Could the South Have Won the Civil War?
Essay Preview: Could the South Have Won the Civil War?
Report this essay
“In all history, no nation of mere agriculturists ever made successful war against a
nation of mechanicsYou are bound to fail.” Union officer William Tecumseh Sherman to a Southern friend.
“Why did the North win the Civil War?” is only half of a question by itself, for the other half is “Why did the South lose the Civil War?” To this day historians have tried to put their finger on the exact reason for the South losing the war. Some historians blame the head of the confederacy Jefferson Davis; however others believe that it was the shear numbers of the Union (North). The advantages and disadvantages are abundant on either sides of the argument, but the most dominate arguments on why the South lost the war would be the fact that states rights prevented unification of the South, Jefferson Davis poor leadership and his failure to work together with his generals, the South failed to gain the recognition of the European nations, Norths superior resources made the outcome inevitable, and moral of the South towards the end of the war.
First, the South couldnt have won the civil war because states rights prevented unification of the South. The very issue that created the Confederacy helped to destroy it. In waging war, the South faced problems of politics and government that greatly complicated its problem of economic mobilization. No one would deny the troublesome effect of the conflict generated by differing ideas of how best to protect liberty and to organize southern society for the war effort. Southern people insisted upon retaining their democratic liberties in wartime, which proved fatal for the South. They had to struggle with a “confederacy formed by particularistic politicians [that] could hardly be expected to adopt promptly those centralists polices which victory demanded” (Donald, p. 26). Individual state governors fought bitterly with Jefferson Davis to prevent him from consolidating power to fight the war. They withheld troops and supplies while the Confederate Congress spent its time arguing over the rights of the states instead of prosecuting a war of national survival. Many internal conflicts within the South were acquiring and weakening the Souths unity. Internal conflicts caused confederate officials to choose between moving troops from the coasts and strengthening their armies, or leaving them where they were and exposing the armies and the states they defended. Such choices caused “competition with state governments for men, and supplies, as citizens pressured their government to place defense above the needs of the entire Confederacy” (Beringer, p. 205). Another internal conflict that plagued the South was opposition to an establishment of a Confederate supreme court because supreme courts could destroy localism according to Senator Louis T. Wigfall. Even the building of railroads provoked a conflict because “such construction would undermine state authority and that the South did not need them because armies and munitions and military supplieswill be mainly transported by other means” (Beringer, p. 205). A constant “tug of war” was occurring between the central and local governments limited the South greatly and was a factor in its defeat in the Civil War.
In addition to the South having conflicts with state governments, Jefferson Davis poor leadership and his failure to work together with his generals caused the South to lose the Civil War. Davis had two popular generals, Robert E. Lee and Judah P. Benjamin. Benjamin was never allowed to bring his ideas of originality to Davis and was often blamed for measures Davis chose not to explain. Lee never was allowed to command over the other officers. When congress adopted a bill establishing the office of general in chief, intended for Lee, Davis vetoed it. Daviss well-know feuds with two of the Confederacys premier generals, Beauregard and Joseph Johnston, undoubtedly hurt the Souths war effort. Another problem Davis had with his generals was that he couldnt really work with the other confederate leaders because of his failure of communication. He would use “an excessive share of his energy in contentious and even litigious argument to prove he was right” (Donald, p. 103). Davis wanted to operate as the secretary of war and his own general in chief. He wanted to be a general, not president. He never gave up trying to be a general in the area of strategy and selection of generals to lead his armies. Davis loved to interfere in issues of strategy, giving directions to his generals without ever giving them the means to accomplish his objectives. He made terrible choices for senior commanders, often selecting men based on personal preference rather than qualifications. Davis could never admit his was wrong and “seemed to prefer winning an argument if it would help win the war” (Boritt, p. 37). The Confederates didnt owe their defeat to numbers, but to faulty strategy and the poor leadership of Davis. It was once said by David Potter, “If the Union and the Confederacy had exchanged presidents with one another, the Confederacy might have won its independence” (Boritt, p. 37)
Furthermore, the South couldnt have won the Civil War because the South failed to gain the recognition of the European nations. The South was seeking to gain Europes support in their cause for the war because of Lincolns strategy to weaken and destroy the Southern economy by cutting off Southern shipments of cotton to Europe through a successful blockade was working. The South assumed Britain would break the blockade to guarantee the flow of cotton to England because it would bring England to her knees if they didnt. Even limited European power used against the North “could have rendered the Southern cause successful” (Donald, p. 55). However, the South was unable to obtain any help from Europe because “Britain…took immediate steps to protect her commerce. On May 13, 1861, without awaiting the arrival of Minister Adams, Queen Victoria issued a declaration of neutrality…” (Donald, p. 60). King Cotton diplomacy was meant to be a dagger pointed at the economic heart of Europe. Instead, it was a knife laid against the Souths own throat. By purposely withholding cotton from European markets in the crucial first two years of the war, the South ruined its chances to win European support. Additionally, historians have agreed that “cotton failed as a diplomatic weapon because Britain enjoyed too much lucrative trade with the North” (Donald, p. 65). The Souths failure to receive outside aid to assist them in the war against the North resulted in their loss of the Civil War.
Continuing,