©2003 by Amanda Brooks  Home

"If wars are won by riches, there can be no question why the North eventually prevailed."⁽⁴⁾ There is no question about the industrial strength of the North and how it played into the outcome of the war. The North was better equipped with resources necessary for fighting a long term war than the South was. It contained the means for the mass production of weapons as well as miles of railroad mileage.⁽⁵⁾ The Northern states also supplied the battle lines with more troops than the Southern states were able to produce. The generals of both regions were equally trained for battle as the majority on both sides were West Point graduates.⁽⁶⁾ However, none of them had handled a large army and only a few had led a regiment.⁽⁷⁾

Despite the advantages of Northerners, their victory in the War Between the States was not inevitable. "History not only shows that in war the lighter antagonist sometimes defeats the heavier, it also shows that what seems logically certain often fails to happen."⁽⁸⁾ Although the South did not have the industrial strength that the North possessed, it maintained something more: "a grand strategy" or more precisely, a reason to fight.⁽⁹⁾ The people of the South had a passion for which they were determined to fight, the passion for independence. They had no need or desire to initiate a battle, they merely needed to defend themselves. This position was to their advantage because all they had to do was to stay as they were. If left alone they would have attained the independence from the Union that they desired. Another advantage that served the South was "foreign intervention."⁽¹⁰⁾ The Confederate government relied on the support of France and Britain mainly due to the countries' dependence on Southern cotton.⁽¹¹⁾ With the aid from the French and British, the Southern Confederacy was definitely strengthened. The quality of the leadership of Southern troops surpassed that of the North. Southern leaders were on average older than the Northern officers.⁽¹²⁾ They had more experience in the Mexican War than did Northern leaders. The Southern officers that were involved in the Mexican War were higher ranked than were the Northern officers involved. It is possible that the age of Southern officers turned out to be an asset as it may have been a factor in the stability of Southern leadership. The North was constantly replacing commanders and switching leadership on the armies whereas the South was able to maintain a core group of capable leaders. '"Unless a man is born with a talent for war, he will never be more than a mediocre general,"' wrote Marshal Saxe, whom nineteenth century military strategists studied.⁽¹³⁾ The generals of the South had an inborn ability to lead their troops whereas the North seemed to lack in strong capable leadership. The question remains: If the South possessed so many advantages, why did the North win? Did the South lose?

The South basically shot itself in the foot and therefore lost the war. The war was not lost due to Northern greatness. In addition to the North's advantage of greater manpower and greater resources the South lacked in the ability to manage and maintain what it possessed. When comparing the two regions during the war, one can "discover abundant evidence that the Confederacy, not the Union, represented the democratic forces in American life."⁽¹⁴⁾ According to the author, this high level of democracy in the South in the cause of the Confederate soldier's "dislike of discipline."⁽¹⁵⁾ This attitude toward discipline led many southern troops to leave the army, disobey orders, become "bushwhackers," rebel against conscription, and bad mouth Jefferson Davis and his administration.⁽¹⁶⁾ "[D]isloyal elements throughout the South had unrestricted freedom."⁽¹⁷⁾ Lincoln, on the other hand, suspended the writ of habeas corpus. He trampled the Constitution of the Union time and again for his own political sake. He was able to keep dissension to a minimum compared to the South. In addition to poor management of the Southern people, the Davis administration was also poor in utilizing its economic resources.⁽¹⁸⁾ There is much debate about what the Confederacy should have done with cotton production and how they should have gone about establishing a reliable and valid currency. With the production of cotton and the dependency other countries had on southern cotton, one can conclude that there could have been a way to utilize its production for the economic benefit of the South.

The North won the War Between the States because they had greater manpower and resources by the end of the war. They were simply better able to maintain the most valuable commodities of war: men and weapons. They did not have better leadership or tactics; they just had more men. The South lost the war because it was not able to manage their scanty resources (manpower and weaponry) that were necessary to fight a long term war and win it. Had the South been more careful about how it handled its people and economy, it very well may have succeeded in seceding from the Union.

HOME

1. Donald, David Herbert, ed. Why the North Won the Civil War, (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1996), p. 13.

2. Ibid. p. 24.

3. Ibid. p. 25-30.

4. Ibid. p. 22.

5. Ibid. p. 94.

6. Ibid. p. 41.

7. Ibid. p. 42.

8. Ibid. p. 94.

9. Ibid. p. 15.

10. Ibid.

11. Ibid. p. 16.

12. Ibid. p. 41.

13. Ibid. p. 40. Quoted from Marshal Saxe.

14. Ibid. p. 82.

15. Ibid.

16. Ibid. pp. 83, 86.

17. Ibid. p. 88.

18. Ibid. p. 25-30.