Northern and Southern advantages in the American Civil War

Civil War

How did it happen that the North won the Civil War, notwithstanding the fact that the South had its own powerful advantages? This paper explores that question using chapters 11, 12, 13 and 14 for reference sources.

Background on the Southern economy and politics

The South greatly expanded its agricultural industry (the plantation system) between 1800 and 1860, and in doing so became "increasingly unlike the North," the author explains in Chapter 11. The "lower South" relied on cotton (short staple cotton) and the market for all that cotton in New England and in Great Britain made many plantation owners wealthy. Because of the skyrocketing cotton industry, more and more slaves were needed to tend those crops, and some 410,000 slaves were moved from the upper South to the lower South. And yet the South depended economically on the North (which had a booming industrial growth period) and the South did not establish many industries besides cotton to beef up its economy (p. 302). Those landowners with hundreds of slaves and huge cotton plantations controlled the politics; hence, a great deal of political power was in the hands of a few wealthy men. Hence, the lack of industrial strength was a Southern weakness, and the existence of a commercial-industrial culture in the North was its strength.

Slavery was a business, not just a social system in the South. Slavery was the foundation of the agricultural economy, and this was to become one of the major schisms that caused tensions between the North and the South.

Reasons why the North was stronger

A focus on providing public education (to increase literacy) and the growth of reform organizations in the North had a powerful influence on the Northern society. Also, the feminist movement as part of the reform movements (women's rights, women's suffrage) also pushed the crusade against slavery. Abolitionists formed a growing sentiment in the North and helped prepare the North for the need to go to war with the South. In Chapter 13, the authors point to the tensions between the "free soil ideology" in the North and the "slave power conspiracy" in the South; continuing agitation against slavery in the North irritated the pro-slavery South. Moreover, "a vigorous sense of nationalism" was experienced in both the South and North as positions on slavery "hardened" (371).

Northern Advantages: When the Civil War started, "…only one thing was clear: all the important material advantages lay with the north" (377). The North had a population nearly twice that of the South (and when slaves weren't counted in, the North had "nearly four times" as many people as the South) (377). As for manpower to provide an army and to provide workers to fuel its industry, the North had "much greater manpower reserve" (377). As to industry, the North was greatly advanced over the South (which had little industry at all and had to rely on importing from Europe), and in fact the North manufactured its own war materials. The North had better railroad systems (twice as many tracks as the South). The authors suggest the South's railroad situation was bleak, and by 1864 "…had almost collapsed" (377). The North had the advantage of 186,000 African-Americans who fought against the South. The industrialization of the North was beefed up in great amounts during the war. The North financed the war largely on citizens buying government bonds.

Southern currency was just paper money causing "disastrous inflation" (388) and the South faced "massive shortages of almost everything" (food riots broke out in the South because males went off to war leaving ineffective plantations -- run by slaves and women). Unlike the south, the North had an effective navy that transported supplies effectively; and while the South thought England and France would intervene on its behalf (because of Europe's need for cotton) that never transpired, which played into the hands of the North.

Southern Advantages: The North had to pretty much take the fight to the South, and hence Southern armies were for the most part fighting on their own land; hence, they had a lot of support from home folks and had familiarity with the lay of the land as well. The populations in the South were of course hostile to Northern soldiers, which was an advantage to the South. Further, the authors suggest Southerners were far more firmly committed to their beliefs (in slavery and state's right) than the North (there were divisions within the Northern population about the need to go to war). Also, the North had trouble getting enough soldiers to volunteer to fight, so a draft law was enacted (and was resisted widely; riots broke out) and in fact there was great dissention in the North towards the idea of a Civil War but the South was more unified. The South had more experienced military leaders than the North.