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.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

What is the meaning of "juggling fiends" in Macbeth?

Macbeth is beginning to realize that the three witches have been deceiving him since he first encountered them. Like jugglers, they have kept changing their forecasts in order create confusion. This is particularly apparent when the Second Apparition they raise in Act IV,   Scene 1 tells him that no man of woman born can overcome him in hand-to-hand battle--and then Macbeth finds himself confronted by the one man he has been avoiding out of a... Macbeth is beginning to realize that the three witches have been deceiving him since he first encountered them. Like jugglers, they have kept changing their forecasts in order create confusion. This is particularly apparent when the Second Apparition they raise in Act IV,   Scene 1 tells him that no man of woman born can overcome him in hand-to-hand battle--and then Macbeth finds himself confronted by the one man he has been avoiding out of a sense of guilt, and that man tells him: Despair thy charm. And let the angel whom thou still hast serve...
Post a Comment
Read more

What are some external and internal conflicts that Montag has in Fahrenheit 451?

 Montag, the protagonist of Fahrenheit 451, faces both external and internal conflicts throughout the novel. Some examples of these conflicts are: External Conflicts: Conflict with the society: Montag lives in a society that prohibits books and critical thinking. He faces opposition from the government and the people who enforce this law. Montag struggles to come to terms with the fact that his society is based on censorship and control. Conflict with his wife: Montag's wife, Mildred, is completely absorbed in the shallow and meaningless entertainment provided by the government. Montag's growing dissatisfaction with his marriage adds to his external conflict. Conflict with the fire captain: Montag's superior, Captain Beatty, is the personification of the oppressive regime that Montag is fighting against. Montag's struggle against Beatty represents his external conflict with the government. Internal Conflicts: Conflict with his own beliefs: Montag, at the beginning of th...
Post a Comment
Read more

In A People's History of the United States, why does Howard Zinn feel that Wilson made a flimsy argument for entering World War I?

"War is the health of the state," the radical writer Randolph Bourne said, in the midst of the First World War. Indeed, as the nations of Europe went to war in 1914, the governments flourished, patriotism bloomed, class struggle was stilled, and young men died in frightful numbers on the battlefields-often for a hundred yards of land, a line of trenches. -- Chapter 14, Page 350, A People's History of the United States Howard Zinn outlines his arguments for why World War I was fought in the opening paragraph of Chapter 14 (referenced above). The nationalism that was created by the Great War benefited the elite political and financial leadership of the various countries involved. Socialism, which was gaining momentum in Europe, as was class struggle, took a backseat to mobilizing for war. Zinn believes that World War I was fought for the gain of the industrial capitalists of Europe in a competition for capital and resources. He states that humanity itself was punished by t...
Post a Comment
Read more