Skip to main content

Did violence solve the Civil War?

The previous answer discusses one interpretation of the question: did violence address the root causes of the Civil War? But the question could be read another way: was violence the primary reason that the North emerged victorious?

The short answer is: not entirely.


For starters, the population of the North outnumbered that of the South by a factor of three to one. Robert Krick, a historian and author, cites this as the primary determinant of the war's outcome: more people meant more soldiers, more productivity, more industry, and more money to finance the North's war efforts. 


Related to this was the Confederacy's inability to gain international recognition. Without finances and support from foreign governments, particularly the Europeans, the South was denied access to a variety of resources that could have sustained them against the North's superior numbers.


Finally, the South became politically fractured as the war went on. Noah Andre Trudeau, an author of several Civil War analyses, puts it this way:



Ask the question, “What was the South fighting for; what was the Southern way of life that they were trying to protect?” and you will find that Southerners in Arkansas had a very different answer from Southerners in Georgia or Southerners in Virginia. 



Compare this to Lincoln's simple message of preserving the Union, and you begin to see how Southern morale could falter.


Of course, none of these factors would have mattered without violence. The Civil War was, after all, a war,  the deadliest war for U.S. soldiers in our history. And violence did play a role in the South's eventual loss. Opinions are divided as to the precise strength of the respective armies and exact competence of the armies' respective leaders, but irrespective of whether the South was somehow superior in military capability, the North fought and won enough to allow their other accumulated advantages to take their toll. Gary Gallagher, a professor of history at Penn State, said the following:



The principal cause of Confederate failure was the fact that the South’s armies did not win enough victories in the field–especially enough victories in a row in the field–to both sustain Confederate morale behind the lines and depress Union morale behind the lines.



The Confederate armies did win several battles, including the first and second battles of Bull Run, but tides began to shift when southern forces were driven out of Maryland in the battle of Antietam.


In summary: Without violence, the Civil War might not have been resolved. But violence alone cannot account for the Civil War's final resolution.

Popular posts from this blog

In chapter one of The Great Gatsby, what advice does Nick's father give him? How does this make him a good person to tell this story?

Nick says that his father advised him that, before "criticizing anyone," he "remember that all the people in this world haven't had the same advantages" as Nick.  As a result, Nick claims that he is "inclined to reserve all judgments," presenting himself to the reader as a fair and dispassionate arbiter of character, and thus, a reliable narrator.   The problem is that Nick immediately reveals himself as anything but reliable, as he then launches... Nick says that his father advised him that, before "criticizing anyone," he "remember that all the people in this world haven't had the same advantages" as Nick.  As a result, Nick claims that he is "inclined to reserve all judgments," presenting himself to the reader as a fair and dispassionate arbiter of character, and thus, a reliable narrator.   The problem is that Nick immediately reveals himself as anything but reliable, as he then launches into a discussion of how pe...

How did the United States become an imperial power?

"Imperial power" is a bit of a vague label. It tends to mean several things at once, so let's unpack it. In the sense of "this country was built on conquest by force," the "imperial power" part of America actually predates the United States proper. The territories that would become the United States were imperial colonies, established by the great European empires of the 17th and 18th centuries. Much of the US Constitution and American governance generally goes back to England, history's largest and most successful imperial power, but vital aspects of American culture come from other imperial powers, such as France and Spain. Much of American culture comes from sources other than the old empires, but they were key influences on what the United States became. In the sense of "this country treats conquest by force as a fundamental component of its culture, economy and politics," the United States has always been an imperial power. Even earl...

How and why does James Gatz become Jay Gatsby? Describe the young Gatsby/Gatz.

James Gatz, a poor Midwestern boy of probable Jewish lineage, becomes Jay Gatsby, a presumed WASP and wealthy socialite, when he moves to New York City and acquires his fortune. It is wealth that has allowed Gatz to transform himself into Gatsby. However, those who know his background (e.g., Daisy and Tom Buchanan) never allow him to forget that he is nouveau riche -- that is, an upstart who has just recently made his fortune,... James Gatz, a poor Midwestern boy of probable Jewish lineage, becomes Jay Gatsby, a presumed WASP and wealthy socialite, when he moves to New York City and acquires his fortune. It is wealth that has allowed Gatz to transform himself into Gatsby. However, those who know his background (e.g., Daisy and Tom Buchanan) never allow him to forget that he is nouveau riche -- that is, an upstart who has just recently made his fortune, whereas they arose from well-to-do families. Gatz became Gatsby through determination and discipline. At the end of the novel, the narr...