had better and more able leaders, in the form of Lincoln, who was both eloquent in expressing war aims and successful in keeping everyone working together, and his Generals, Sherman, Grant and Sheridan, who organised a tough and coordinated “total war” effort. The South in contrast, had a poor leader in the form of Davis, who lacked an ability to prioritise tasks and feuded constantly with many of his generals. Furthermore, The South lacked Generals as skilled in military tactics as the North. This explanation may seem rather top down, but it is where differences between the North and South become stark, thus differences in leadership seems to be the lynch pin of the civil war’s result.
The Confederacy was undermanned and without resources to match the Union from the start of the war, and their eventual defeat was not surprising. Although early blunderings in the eastern theater allowed the Confederacy to push their way into the Union, they were ousted when General Grant took over in 1863.
The South had more than double the population as well as far superior industrial capabilities, which produced armaments and railways that were vital in the war. This was culminated with adequate agricultural output that managed to produce the necessities for the war. They also managed to enlist approximately 200,000 former slaves into their army compared to nearly none for the Confederacy. This was especially important since the slave population made up almost 40% of the total population in the Deep South States. The South’s strongest economical factor (which was cut off through the blockade from the Union) was its agricultural output. However these outputs were tobacco and cotton, and thus useless for the war effort. The final blows came through the defeats at Gettysburg, Shiloh and Vicksburg which split the Confederacy in two. The Confederacy could not keep up with the far more advanced Union, and their defeat became inevitable by 1863.
Whilst there were many factors which contributed to the South’s defeat, the primary one was undoubtedly the North’s change from limited to “total” warfare. This tactic worked on two levels. Firstly, Sherman’s march through Georgia and South Carolina had a distinctly demoralising psychological effect upon the already divided Southern population, as it demonstrated the Southern army’s inability to protect civilians in addition to its inability to defeat Grant’s army. Furthermore, the decision to change to more extended warfare (on civilians as well as professional soldiers) allowed the Northern army to fully utilise its superior resources- a larger army, industry, economy and more efficient transport system- which the South could not compete with in a larger scale war.
However, I would argue that the crucial factor enabling the success of the North’s full scale war was the fact it took place in Southern territory. Had the final battles of the war taken place on the border between North and South, or even in the North itself, the North would not have been using Southern resources to support its army, or been in a position where it could terrorise the Southern population. If this contingency had been reversed, and the South had utilised the same tactics on Northern soil whilst their own morale and property went undamaged, it is possible that the North would have been defeated despite its larger resources. However, this is without factoring in the North’s superior leadership, both political and military. It is evident therefore that in the situation of 1864-65, the North’s stronger leadership, in addition to the full force of Northern resources unleashed against the whole of the Southern population on Southern territory, that ultimately led to the South’s defeat.
The superior numbers and resources theory for the South’s loss which had such popularity immediately after the Civil War tends to be dismissed by modern historians and rightly so. The significant factor in the South’s defeat was that in the latter stages of the war, the North finally learned how to effectively mobilise their advantages in the way it waged war against the South. The shift to total war not only allowed the North to force the South to recognise the North’s dominance in the wake of the destruction and terror the wrought, but also resulted in the closure of the Confederacy’s last hope to hold out: without Sherman’s successful campaign in Atlanta, Lincoln would not have been re-elected, and McClellan, his opponent, was likely to sign a deal for peace with the South. Thus superior method of waging war in addition to the advantages in numbers and resources led to the South’s defeat.
In the years since the American Civil War, there have been many theories put forward as to why the South lost. One main argument made was that the North had a larger number of soldiers and more useful resources compared to that of the South, which made it seem as though the result of the war was inevitable. This theory was later dismissed however as many wars in history have been won by a smaller and more unlikely side, therefore making the South’s loss seem less inevitable. Another argument claimed that the North was far better at producing more capable and effective leaders than the South, but this was later dismissed as the South produced just as many effective leaders as the North. In my view, the one factor that stands out is the North’s shift from limited to ‘total’ war, whereby civilians of the South in the areas where fighting was occurring became legitimate targets of the North, due to the guerrilla war tactics that they were adopting. This crucial shift allowed the North to break the will of the South, and use their momentum to win the Civil War.
My response to the question "why did the South lost the Civil War" seems to be consistent with what James McPherson an "external explanation", that is to say, that the South lost the Civil War, dure to the superiority of the North. Firstly, the North was more economically developed than the South, and had more manpower. This is particularly evident in the North having 2.5 times the number of people and 3 times the railroad capacity. Given this fact, it seems conslusive that the South's inability to match such factors, contributed to thier loss. This is evident in primary sources, documenting Southern sentiments acknowleding this, by implying that had the South had more men and weapons, they would have won the Civil War. Secondly, historians like J. McPherson, ackowledge the superior military and civilian leadership of the North. That is to say, the McPherson asserts Lincoln being a better leader than Davis (ie the civilian leadership), and Generals Grant, Sherman and Sheridan's stratiegic intelligence, especially considering thier plan to execute total war, thus enabling them to win the Civil War. In conclusion although it was not definate that the North were going to win the Civil War, it was the application of the North's situation (economic, weapons and manpower in particular) by the Generals that made victory more likely.
The South lost the Civil War for two main reasons in my opinion;
Firstly, the North were able to dominate the secessionists in terms of technology (railroad capacity was three times greater than the Souths, better able to equip it's soldiers as most manufacturing occurred in the North), manpower (the Northern population was 2.5 times greater than the South) and governance (the Southern ideal of states rights conflicted with the ability to maintain effective central governance and military leadership from Richmond) .
The second reason was that the South were confronted by the full effects of the confrontation, wearing down their morale. This was especially relevant in the pillaging conducted by General Sherman and the notion of total war.
The reasons as to why the South lost the Civil war are many and contributed equally to the conclusion of the conflict. However One can clearly point to simple economics and military capabilities.
As the Americas industrial base in the 19th Century, Northern cities were the primary outputs of industrial products, international commerce and wealth. Though Northern cities remained co-dependent with Southern agriculture products such as cotton for textiles, the more diversified markets in the North could weather the shocks of the Civil war and gear factory practices for the war effort. Southern cities were not at a capacity to match this, and additionally in contrast with Northern states, infrastructure such as rail and telegraph lines were not as established across their states putting them at a strategic disadvantaged.
Secondly there was no entrenched national will in the South towards secession. Historian Robert Penn Warren noted that notable Southerners such as Jefferson Davis failed to enthusiastically embrace secession, with the war exposing the lack of any concrete ideology or common purpose for their republic.
The South was never going to win. Free labour vs. slavery in the border states was no longer mutually beneficial, and any attempts by the North to limit slavery were an attack on the South as it had to keep expanding slavery. The South could not secede without the border states, as it lacked the economic and industrial strength to do so without, meaning it was forced into a war of conquest. At the same time, the North could not allow the South to secede with the border states, as the North would have fallen like dominos due to its economic and industrial ties to the border states. Either the United states would be reorganized around slavery or free labour. As it was, the South were underresourced from the beginning to ever win this fight.
One of the more credible explanations in explaining why the South lost the civil War was due to the strength of leadership that the North had at its disposal. This, combined with the strength of industry in the North at the time, led to an environment in which the North was not only better equipped in terms of resources, but but more capable of using them effectively.
This comibination of resources and leadership allowed the North to push toward a more 'total' style of war, in which much of the Northern population was able to mobilise in support of those on the front line. Such strength allowed the North to push further into Southern territories, affecting the psychological mindset of the South, which is highlighted by McPherson in the readings.
While the South eventually lost the war, this was never an inevitable outcome, so while the North may have had the numerical advantage, that was never a guarantee that they would win.
What really undermined the Southern cause was that they were never able to win the battles that mattered. The North came close several times to considering a negotiated peace treaty, however whenever this drew close they Union army won a key battle or concession from the Confederates and the public support for the war picked up again.
Moreover the Southerners suffered from their inability to mobilise their population and resources effectively. Most of these reasons were intrinsic problems, such as the significant proportion of the southern population being Slaves, who were never going to be as motivated to fight for the Old South and the system of oppression it stood for. And also significance of states rights, which meant that a centralised government necessary for running a successful war effort was much harder. The South was not structured so as to be able to effectively fight the total war that the North brought to them.
Moreover the issue of morale became a serious problem for the South. Most of the battles were occurring in the South, and the men fighting for the confederacy had to chose between wither fighting to protect their ideals and for the confederacy or going home to protect their loved ones. This decision was made more significant because of the ideals of chivalry which dominated Southern antebellum society, where the protection of ones family, especially the woman was a key part of being a 'man'.
The South lost the war because they were unable to win key victories at key times. This is not to say the conflict itself was the outcome of contingencies, but the outcome of the conflict was. If the North lost at the battle of Antietam or Gettysburg then northern morale would have been stretched, which might have generated willingness to compromise. Or adversely, the South would have gained the military momentum and psychological advantage. Also if Sherman had not taken Atlanta when he did, then the chances of Lincoln being re-elected would have decreased, giving the leadership over to the Democrats who were willing to make a deal.
A plethora of factors including; significantly weaker economic output, demographic constraints, several key military defeats, political inequities and the North’s shift from a limited to a total war mentality contributed to the South's defeat in the Civil War. Through the South’s smaller economy coupled with the North’s imposed trade embargos, their access to resources integral for maintaining an army fit to beat the North was compromised. The South’s army was considerably out numbered throughout, whilst following Lincolns emancipation proclamation, the disparity between the forces increased. Large battle defeats such as that at Gettysburg and Antietam resulted in the morale of Southerners on the home front and battlefield crippling. Through these reasons the South lost.
The most popular explanation for the North’s victory has always been simply to stress the size and industrial power of the North (with its population 2.5 times greater than the South, its factories, and impressive railway network), that a Northern victory was inevitable because it had more men and more guns. Indeed, most Northerners and even Southerners initially accepted this explanation, mostly because it preserved notions of Southern courage and honour, which had in turn been cut down by bigger forces of history. However, it did little to credit the South’s intelligence, why if loss was inevitable did the South take on the North? Thus, this explanation began to be questioned. Furthermore, to win the South had never need to invade and conquer the South, it merely needed to hold onto its territory and force the Union to concede it was not worth the effort to continue fighting. Indeed, America had taken on the mighty British and won in the War of Independence in much the same way.
ReplyDeleteFurther explanations have stressed internal division in the South; that the crucial mantra of “State’s Rights” undermined a centralised war effort (increased taxation, conscription, troop deployments etc), and that the South failed to hold onto two key demographics, its non slave owning white population and its slave population, who had little incentive to fight to preserve slavery. However, it seems the hindrance of non-cooperate states has been exaggerated. And its hard to blame internal division when we see that the North was bitterly divided also, with the New York Draft Riots, a vocal democratic anti-war movement and even holding a presidential election during the war, in 1864. Furthermore Southern slaves had little incentive to escape until Northern victories on the battlefield brought Union armies close, and thus can’t be credited with destabilising the South pre-emptively.
Thus, it seems the most convincing argument, as McPherson argues, concerns the role leadership played in the final result. Quite simply, despite its early losses, the North had better and more able leaders, in the form of Lincoln, who was both eloquent in expressing war aims and successful in keeping everyone working together, and his Generals, Sherman, Grant and Sheridan, who organised a tough and coordinated “total war” effort. The South in contrast, had a poor leader in the form of Davis, who lacked an ability to prioritise tasks and feuded constantly with many of his generals. Furthermore, The South lacked Generals as skilled in military tactics as the North. This explanation may seem rather top down, but it is where differences between the North and South become stark, thus differences in leadership seems to be the lynch pin of the civil war’s result.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe Confederacy was undermanned and without resources to match the Union from the start of the war, and their eventual defeat was not surprising. Although early blunderings in the eastern theater allowed the Confederacy to push their way into the Union, they were ousted when General Grant took over in 1863.
ReplyDeleteThe South had more than double the population as well as far superior industrial capabilities, which produced armaments and railways that were vital in the war. This was culminated with adequate agricultural output that managed to produce the necessities for the war. They also managed to enlist approximately 200,000 former slaves into their army compared to nearly none for the Confederacy. This was especially important since the slave population made up almost 40% of the total population in the Deep South States. The South’s strongest economical factor (which was cut off through the blockade from the Union) was its agricultural output. However these outputs were tobacco and cotton, and thus useless for the war effort. The final blows came through the defeats at Gettysburg, Shiloh and Vicksburg which split the Confederacy in two. The Confederacy could not keep up with the far more advanced Union, and their defeat became inevitable by 1863.
Whilst there were many factors which contributed to the South’s defeat, the primary one was undoubtedly the North’s change from limited to “total” warfare. This tactic worked on two levels. Firstly, Sherman’s march through Georgia and South Carolina had a distinctly demoralising psychological effect upon the already divided Southern population, as it demonstrated the Southern army’s inability to protect civilians in addition to its inability to defeat Grant’s army. Furthermore, the decision to change to more extended warfare (on civilians as well as professional soldiers) allowed the Northern army to fully utilise its superior resources- a larger army, industry, economy and more efficient transport system- which the South could not compete with in a larger scale war.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I would argue that the crucial factor enabling the success of the North’s full scale war was the fact it took place in Southern territory. Had the final battles of the war taken place on the border between North and South, or even in the North itself, the North would not have been using Southern resources to support its army, or been in a position where it could terrorise the Southern population. If this contingency had been reversed, and the South had utilised the same tactics on Northern soil whilst their own morale and property went undamaged, it is possible that the North would have been defeated despite its larger resources. However, this is without factoring in the North’s superior leadership, both political and military. It is evident therefore that in the situation of 1864-65, the North’s stronger leadership, in addition to the full force of Northern resources unleashed against the whole of the Southern population on Southern territory, that ultimately led to the South’s defeat.
The superior numbers and resources theory for the South’s loss which had such popularity immediately after the Civil War tends to be dismissed by modern historians and rightly so. The significant factor in the South’s defeat was that in the latter stages of the war, the North finally learned how to effectively mobilise their advantages in the way it waged war against the South. The shift to total war not only allowed the North to force the South to recognise the North’s dominance in the wake of the destruction and terror the wrought, but also resulted in the closure of the Confederacy’s last hope to hold out: without Sherman’s successful campaign in Atlanta, Lincoln would not have been re-elected, and McClellan, his opponent, was likely to sign a deal for peace with the South. Thus superior method of waging war in addition to the advantages in numbers and resources led to the South’s defeat.
ReplyDeleteIn the years since the American Civil War, there have been many theories put forward as to why the South lost. One main argument made was that the North had a larger number of soldiers and more useful resources compared to that of the South, which made it seem as though the result of the war was inevitable. This theory was later dismissed however as many wars in history have been won by a smaller and more unlikely side, therefore making the South’s loss seem less inevitable. Another argument claimed that the North was far better at producing more capable and effective leaders than the South, but this was later dismissed as the South produced just as many effective leaders as the North. In my view, the one factor that stands out is the North’s shift from limited to ‘total’ war, whereby civilians of the South in the areas where fighting was occurring became legitimate targets of the North, due to the guerrilla war tactics that they were adopting. This crucial shift allowed the North to break the will of the South, and use their momentum to win the Civil War.
ReplyDeleteMy response to the question "why did the South lost the Civil War" seems to be consistent with what James McPherson an "external explanation", that is to say, that the South lost the Civil War, dure to the superiority of the North.
ReplyDeleteFirstly, the North was more economically developed than the South, and had more manpower. This is particularly evident in the North having 2.5 times the number of people and 3 times the railroad capacity. Given this fact, it seems conslusive that the South's inability to match such factors, contributed to thier loss. This is evident in primary sources, documenting Southern sentiments acknowleding this, by implying that had the South had more men and weapons, they would have won the Civil War.
Secondly, historians like J. McPherson, ackowledge the superior military and civilian leadership of the North. That is to say, the McPherson asserts Lincoln being a better leader than Davis (ie the civilian leadership), and Generals Grant, Sherman and Sheridan's stratiegic intelligence, especially considering thier plan to execute total war, thus enabling them to win the Civil War.
In conclusion although it was not definate that the North were going to win the Civil War, it was the application of the North's situation (economic, weapons and manpower in particular) by the Generals that made victory more likely.
The South lost the Civil War for two main reasons in my opinion;
ReplyDeleteFirstly, the North were able to dominate the secessionists in terms of technology (railroad capacity was three times greater than the Souths, better able to equip it's soldiers as most manufacturing occurred in the North), manpower (the Northern population was 2.5 times greater than the South) and governance (the Southern ideal of states rights conflicted with the ability to maintain effective central governance and military leadership from Richmond) .
The second reason was that the South were confronted by the full effects of the confrontation, wearing down their morale. This was especially relevant in the pillaging conducted by General Sherman and the notion of total war.
The reasons as to why the South lost the Civil war are many and contributed equally to the conclusion of the conflict. However One can clearly point to simple economics and military capabilities.
ReplyDeleteAs the Americas industrial base in the 19th Century, Northern cities were the primary outputs of industrial products, international commerce and wealth. Though Northern cities remained co-dependent with Southern agriculture products such as cotton for textiles, the more diversified markets in the North could weather the shocks of the Civil war and gear factory practices for the war effort. Southern cities were not at a capacity to match this, and additionally in contrast with Northern states, infrastructure such as rail and telegraph lines were not as established across their states putting them at a strategic disadvantaged.
Secondly there was no entrenched national will in the South towards secession. Historian Robert Penn Warren noted that notable Southerners such as Jefferson Davis failed to enthusiastically embrace secession, with the war exposing the lack of any concrete ideology or common purpose for their republic.
The South was never going to win. Free labour vs. slavery in the border states was no longer mutually beneficial, and any attempts by the North to limit slavery were an attack on the South as it had to keep expanding slavery. The South could not secede without the border states, as it lacked the economic and industrial strength to do so without, meaning it was forced into a war of conquest. At the same time, the North could not allow the South to secede with the border states, as the North would have fallen like dominos due to its economic and industrial ties to the border states. Either the United states would be reorganized around slavery or free labour. As it was, the South were underresourced from the beginning to ever win this fight.
ReplyDeleteOne of the more credible explanations in explaining why the South lost the civil War was due to the strength of leadership that the North had at its disposal. This, combined with the strength of industry in the North at the time, led to an environment in which the North was not only better equipped in terms of resources, but but more capable of using them effectively.
ReplyDeleteThis comibination of resources and leadership allowed the North to push toward a more 'total' style of war, in which much of the Northern population was able to mobilise in support of those on the front line. Such strength allowed the North to push further into Southern territories, affecting the psychological mindset of the South, which is highlighted by McPherson in the readings.
While the South eventually lost the war, this was never an inevitable outcome, so while the North may have had the numerical advantage, that was never a guarantee that they would win.
ReplyDeleteWhat really undermined the Southern cause was that they were never able to win the battles that mattered. The North came close several times to considering a negotiated peace treaty, however whenever this drew close they Union army won a key battle or concession from the Confederates and the public support for the war picked up again.
Moreover the Southerners suffered from their inability to mobilise their population and resources effectively. Most of these reasons were intrinsic problems, such as the significant proportion of the southern population being Slaves, who were never going to be as motivated to fight for the Old South and the system of oppression it stood for. And also significance of states rights, which meant that a centralised government necessary for running a successful war effort was much harder. The South was not structured so as to be able to effectively fight the total war that the North brought to them.
Moreover the issue of morale became a serious problem for the South. Most of the battles were occurring in the South, and the men fighting for the confederacy had to chose between wither fighting to protect their ideals and for the confederacy or going home to protect their loved ones. This decision was made more significant because of the ideals of chivalry which dominated Southern antebellum society, where the protection of ones family, especially the woman was a key part of being a 'man'.
The South lost the war because they were unable to win key victories at key times. This is not to say the conflict itself was the outcome of contingencies, but the outcome of the conflict was. If the North lost at the battle of Antietam or Gettysburg then northern morale would have been stretched, which might have generated willingness to compromise. Or adversely, the South would have gained the military momentum and psychological advantage. Also if Sherman had not taken Atlanta when he did, then the chances of Lincoln being re-elected would have decreased, giving the leadership over to the Democrats who were willing to make a deal.
ReplyDeleteA plethora of factors including; significantly weaker economic output, demographic constraints, several key military defeats, political inequities and the North’s shift from a limited to a total war mentality contributed to the South's defeat in the Civil War. Through the South’s smaller economy coupled with the North’s imposed trade embargos, their access to resources integral for maintaining an army fit to beat the North was compromised. The South’s army was considerably out numbered throughout, whilst following Lincolns emancipation proclamation, the disparity between the forces increased. Large battle defeats such as that at Gettysburg and Antietam resulted in the morale of Southerners on the home front and battlefield crippling. Through these reasons the South lost.
ReplyDelete