The American Civil War is arguably the most key event in American history. It began when a number of Southern slaves states seceded from the Union, which led to a civil war between the Union in the North, and the Confederacy in the South from 1861 until 1865. Ultimately, after four years of intense warfare which left over 600,000 soldiers dead, the South was defeated. This essay will explore the reasons behind this defeat. There are two main areas of debate surrounding the fate of the Confederacy. Firstly, was the demise of the South inevitable? Secondly, and even more importantly, is the question of whether the South was defeated, or whether they defeated themselves. I propose that the defeat of the Confederacy was not inevitable. In fact,
…show more content…
The Southern states had a monopoly over the cotton market; a monopoly which extend to trade with both Great Britain and France. With this came a large amount of bargaining power; if the Confederacy decreased amount of cotton it exported to Britain and France, it could have brought the economies of these countries to their knees. In fact, John Tyler stated “An embargo of a single year would produce in Europe a greater amount of suffering than a fifty years’ war.” The Confederates could have used this to their advantage greatly, for if they withheld cotton from Britain and France, they would most likely turn to supporting the South in the War, giving the Confederacy the military power with which the North could have been defeated. However, they did not take advantage of this power they possessed. Instead of curtailing cotton exports, they continued to send cotton by ship to Europe, with the Kelper taking 1,125 bales of cotton to Britain in March 1861. This was mainly due to a conflict of interests; if the South wanted to increase its odds of winning the War, they would have to decrease the odds of making large profits on the cotton after the War was over. For example, after a bill regarding the curtailing of the cotton crop was put to the Confederate Senate in 1862, the senator for Texas Louis …show more content…
Instead, this essay has demonstrated that it was the failure of the Confederate leaders to realise that the only way of winning the War, and of achieving independence, was through a revolution. As Charles Wesley put it, “the wars of independence in the modern world have been fought, as a rule, by peoples of inferior resources and populations.” This war should have been no different. However, instead of fighting it as a war of national liberation, the Confederate generals used the tactics of conventional warfare. If they had used guerrilla tactics, the army would have been much better managed, resources would have been used more effectively, and the Union could quite possibly have been defeated. Furthermore, if they had used the monopoly they had over the cotton trade to their advantage in gaining the support of Britain and France, their increased military strength could have won them this war of national liberation. However, as the Confederacy failed to do any of these things, it became overwhelmed by the strength of the Union’s forces, thus ensuring its defeat. Therefore, it was not the Union that defeated the South in the Civil War; the South defeated
The Southern states had a monopoly over the cotton market; a monopoly which extend to trade with both Great Britain and France. With this came a large amount of bargaining power; if the Confederacy decreased amount of cotton it exported to Britain and France, it could have brought the economies of these countries to their knees. In fact, John Tyler stated “An embargo of a single year would produce in Europe a greater amount of suffering than a fifty years’ war.” The Confederates could have used this to their advantage greatly, for if they withheld cotton from Britain and France, they would most likely turn to supporting the South in the War, giving the Confederacy the military power with which the North could have been defeated. However, they did not take advantage of this power they possessed. Instead of curtailing cotton exports, they continued to send cotton by ship to Europe, with the Kelper taking 1,125 bales of cotton to Britain in March 1861. This was mainly due to a conflict of interests; if the South wanted to increase its odds of winning the War, they would have to decrease the odds of making large profits on the cotton after the War was over. For example, after a bill regarding the curtailing of the cotton crop was put to the Confederate Senate in 1862, the senator for Texas Louis …show more content…
Instead, this essay has demonstrated that it was the failure of the Confederate leaders to realise that the only way of winning the War, and of achieving independence, was through a revolution. As Charles Wesley put it, “the wars of independence in the modern world have been fought, as a rule, by peoples of inferior resources and populations.” This war should have been no different. However, instead of fighting it as a war of national liberation, the Confederate generals used the tactics of conventional warfare. If they had used guerrilla tactics, the army would have been much better managed, resources would have been used more effectively, and the Union could quite possibly have been defeated. Furthermore, if they had used the monopoly they had over the cotton trade to their advantage in gaining the support of Britain and France, their increased military strength could have won them this war of national liberation. However, as the Confederacy failed to do any of these things, it became overwhelmed by the strength of the Union’s forces, thus ensuring its defeat. Therefore, it was not the Union that defeated the South in the Civil War; the South defeated