how did the north win the civil war essay

PODCAST: HISTORY UNPLUGGED J. Edgar Hoover’s 50-Year Career of Blackmail, Entrapment, and Taking Down Communist Spies

The Encyclopedia: One Book’s Quest to Hold the Sum of All Knowledge PODCAST: HISTORY UNPLUGGED

Why Did the North Win the Civil War?

After his surrender to Gen. Grant, Gen. Robert Lee wrote a farewell to his Confederate soldiers, stating that his army was forced to surrender due to “overwhelming numbers and resources.” Although the Confederates fought fiercely, historians agree that the North had a clear advantage in the Civil War.

Possible Contributors to the North’s Victory:

• The North had a population of 22 million people against the 9 million in the South (of whom almost half were slaves.)
• The North was more industrial and produced 94 percent of the USA’s pig iron and 97 percent of its firearms. The North even had a richer, more varied agriculture than the South.
• The Union had a larger navy, blocking all efforts from the Confederacy to trade with Europe.
• The Confederacy hope that France and Britain would come to their aid due to their need of cotton, but these countries had enough cotton and a bigger need for Northern corn.
• The North controlled both the shipping and railroad avenues, allowing them to trade and to get supplies fairly quickly.
• The Union had more support: four slave states still remained loyal and not everybody in the 11 Confederate states were on the Confederate side. There were still plenty of people in the South that supported the Union.
• Many slaves fled to the Union armies, providing even more manpower.
• The South squandered their resources early in the war by focussing on conventional offensives instead of non-conventional raids on the Union’s transportation and communication infrastructure.
• Lee’s offensive war strategy had a high cost in casualties, destroying a large part of the Confederate army.

This article is part of our larger selection of posts about the Civil War. To learn more,  click here for our comprehensive guide to the Civil War .

Cite This Article

• How Much Can One Individual Alter History? More and Less...
• Why Did Hitler Hate Jews? We Have Some Answers
• Reasons Against Dropping the Atomic Bomb
• Is Russia Communist Today? Find Out Here!
• Phonetic Alphabet: How Soldiers Communicated
• How Many Americans Died in WW2? Here Is A Breakdown

• Skip to primary navigation
• Skip to main content
• Skip to primary sidebar
• Skip to footer

Historyplex

Why Did the North Win the Civil War

The American Civil War was a war that tore America apart. At least 600,000 American lives were lost in this 4 year battle, between the North and the Southern states of America. To learn why the Union or Northern army was triumphant against the South, read on.

War is a destructive consequence of man’s political machinations and ambitions. While any and all forms of war are equally horrific, one war form that pits brother against brother, father against son and sets an entire country up in flames, is civil war. In the pages of American history, along with success and triumphs, is the bitterness of internal strife and battle with the occurrence of the American Civil War . This war took place from 1861 to 1865 and is ranked as the most deadliest war in American history! The Union or Northern States won the war against the South or the Confederacy. Instead of looking at causes or consequences, in this article we delve into the reasons as to why did the North win the Civil War.

Why the North Won the Civil War

The possible factors or points, contributing to the Union’s army victory, are as follows:

★ Numbers ★ There were 20 pure Union/Northern states with 5 border “slave” states fighting against 11 Southern states. The manpower on the Union side was much larger and outnumbered the Confederate army strength. Due to incomplete or lost records and the passage of time, it is difficult to even estimate the number of soldiers on either side. But roughly, the Confederate army could have had between 600,000 and 1,000,000 men. The Union had an estimated 1,550,000 to 2,400,000 soldiers.

★ Industry Superiority ★ The Union States had more money and financial resources to fight a war. They were sufficiently well-off to keep fighting and maintain troops with arms, food and medical attention. Industrial strength wise, once again the Northern states were superior. They had more factories and industries to provide the necessary ammunition, fuel and weaponry equipment itself. The South, in contrast, were mainly cotton and plantation owners, they did not have such advanced munition suppliers and depots. They had limited food and supply resources.

★ Location ★ Producing resources is not enough, it needs to be provided to the troops as well, in a timely manner. The South used traditional methods of transportation like by horse or steamboat, which had limited reach. A key mode of inland transportation, the railroad was lacking a proper infrastructure and was under-developed. Hence the South faced severe difficulties in supplying their troops with much-needed resources. Famine, insufficient arms, lack of medical supplies… such issues were repeatedly faced by the Southern troops. The railroad structure of the Northern states was a completely designed and fully-functional transportation system and reaching Union soldiers to provide supplies was not a problem.

★ The Union Blockade ★ In what was a smart and cunning war move, the immense Union Navy started a blockade on all Southern ports, lying on the Atlantic coast and the Gulf coast, to prevent any resources being sent to and from the Southern states. With the sea routes cut off, the South could not export any cotton, losing on financial income and could not replenish its dying ammunition stock, with imports. Not only was the Union Navy effective in its blockade, very few Southern ships attempted to break the blockade. This strategy was responsible for shortening the duration of the War drastically, as there were limited resources for the South to manage on.

★ Leadership Skills ★ I am more afraid of an army of one hundred sheep led by a lion than an army of one hundred lions led by a sheep. – Charles Maurice The art of war is not only about brute strength or favorable locations. A sharp, keen political and military think-tank is necessary for planning and carrying out of wartime strategies and actions.

★ Political ★ One cannot compare leadership skills based on the outcome of a war. But with Abraham Lincoln as President and the support of men like Gideon Welles and Andrew Johnson, the Union was a pretty formidable opponent. It is said that the War was won primarily, due to President Lincoln’s resolve and steel will for victory and the way he inspired his fellowmen. He gave people a reason for fighting and was a hero to look up to. The Union was a mix of many American states and so its working was a freer, more bureaucratic atmosphere, with merit and ambition as key factors to gaining positions. On the other hand, even capable leaders like Jefferson Davis and George W. Randolph could not prevent the clannish and rigid structure of Southern politics, where everyone seemed to be looking out for his own end and aristocracy and bloodlines decided positions and rank. There were too many internal issues and conflicts present in the Southern political camps.

★ Military ★ Trained, completely military officers were all part of the Southern command. P. G. T. Beauregard, Stonewall Jackson and of course, Robert E. Lee, amongst others, brought major victories for the Southern cause. Their military tactics and strategies were precise and effective. But the Union army wasn’t lacking in talent either. Ulysses S. Grant, William T. Sherman and Winfield Scott are just a few examples of the prime military officers on the Union side. So if talent wasn’t the problem, what was? The Union army had a sense of camaraderie and cooperation amongst their officers. They rarely questioned rank and orders. But some of the top ranking Southern military officers would squabble with each other or show a difficult attitude towards accepting criticism or orders.

★ Attitude or Ideology ★ Ideals, beliefs, principles, faith… these are what inspires valor and courage in one’s heart and keeps willpower alive. The North was fighting for the eradication of slavery, amongst other causes. This noble cause inspired its soldiers, to fight for basic human rights and freedom of others. It also won the hearts of the slaves themselves, who joined the Union cause en masse to bring about their own freedom. Even the European nations, especially abolitionist England, did not want to intervene, partially due to the very rightness of the Union cause. Northern farmers were fighting for their very livelihood, which was being eaten up by the rich Southerner land owners, who had enough money to buy large tracts of land and many slaves to work on it.

The Civil War serves as a powerful reminder, of how fighting amongst each other, only hurts the nation in the long run. It took a long time for the physical damage and destruction of the War, to be healed. And emotional scars, they still run deep. Nearly 150 years after the first sign of fighting, the Civil War is a memory that history is trying to forget.

Like it? Share it!

Get Updates Right to Your Inbox

Further insights.

Privacy Overview

The North and the South

Political caricature of the caning of Charles Sumner, which occurred on May 22, 1856, depicting Sumner on the floor as Preston Brooks lunges at him in retaliation for a speech given by Sumner criticizing slaveholders. 

The American Civil War is well-known for the primary reason that it started– the institution of slavery. The bloody and costly war that raged for four tumultuous years affected the lives of all people in the North and South. Over 600,000 people were killed over the course of the war, about 500 people per day. The violent conclusion of the Civil War, however, was decades in the making. All-encompassing sectional differences on the issue of slavery, such as outright support/opposition of slavery, economic practices, religious practices, education, cultural differences, and political differences kept the North and South at near constant opposition to one another on the issue of slavery. Gradually, throughout the beginning of the nineteenth century, the North and South followed different paths, and developed into two distinct and very different parts of the United States.

The North: A Titan of Industry

The antebellum Northern United States was recognized by its tight-knit immigrant communities and industrial might. In the North, the soil and climate favored smaller farmsteads rather than large plantations, which did not need slavery to operate them. Industry and manufacturing might flourished, which was fueled by European immigrant labor. Natural resources such as iron and copper were more abundant in the North than in the South. Many large cities were established such as Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, New York City, Boston, Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago, Milwaukee, and Detroit to better transport these natural resources around the country and manufacture them into goods. New York City was the largest city with more than 800,000 inhabitants. By 1860, one quarter of all Northerners lived in urban areas. Between 1800 and 1860, the percentage of laborers working in agricultural pursuits dropped drastically from 70% to only 40%, and conversely increased in manufacturing. The institution of slavery had virtually died out in the North. Slave labor was replaced in the cities and factories by immigrant labor from Europe. An overwhelming majority of immigrants, seven out of every eight, settled in the North rather than the South because of better job opportunities in manufacturing. Transportation was easier in the North, which boasted more than two-thirds of the railroad tracks in the country, as well as a labyrinth of waterways that connected the entire Northern region.

Far more Northerners than Southerners belonged to the Whig/Republican political party, and they were far more likely to have careers in business, medicine, or education. In fact, an engineer was six times as likely to be from the North than from the South. Northern children were slightly more prone to attend school than Southern children. Religion in the North was different than the South. The North used religion as a means to denounce slavery and call it a moral evil and teamed up politically with abolitionists and politicians to bring an end to slavery.

The South: An Agricultural Aggregate

The antebellum Southern United States is noted for its vast farmland, aristocratic-like social structure, and the use of chattel slavery to yield high agricultural profits. The fertile soil and warm climate of the South made it ideal for large-scale farms to grow crops like tobacco and cotton. Because agriculture was so profitable, few Southerners saw a need for industrial development. Eighty percent of the labor force worked on a farm or plantation. Although two-thirds of Southerners owned no slaves at all, by 1860, the South's " peculiar institution " was inextricably tied to the region's economy and culture. In fact, there were almost as many blacks, both enslaved and free, in the South as there were whites (4 million blacks and 5.5 million whites). Virginians owned the most slaves out of any state, with a total of 490,865 slaves. There were no large-scale industrial cities in the South as there were in the North. The only cities that could compare to the smallest Northern cities were New Orleans, Richmond, Charleston, Atlanta, and Mobile. Most of the cities that were located on rivers and coastlines acted as shipping ports to send agricultural produce to European or Northern markets.

Only one-tenth of Southerners lived in urban areas. The most populated city in the South was New Orleans, Louisiana with a population of 168,675. Transportation between cities and across the South was extremely difficult, except by water.  Only 35% of the nation's train tracks were located in the South. Waterways proved useful to Southern port and river cities, but an overwhelming amount of inland transportation was underdeveloped in the South.

A slightly smaller percentage of white Southerners were literate than their Northern counterparts, and Southern children tended to spend less time in school. This was due to the cultural tie to the farms, and children were needed by the family to help on farms or around the home. As adults, Southern men tended to ally with the Democratic political party and gravitated toward military careers as well as agriculture. Religiously, the South used religion to support the institution of slavery, citing various Bible verses to further their ideology.

What Led to Disunion?

Ultimately, what led to the American Civil War were the differences in the North and South's views toward the institution of slavery. There were other aspects within the institution of slavery that led to division in the United States. Economic practices, religious practices, education, cultural differences, and political differences all furthered the division between the North and South about the institution of slavery. These decade-long divisions all culminated in the bloody conflict of the Civil War, which permanently ended the division and abolished slavery permanently.

The Dred Scott Case: Dred Scott v. Sanford

Lincoln-Douglas Debates

Bleeding Kansas

Explore north and south.

• Even more »

Account Options

• Try the new Google Books
• Advanced Book Search
• SimonandSchuster.com
• Barnes&Noble.com
• Books-A-Million
• All sellers  »

Get Textbooks on Google Play

Rent and save from the world's largest eBookstore. Read, highlight, and take notes, across web, tablet, and phone.

Go to Google Play Now »

Selected pages

Other editions - View all

Common terms and phrases, about the author  (1996), bibliographic information.

SOCIALSTUDIESHELP.COM

Exploring the North’s Victory in the Civil War

Why did the north win the civil war, introduction.

The American Civil War (1861-1865), a transformative and turbulent period in the nation’s history, resulted in the Union’s (the North’s) decisive victory over the Confederacy (the South). Understanding the reasons behind this outcome is pivotal for grasping the ensuing reconstruction era and the shaping of modern America. This paper explores the multifaceted factors contributing to the North’s triumph, including their economic advantages, superior infrastructure, larger population and manpower, effective military strategies, and leadership, as well as internal divisions within the Confederacy.

Economic Advantages

Industrialization in the north.

The onset of the Civil War witnessed the Northern states markedly more industrialized than their Southern counterparts. Industrialization played a crucial role in the war’s outcome by providing the North with significant advantages in terms of production capacity and technological innovation. The North was home to approximately 110,000 factories, nearly ten times the number located in the South. This massive industrial base produced 97 percent of the country’s firearms, 96 percent of its railroad locomotives, and 94 percent of its cloth, thereby granting the Union armies unparalleled access to vital resources and supplies essential for waging a prolonged conflict.

The North’s industrial prowess also facilitated the efficient production of war materiel, including weapons, ammunition, and uniforms, which were produced on an unprecedented scale to equip the Union’s expanding military forces. Additionally, technological advancements characteristic of the Industrial Revolution, such as the telegraph and railroad, were harnessed effectively by the North to coordinate and support their military operations, thereby contributing substantially to their ultimate victory.

Economic Policies and Stability

The economic stability of the North also underpinned its war effort. While the Confederacy struggled financially, the Union implemented effective economic policies to fund its military campaign. The Legal Tender Act of 1862, for instance, authorized the issuance of paper money, or “greenbacks,” which were crucial for financing the war. Furthermore, the National Banking Acts stabilized the currency and encouraged the sale of government bonds, providing the necessary fiscal support for the Union’s expansive military operations.

In contrast, the South faced insurmountable economic challenges, including rampant inflation, a lack of foreign credit, and a reliance on a mono-crop economy centered around cotton. The Union’s blockade of Southern ports further exacerbated these economic woes by restricting trade and limiting the Confederacy’s ability to leverage its “Cotton Diplomacy” strategy aimed at garnering European support. Consequently, the Southern economy was severely strained, undermining the Confederacy’s ability to sustain its war effort over time.

Superior Infrastructure

Railroads and transportation.

The Northern states boasted a more extensive and sophisticated network of railroads compared to the South, significantly aiding their war efforts. At the onset of the war, the North possessed approximately 22,000 miles of railroad tracks, while the South had roughly 9,000 miles. This vast transportation network facilitated the rapid and efficient movement of troops, equipment, and supplies, which was vital for conducting military operations across the expansive theater of war.

Beyond quantitative differences, the quality and strategic value of the railroads also favored the North. Northern rail lines were more technologically advanced, better maintained, and connected to crucial ports, factories, and urban centers. This superior rail infrastructure allowed the Union to effectively mobilize and sustain its military forces, conduct strategic troop movements, and ensure a steady flow of supplies and reinforcements to the front lines.

Telegraph System

The telegraph system, another pivotal technological advantage for the North, played a crucial role in communication and coordination during the war. With over 15,000 miles of telegraph lines, the Union leadership could transmit orders and receive reports in real-time, greatly enhancing their ability to command and control their forces across distant battlefields. The telegraph was an indispensable tool for the coordination of large-scale operations and the dissemination of critical intelligence, significantly contributing to the North’s operational efficiency and strategic planning.

In comparison, the South’s telegraph network was less developed and less extensive. The Confederacy struggled to establish effective lines of communication, which hampered their ability to coordinate military operations and respond to the dynamic challenges of the war. The disparity in communication infrastructure ultimately placed the Southern forces at a significant disadvantage, as they could not match the North’s command, control, and communication capabilities.

Larger Population & Manpower

Population disparities.

The North’s larger population was a decisive factor in its victory over the South. At the start of the Civil War, the Union had a population of about 22 million people, compared to the Confederate states’ 9 million, of whom 3.5 million were enslaved. This significant demographic advantage provided the Union with a larger pool of military-aged men eligible for conscription, enabling them to field and sustain larger armies over the course of the war. In addition to supplying military personnel, the North’s population also supported the war effort through labor in factories and farms, sustaining the economic productivity and output essential for financing and supplying a prolonged military conflict.

Immigrant Contribution

Immigrants in the North also played a significant role in the Civil War, further amplifying the Union’s demographic advantage. Many immigrants, particularly from Europe, were drawn to the industrialized Northern states in search of employment and economic opportunities. These immigrant communities not only contributed to the North’s economic vitality but also provided valuable human resources for the Union Army. Approximately 25% of the Union military personnel were foreign-born, underscoring the crucial role that immigrants played in bolstering the North’s military strength. Immigrant soldiers and officers brought with them a diversity of skills, experiences, and perspectives, enriching the Union forces and contributing to their effectiveness on the battlefield.

On the contrary, the Confederacy had a smaller immigrant population. The South’s socio-economic structure and reliance on slave labor were less attractive to immigrants, resulting in a less diverse and smaller pool of military and civilian manpower. This demographic disparity further tilted the balance in favor of the Union, providing them with the human resources necessary to wage and win the Civil War.

Effective Strategies & Leadership

Northern military strategies.

The Union adopted comprehensive and effective military strategies that were crucial to their success. One of the paramount plans was the Anaconda Plan, formulated by Union General Winfield Scott. The strategy aimed to suffocate the Southern economy and military by blockading Confederate ports, gaining control of the Mississippi River, and capturing Richmond, the Confederate capital. This plan, though criticized initially, proved to be a blueprint for victory as it systematically weakened the Confederacy’s economic and military capabilities.

Besides, the North’s military strategy evolved over time, adapting to the challenges and dynamics of the war. The Union leadership adopted a strategy of “total war” during the latter stages of the conflict, targeting not only Confederate military assets but also economic resources and civilian infrastructure that supported the rebellion. Led by generals like Ulysses S. Grant and William Tecumseh Sherman, this approach aimed to demoralize the Confederate civilian population, undermine support for the rebellion, and expedite the war’s conclusion, ultimately contributing to the North’s victory.

Effective leadership was another vital component of the North’s success. Abraham Lincoln, the 16th President of the United States, provided steadfast and sagacious leadership during the nation’s most perilous hours. Lincoln’s commitment to preserving the Union, his ability to navigate the complex political landscape, and his adept management of the war effort were instrumental in securing victory for the North. Under his guidance, the Union developed and implemented military and political strategies that effectively addressed the challenges posed by the rebellion and set the stage for the reconstruction of the nation following the war.

In the military sphere, the North was served by competent and innovative generals who played pivotal roles in achieving victory. Leaders like Grant and Sherman were not only skilled military tacticians but also understood the broader strategic and political dimensions of the war. Their leadership, combined with the North’s superior resources and manpower, facilitated the successful execution of the Union’s war strategy, culminating in the surrender of Confederate forces and the preservation of the United States.

Internal Divisions in the Confederacy

Political divisions.

Internal divisions within the Confederate states further exacerbated their challenges during the Civil War. Politically, the Confederacy was marked by significant disagreements and conflicts among its leadership. The foundational principle of states’ rights, while central to the Confederacy’s formation, also undermined its ability to wage a coordinated and effective war effort. Individual states often resisted the central government’s attempts to exert control and coordinate resources, leading to inefficiencies and disruptions in the Confederate war effort. President Jefferson Davis faced constant political opposition and struggled to establish a unified and effective government to support the military campaigns.

Economic and Social Divisions

Moreover, economic and social divisions within the Confederate states played a role in their downfall. The Southern economy was predominantly agrarian, relying heavily on a small elite class of plantation owners who held significant economic and political power. This socio-economic structure created disparities and tensions among different social classes in the Confederacy, leading to internal strife and a lack of broad-based support for the war effort. The reliance on enslaved labor was another source of internal tension, as the Confederacy’s commitment to slavery alienated potential European allies and created moral and political dilemmas that complicated the South’s position in the war.

The internal divisions in the Confederacy – political, economic, and social – contributed to a lack of unity and coordination in their war effort. These internal conflicts weakened the Confederacy’s ability to respond to the Union’s military campaigns effectively, ultimately playing a role in the North’s victory in the Civil War.

The North’s victory in the American Civil War can be attributed to a convergence of factors that collectively contributed to its military and strategic advantage over the Confederacy. The North’s economic strength, derived from its industrialization and sound economic policies, provided the essential resources and financial support required for a prolonged and exhaustive war. The superior infrastructure, particularly in railroads and telegraph systems, facilitated efficient communication, troop movement, and supply distribution, enhancing the Union’s operational effectiveness on the battlefield.

Additionally, the significant population disparity between the North and the South provided the Union with a larger pool of military and civilian manpower, with immigrants playing a crucial role in supplementing the North’s forces. Effective and adaptive military strategies, coupled with strong and resilient leadership from figures like Abraham Lincoln, Ulysses S. Grant, and William Tecumseh Sherman, guided the North through the war’s many challenges and were instrumental in achieving victory.

The Confederacy, while resilient and determined, was ultimately undermined by internal divisions and inconsistencies in political, economic, and social spheres. These internal struggles, coupled with the North’s overwhelming advantages in resources and strategy, led to the eventual downfall of the Confederate states and the preservation of the Union. Understanding these multifaceted factors that led to the North’s victory is crucial for a comprehensive appreciation of the American Civil War and its enduring impact on the nation’s history and identity.

• History Classics
• Your Profile
• Find History on Facebook (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on Twitter (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on YouTube (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on Instagram (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on TikTok (Opens in a new window)
• This Day In History
• History Podcasts
• History Vault

By: History.com Editors

Updated: April 20, 2023 | Original: October 15, 2009

The Civil War in the United States began in 1861, after decades of simmering tensions between northern and southern states over slavery, states’ rights and westward expansion. The election of Abraham Lincoln in 1860 caused seven southern states to secede and form the Confederate States of America; four more states soon joined them. The War Between the States, as the Civil War was also known, ended in Confederate surrender in 1865. The conflict was the costliest and deadliest war ever fought on American soil, with some 620,000 of 2.4 million soldiers killed, millions more injured and much of the South left in ruin.

Causes of the Civil War

In the mid-19th century, while the United States was experiencing an era of tremendous growth, a fundamental economic difference existed between the country’s northern and southern regions.

In the North, manufacturing and industry was well established, and agriculture was mostly limited to small-scale farms, while the South’s economy was based on a system of large-scale farming that depended on the labor of Black enslaved people to grow certain crops, especially cotton and tobacco.

Growing abolitionist sentiment in the North after the 1830s and northern opposition to slavery’s extension into the new western territories led many southerners to fear that the existence of slavery in America —and thus the backbone of their economy—was in danger.

Did you know? Confederate General Thomas Jonathan Jackson earned his famous nickname, "Stonewall," from his steadfast defensive efforts in the First Battle of Bull Run (First Manassas). At Chancellorsville, Jackson was shot by one of his own men, who mistook him for Union cavalry. His arm was amputated, and he died from pneumonia eight days later.

In 1854, the U.S. Congress passed the Kansas-Nebraska Act , which essentially opened all new territories to slavery by asserting the rule of popular sovereignty over congressional edict. Pro- and anti-slavery forces struggled violently in “ Bleeding Kansas ,” while opposition to the act in the North led to the formation of the Republican Party , a new political entity based on the principle of opposing slavery’s extension into the western territories. After the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Dred Scott case (1857) confirmed the legality of slavery in the territories, the abolitionist John Brown’s raid at Harper’s Ferry in 1859 convinced more and more southerners that their northern neighbors were bent on the destruction of the “peculiar institution” that sustained them. Abraham Lincoln ’s election in November 1860 was the final straw, and within three months seven southern states—South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana and Texas—had seceded from the United States.

Outbreak of the Civil War (1861)

Even as Lincoln took office in March 1861, Confederate forces threatened the federal-held Fort Sumter in Charleston, South Carolina. On April 12, after Lincoln ordered a fleet to resupply Sumter, Confederate artillery fired the first shots of the Civil War. Sumter’s commander, Major Robert Anderson, surrendered after less than two days of bombardment, leaving the fort in the hands of Confederate forces under Pierre G.T. Beauregard. Four more southern states—Virginia, Arkansas, North Carolina and Tennessee—joined the Confederacy after Fort Sumter. Border slave states like Missouri, Kentucky and Maryland did not secede, but there was much Confederate sympathy among their citizens.

Though on the surface the Civil War may have seemed a lopsided conflict, with the 23 states of the Union enjoying an enormous advantage in population, manufacturing (including arms production) and railroad construction, the Confederates had a strong military tradition, along with some of the best soldiers and commanders in the nation. They also had a cause they believed in: preserving their long-held traditions and institutions, chief among these being slavery.

In the First Battle of Bull Run (known in the South as First Manassas) on July 21, 1861, 35,000 Confederate soldiers under the command of Thomas Jonathan “Stonewall” Jackson forced a greater number of Union forces (or Federals) to retreat towards Washington, D.C., dashing any hopes of a quick Union victory and leading Lincoln to call for 500,000 more recruits. In fact, both sides’ initial call for troops had to be widened after it became clear that the war would not be a limited or short conflict.

The Civil War in Virginia (1862)

George B. McClellan —who replaced the aging General Winfield Scott as supreme commander of the Union Army after the first months of the war—was beloved by his troops, but his reluctance to advance frustrated Lincoln. In the spring of 1862, McClellan finally led his Army of the Potomac up the peninsula between the York and James Rivers, capturing Yorktown on May 4. The combined forces of Robert E. Lee and Jackson successfully drove back McClellan’s army in the Seven Days’ Battles (June 25-July 1), and a cautious McClellan called for yet more reinforcements in order to move against Richmond. Lincoln refused, and instead withdrew the Army of the Potomac to Washington. By mid-1862, McClellan had been replaced as Union general-in-chief by Henry W. Halleck, though he remained in command of the Army of the Potomac.

Lee then moved his troops northwards and split his men, sending Jackson to meet Pope’s forces near Manassas, while Lee himself moved separately with the second half of the army. On August 29, Union troops led by John Pope struck Jackson’s forces in the Second Battle of Bull Run (Second Manassas). The next day, Lee hit the Federal left flank with a massive assault, driving Pope’s men back towards Washington. On the heels of his victory at Manassas, Lee began the first Confederate invasion of the North. Despite contradictory orders from Lincoln and Halleck, McClellan was able to reorganize his army and strike at Lee on September 14 in Maryland, driving the Confederates back to a defensive position along Antietam Creek, near Sharpsburg.

On September 17, the Army of the Potomac hit Lee’s forces (reinforced by Jackson’s) in what became the war’s bloodiest single day of fighting. Total casualties at the Battle of Antietam (also known as the Battle of Sharpsburg) numbered 12,410 of some 69,000 troops on the Union side, and 13,724 of around 52,000 for the Confederates. The Union victory at Antietam would prove decisive, as it halted the Confederate advance in Maryland and forced Lee to retreat into Virginia. Still, McClellan’s failure to pursue his advantage earned him the scorn of Lincoln and Halleck, who removed him from command in favor of Ambrose E. Burnside . Burnside’s assault on Lee’s troops near Fredericksburg on December 13 ended in heavy Union casualties and a Confederate victory; he was promptly replaced by Joseph “Fighting Joe” Hooker , and both armies settled into winter quarters across the Rappahannock River from each other.

After the Emancipation Proclamation (1863-4)

Lincoln had used the occasion of the Union victory at Antietam to issue a preliminary Emancipation Proclamation , which freed all enslaved people in the rebellious states after January 1, 1863. He justified his decision as a wartime measure, and did not go so far as to free the enslaved people in the border states loyal to the Union. Still, the Emancipation Proclamation deprived the Confederacy of the bulk of its labor forces and put international public opinion strongly on the Union side. Some 186,000 Black Civil War soldiers would join the Union Army by the time the war ended in 1865, and 38,000 lost their lives.

In the spring of 1863, Hooker’s plans for a Union offensive were thwarted by a surprise attack by the bulk of Lee’s forces on May 1, whereupon Hooker pulled his men back to Chancellorsville. The Confederates gained a costly victory in the Battle of Chancellorsville , suffering 13,000 casualties (around 22 percent of their troops); the Union lost 17,000 men (15 percent). Lee launched another invasion of the North in June, attacking Union forces commanded by General George Meade on July 1 near Gettysburg, in southern Pennsylvania. Over three days of fierce fighting, the Confederates were unable to push through the Union center, and suffered casualties of close to 60 percent.

Meade failed to counterattack, however, and Lee’s remaining forces were able to escape into Virginia, ending the last Confederate invasion of the North. Also in July 1863, Union forces under Ulysses S. Grant took Vicksburg (Mississippi) in the Siege of Vicksburg , a victory that would prove to be the turning point of the war in the western theater. After a Confederate victory at Chickamauga Creek, Georgia, just south of Chattanooga, Tennessee, in September, Lincoln expanded Grant’s command, and he led a reinforced Federal army (including two corps from the Army of the Potomac) to victory in the Battle of Chattanooga in late November.

Toward a Union Victory (1864-65)

In March 1864, Lincoln put Grant in supreme command of the Union armies, replacing Halleck. Leaving William Tecumseh Sherman in control in the West, Grant headed to Washington, where he led the Army of the Potomac towards Lee’s troops in northern Virginia. Despite heavy Union casualties in the Battle of the Wilderness and at Spotsylvania (both May 1864), at Cold Harbor (early June) and the key rail center of Petersburg (June), Grant pursued a strategy of attrition, putting Petersburg under siege for the next nine months.

Sherman outmaneuvered Confederate forces to take Atlanta by September, after which he and some 60,000 Union troops began the famous “March to the Sea,” devastating Georgia on the way to capturing Savannah on December 21. Columbia and Charleston, South Carolina, fell to Sherman’s men by mid-February, and Jefferson Davis belatedly handed over the supreme command to Lee, with the Confederate war effort on its last legs. Sherman pressed on through North Carolina, capturing Fayetteville, Bentonville, Goldsboro and Raleigh by mid-April.

Meanwhile, exhausted by the Union siege of Petersburg and Richmond, Lee’s forces made a last attempt at resistance, attacking and captured the Federal-controlled Fort Stedman on March 25. An immediate counterattack reversed the victory, however, and on the night of April 2-3 Lee’s forces evacuated Richmond. For most of the next week, Grant and Meade pursued the Confederates along the Appomattox River, finally exhausting their possibilities for escape. Grant accepted Lee’s surrender at Appomattox Court House on April 9. On the eve of victory, the Union lost its great leader: The actor and Confederate sympathizer John Wilkes Booth assassinated President Lincoln at Ford’s Theatre in Washington on April 14. Sherman received Johnston’s surrender at Durham Station, North Carolina on April 26, effectively ending the Civil War.

HISTORY Vault: The Secret History of the Civil War

The American Civil War is one of the most studied and dissected events in our history—but what you don't know may surprise you.

Sign up for Inside History

Get HISTORY’s most fascinating stories delivered to your inbox three times a week.

By submitting your information, you agree to receive emails from HISTORY and A+E Networks. You can opt out at any time. You must be 16 years or older and a resident of the United States.

More details : Privacy Notice | Terms of Use | Contact Us

Home — Essay Samples — War — American Civil War — How The North Won The Civil War

How The North Won The Civil War

• Categories: American Civil War Civil War

About this sample

Words: 1061 |

Published: Dec 16, 2021

Words: 1061 | Pages: 2 | 6 min read

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Prof. Kifaru

Verified writer

• Expert in: War History

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

3 pages / 1580 words

8 pages / 3679 words

2 pages / 1097 words

5 pages / 2483 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on American Civil War

Ralph Waldo Emerson's work has long been the subject of academic analysis and interpretation. However, much of his work is often misunderstood, leading to misinterpretations and myths about his philosophies, particularly [...]

War is a complex and unpredictable phenomenon, and the fog of war adds another layer of uncertainty to an already difficult situation. The fog of war refers to the uncertainty and confusion that arises during military [...]

The American Civil War was a transformative event in the nation's history, with slavery and its economic and political implications at its core. The war exposed the deep divisions between the North and the South and ultimately [...]

The Civil War, fought from 1861 to 1865, had a profound impact on American history, shaping political, economic, and social aspects of the nation. This essay will explore the causes of the Civil War, the course of the war, and [...]

In his book, "Apostles of Disunion: Southern Secession Commissioners and the Causes of the Civil War," Charles B. Dew seeks to unravel the complex motivations and ideologies behind the secession of the Southern states leading up [...]

Many consider Robert E. Lee a great general and while some do not support the cause he was fighting for they must give credit where credit is due. Lee was a natural leader who took control and led the southern army to great [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

• Instant Articles
• Warfare History

To Preserve the Union: 6 Advantages That Helped the North Win the Civil War

There is a lot of conjecture over why the American Civil War ended the way it did. The truth is there is no one reason why the North “won” the Civil War. Like any war, the end result is based on who came out ahead, and who met their goals. If that is the base definition of victory, then the North won. The Union was reunited, and the beginnings of the end of forced Slavery were starting to take hold (the 13th Amendment wasn’t ratified until the end of 1865).

But as with every major conflict in history, it wasn’t that simple. The war may have ended at Appomattox Courthouse in April of 1865 (fighting would continue for another month in the South), but the rebuilding of the nation would take decades. In this article, we’re going to look at the reasons behind why the war ended as it did while keeping in mind that the end result isn’t as simple as “The North won the Civil War,” and that while we list many reasons, this is not all-inclusive.

Industrial Strength

What you must understand about the economy prior to the outbreak of the Civil War was that it was in a period of transition. While the British had undergone the Industrial Revolution several decades prior, it was still very much ongoing in the United States in 1860. While the North had transitioned significantly to a more industrial economy, the South was very much still an agricultural society, growing things like cotton and tobacco . It is very hard to win a war without munitions, especially when warfare had transitioned away from swords and arrows.

As we’ll talk more about in the next section, the South relied heavily on exports for its non-agricultural goods. They simply did not have the manufacturing strength the North had in 1860, which led to a host of problems over the next five years.

In 1860, depending on what report you read, the North made up 80 to 95% of the United States’ industrial production . The one that made a huge difference was guns. As you might correctly assume, guns were going to be a very important part of fighting any conflict between the states, and when you learn that the North produced an estimated 32 times as many guns as the South did in 1860, you can understand how the South was at such a disadvantage from the start.

That being said, of course, the South did manage to overcome that disadvantage in some ways. Seeing as they needed to start building their own munitions and other industrial products, the South built an industrial economy from the ground up. By the end of the war, the gap between the North and the South in terms of industrial strength had closed, though it was still significant.

NEXT >>

Exports, Imports, and Banks

While this is closely related to the section before, it deserves a section on its own. It is often quoted as being a huge reason why the North won the Civil War. When it comes right down to it, the North relied less on imports than the South did. There are many statistics that support this. While the South had to create a manufacturing industry from the ground up (and import anything they didn’t produce), the North had the manufacturing strength already in place .

Products like iron, leather, firearms, and woolen textiles are all areas that the North had a significant advantage in. What does this really mean outside of not having their own supplies? The answer comes down to money.

The North controlled the majority of the nation’s wealth in 1860. Depending on where you get your statistics, the numbers range anywhere from 65% to nearly 85% of U.S. money was located above the Mason-Dixon line . While the Northern government could raise tons of money by raising taxes and tariffs, the South had to struggle to do the same. Some of this came down to existing structure, which we’ll talk about in another section, but a lot of it came down to banks.

The North had the majority of the nation’s banks in 1860. Depending on which sources you look at, the South had between 10 and 20 percent of the nation’s banks at the beginning of the war. This meant less money in the economy, therefore less money to lend and tax. Money is almost always one of the most important factors in any war, and the South was at a huge disadvantage directly from the start.

By the time the war was going full force, the South was stymied by a Northern blockade, which caused imports and exports to fall nearly 80% by some sources. This meant even less money coming into the government to support the war effort.

<< Previous

Railroads and Transportation

If you’re going to conduct a war, transport is very important. By the time of the Civil War, rail transportation had been going strong in the North for nearly 50 years. The earliest railways were built in the North, and the industry continued to flourish there. In the South, meanwhile, they relied heavily on rivers for long-distance transport. Obviously, railroads can be placed nearly anywhere, while rivers are fixed. In 1860, the South only had around 30% of the nation’s railroads .

This was obviously an advantage for the North. Another was that because most of the fighting took place in the South, what railroads there were, were often subject to damage and sabotage. Of course, the North wasn’t immune to this as well, but you can imagine that the sheer number of battles that took place in the South, there was much more chance for Southern railroads to become targets.

Transport is a huge thing when it comes to war. It influences everything from the economy of the state to their ability to move supplies and troops around. As you might expect, with a larger number of railroads in the North, the North found it easier to move their troops around.

However, that isn’t really the advantage the North had. The true disadvantage was the lack of a proper railroading system in the South. With less coverage for rail lines at the beginning of the war, the South was forced to move troops and supplies by slower more tedious means.

Locomotives and railways were significant factors in the Civil War . Often times locomotives would be sent to reconnoiter enemy strongholds. With a top speed at the time, it was less risky for a locomotive to take on this task as it could outrun any cavalry. This made them even bigger targets as both sides sought to remove such advantages from their enemies.

Population and Immigration

A larger force has a significantly higher chance of winning against a smaller force. And while there are innumerable instances throughout history that challenges that idea, for the most part, if you go into a battle with more people, you’re going to have a higher chance of winning. So is it any surprise really that when you discover that the North had a significant population advantage over the South that the South had a problem keeping up? The North could afford to lose more people, could afford to send more soldiers to a particular area (even if they had lost that area in battle before), and they could perform in more theaters of war at once with more people than the South ever could.

In the North, the population in 1860 was nearly 22 million, while in the South it was merely 9 million. Of those 9 million, only 5 million or so were white. When you consider half of those numbers are female, you have a considerable advantage for the Union.

When we look at the numbers of actual fighting men, we see that advantage realized. During the duration of the war, the Union put forth 2,128,948 soldiers into battle. That number varies based on what source you look at. Some are closer to three million for the North, while others have closer to 1.8 million. For the South, numbers are also varied, but all point to their numbers coming in at about half of the Union’s fighting forces (anywhere between 750,000 and 1.2 million).

One of the reasons why the North had such a population advantage was that the vast majority of immigrants settled there . The numbers again vary depending on sources, ranging from 80 to 90 percent. When you consider that the majority of immigrants that did come into the South were slaves, it makes these numbers even less surprising.

Naval Strength

This point is a bit murkier, and is less arguable on the side of the North, in some places. In terms of Naval Strength at the beginning of the war, you have to define what you mean. Neither the Union nor the Confederacy had real warships that you could use to fight the war. At the start of 1860, the North had 50 (decrepit is a word used to describe them most often) ships, but none of them fell into the category of “ warship ,” at least in terms of what you’d see near the end of the war. The South had nothing, as they were basically starting from scratch.

Playing into this, however, was something we already talked about: manufacturing strength. Because the North was able to manufacture their own vessels because of already existing infrastructure, they had quite an advantage over the South who had to both import vessels and build an infrastructure to manufacture their own navy, something that took a lot of time.

Now, as we said at the beginning of this part, this isn’t as clear-cut as you might expect. The main reason was that what advantage the Union started off with was offset by some brilliant strategy and an amazing ability to catch up by the South. While the North had an advantage of population, that didn’t translate to a large navy as it did with the army. This put them on much more equal fronts than what was usual for the other fronts of the war.

In the end, it is debatable how much of an influence the Navy had on the outcome of the Civil War. It was incredibly important, but the war of the sea was very much a war of attrition, though the battles were awe-inspiring, the most efficient use of their navies once established was using them to blockade and attack merchant ships, affecting the economies of both the North and the South.

Political Establishment

If we had to choose the two biggest factors in the ultimate outcome of the American Civil War, the economy and political establishment might be the most important. The Confederacy was not a government prior to secession. The government didn’t exist at all until February 1961, just two months before fighting officially started. That means they had no tax structure, no military structure, and no constitution.

They were very quick to catch up, despite the hardships they faced. The Confederacy ratified a constitution within a year (it was actually written and passed in March 1861 , just a month after the founding of the government). They created and passed laws quickly, and they used their power to start officially bringing together militias to form their army.

That all being said, the North already had all of that. Moreover, their tax base was larger, allowing for more income, their banking system was more robust, and they had a much large cache of laws that allowed them to prosecute a war much quicker.

The downside is that the North did not take the Southern states seriously at first. Or, putting it more accurately, they assumed that any rebellion could be put down quickly, which would allow the country to come together once more. They were wrong. This caught the North flatfooted, and forced President Lincoln to significantly increase the Union army numbers (500,000 were called up in the first draw after several embarrassing losses).

In the end, however, the already established Union government held the advantage once it got its act together. There was less political rivalry, and rules of government that the South had to create from scratch (though they used established ideas for most of it). This allowed for more cohesive decisions once the war went into its second year. The Confederates would be well-led, though, so it did take away some of the advantages of the North.

Read Next: What if South Won the Civil War? – 4 Hypothetical Scenarios .

Why Did The North Win The Civil War Essay

The Civil War was the result of uncompromising differences between the free and slave states over the power to prohibit slavery in the territories that had not yet become states. When Abraham Lincoln won the election in 1860, as the first Republican president on a platform promising to keep slavery out of the territories, seven slave states in the deep South seceded and formed a new nation, the Confederate States of America. Military during the Civil War was off, but equalled out in terms of stats, North having better leadership and South having better weapons. As the United States expanded westward, two new territories were created from the issue of slavery in the United States. The U.S. government let the two new territories decide whether or not to allow slavery. Since it was up to the people to decide on slavery, Northern abolitionists lured anti-slavery supporters to move into the new territories and vote to make Kansas and Nebraska free states. Southern pro-slavery supporters did exactly as the North did to make Kansas and Nebraska slave states. The two sides clashed with one another and created a battlefield in Kansas. …show more content…

Political parties were splitting along North and South lines and even violence was becoming an issue in congress itself. Before the election of 1860, Southerners had already agreed that if a republican wins the election, they would leave the Union. As it came to be, Lincoln, a republican, was elected and the south truly did leave the Union. During the four months, before President Lincoln's inauguration, President James Buchanan did nothing to stop the secession. It may be even concluded that he was sympathetic to the Southern cause. South Carolina was the first state to secede from the Union, and by February 1861 seven more southern states followed South Carolina's

Reasons For The Compromise Of 1850

One of the key reasons was because of Lincoln’s presidential victory during the election of 1860. Once Lincoln seized victory over Douglas, South Carolina viewed it as a final sign to abandon the Union. To display their resistance towards the newly elected president’s efforts, the entire state delegation resigned on seceded on the same year. News began to spread quickly about the disseverment of the Union. In less than two months after South Carolina’s succession, seven states of the lower South—South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Georgia, Alabama, Texas, and, Louisiana—had seceded.

Civil War Dbq

The Union, also known as the Northern States, wanted to ban slavery, but the Confederacy, or the Southern States, wanted slavery to remain legal. When President Lincoln was elected, the Confederacy decided to secede from the Union in fear that Lincoln would ban slavery. Their secession led to the outbreak of the Civil War. In the end, the Union ended up winning the war due

Why The South Lost The Civil War Essay

The Civil War was a monumental bloodshed, which was fought between the United States of America and the Confederate States, from 1861 to 1865. The primary cause of the war was the Southern states' desire to preserve the institution of slavery, which did not please the beliefs of the North. At the beginning of the Civil War, twenty-two million people lived in the North and 9 million people, which included four million of whom were slaves, lived in the South. The North, led by President Abraham Lincoln and his trusted generals, had more money, more factories, more horses, more railroads, and more food than the south. These advantages made the United States much more powerful than the Confederate States, which ultimately led to Northern victory.

When Was The Civil War A Turning Point Essay

The Confederacy seceded from the Union and formed their own country with their own system of Government. The war’s main conflict however was the idea of slavery. The Confederacy thrived on slavery due to their agricultural lifestyle while the Union wanted to due away with and wanted freedom and equality for all. This led to a major disparity amongst political parties. The president at the time, Lincoln, was a Republican who denounced slavery in many ways including both socially and politically.

Essay On Why The North Won The Civil War

The North had beaten the South in the Civil War. The North won the war for many reasons; they had some advantages over the South, a great leader, and the desire to win. The North and South fought many battles before the Civil War ended. Each battle had a different outcome and some encouraging the fight and some ended in despair.

How Did Slavery Cause Secession

‘Slavery was the root cause of secession’. ‘November 6 1860, Lincoln was elected president of America which resulted in panic emerging in the South’ . The election of Lincoln as president who was a Republican leader meant that ideologies, movements and values from the North would be implemented in the South which meant the abolition of slavery. Slavery was a huge characteristic of the South as the economy; politics; social status and psychological mind-sets were influenced by the process of slavery. The southern white population then derived the idea of secession which meant the South would gain independence from Northern aggression .

Long Term Effects Of The Civil War

Secession had been considered for years earlier but officially took place when Abraham Lincoln was elected as the President of the United States in 1860. Lincoln’s main aim was to preserve the Union but the South was upset because Lincoln was against slavery and in the end cherished abolishing slavery. South Carolina almost instantly seceded from the Union after the presidential election and built the Confederate States of America at which point other southern states soon linked. However, there were many causes leading up to South Carolina seceding from the Union. Each state was likely a set of duties they were to fulfill to continue their existence as sovereign states.

The Civil War: The Dred Scott Decision

By March 1861, seven southern states seceded before the inauguration of President Lincoln. They seceded for a number of reasons, but not for any of the following reasons. The Dred Scott decision was an event that did not influence the decision to secede, since in the end, Dred Scott and his family remained as slaves (despite having lived in a Slave state and a Free state). Then, while important, the Wilmot Proviso had no contribution to the secession of the South. While it did address the controversy of the issue of slavery in new states, both of it‘s propositions were turned down and had no effect.

Compare And Contrast The American Revolution And The Civil War

After the election of Abraham Lincoln in 1860 and the rise of the Republican party, Southerners feared the tipping of the balance of political power against them; their need for self-determination parallel the colonists’ belief of rebelling against the oppressive government of Great Britain. However, the Civil War represented something more: the clash of the feudalistic, agrarian South with the industrialized, capitalistic North. These two powers differed socially, politically, and economically, and were especially conflicted over slavery. These two sections of the United States were divided against one another, and could not survive this way. Therefore, it is more accurate to state that though the Civil War resembled some aspects of the American Revolution, it was a clash between two forces who could not exist with one another in their current state, leading inevitably to conflict between the

How Did The Civil War Change Americans And Their Ideals

The American Civil War changed Americans and their ideals about freedom in many ways. Northern and Southern United states began to have simmering tensions for the states’ rights versus federal authority, plus westward expansion, and slavery had huge effects on the states. An election which made anti-slavery Republican Abraham Lincoln the president of the United States of America in 1860, caused seven of the southern states to concede from the Union to make The Confederate States Of America soon after four more joined afterwards. It changed Americans in many ways as neighbors fought each other through the 4 gruesome years of the war. Conflict between the sides were like fights between brother and brother instead with many deaths.

Cause Of Civil War Essay

This ended in the South Carolina seceding from the Union before his inaugural address took place. The rest of the pro-slavery states followed soon after and he Confederacy was formed. In conclusion, the Civil War had three main

Three Main Causes Of Civil War

Secession- the act of pulling out of the union. By 1861 many southerners felt the need to secede. On December 20, 1860, South Carolina voted to secede. By February 1861 Florida, Mississippi, Alabama, Texas and Louisiana had voted to secede and formed the confederate state of America.

Why Was The Civil War Inevitable

After the efforts to gain independence from Britain and the creation of the United States of America, eighty years later this union was not so united. When the Civil War broke out in 1861, it was the first time that Americans fought Americans. Among many reasons, the Civil War is known to be a result of the arguments over the delineation of the States’ Rights or the presidential election of Abraham Lincoln. In actuality, the Civil War, the most deadly war in American history, was due to disputes over slavery in the American territories. Therefore, the Civil War was inevitable because of the consequences that occurred one being slavery.

Discuss The Causes Of The Civil War Dbq

Uncompromising differences between the South (Confederacy) and the North (Union) created a civil war that lasted five years. During this war, Abraham Lincoln was president. His election led to the secession of many Southern states. After refusing to recognize the Confederacy as its own nation, the American Civil War commenced in 1861. The three main causes of the Civil War between the North and the South were industrial and agricultural economies, politics, and slavery.

Southern Nationalism In The Civil War

Constitution and altered it by explicitly protecting the institution of slavery. This peculiar institution was what made the Confederacy unique. Sectionalism over economic, social, political, and constitutional issues regarding slavery continued from Buchanan’s inauguration in 1857 until secession after Lincoln’s election in 1860. “The expansion of slavery into western territories provided the catalyst for the growing perceptions of northerners and southerners that they held different intentions of the republic’s future.” “In the South, loyalty to slavery and its required expansion became the hallmark of party politics as the region’s politicians—Whigs, Know-Nothing, and Democrat—competed to demonstrate their loyalty to southern rights.”

More about Why Did The North Win The Civil War Essay

Why Did The North Win The Civil War Essay

Show More The Civil War began in April 12, 1861, it was based on a dispute between the North and the South. The North was very wealthy compared to the South, the North depended on manufacturing in order to stay on top, while the South depended on agriculture. The South was very impecunious, since the South had a very small population compared to the North, due to that they did not have enough industries or people in order to make money. The North’s industries were very wealthy due to the fact that their large population. The South was penniless due to the opposite of the North, which is having a smaller population. In this case the North was “defeating” the South. The main topic they were concerned about was keeping slaves while the North wanted to abolish slavery . The North and South continued this argument until it ended April, 9 1865. The South wanted to keep slavery so …show more content… First of all, the North had a bigger population. Due to their massive population more people volunteered to join the war. Another reason the North had won the Civil War was because of their massive industries. The more industries they had the more money they made. They also had a railroad system so they could made trades much more easier. Since they had the railroad, it also helped them produce more money for the North because of mass-productions from the cause of factories. These were the main reason why the North won the Civil War. There are many reasons why the South in a way, lost in the Civil War. One of the first reasons, and also main reason, is because of their insufficient lack of funds. Since they did not have a lot of money they could not really support themselves in the war. Another reason is because of their small population. There were not enough people to make a decent army, so they were not able to outnumber the North. Those were some of the reasons why the South was not able to win the Civil

Related Documents

Why the south won reconstruction.

There were many hard fought battles in the Civil War. But, arguably the biggest battle the United States went through, was the Reconstruction of the Civil War. The North may have won the war, but the South got their fair share of victory during reconstruction. The South did everything in their power to make sure “equality” was only preserved for the white man even though slavery was abolished. Once a black man was considered a free slaved, the South would not try to accept change, rather, they refused to respect any freedoms given to a black man.…

Civil War Dbq Questions And Answers

Question 2 LEQ The Civil War was a war that lasted from 1861-1865 this was one of the most brutal and violent wars in American History. The war was composed of the South and the North, both of these territories belonged to the Union at the time. The South was known for their cotton and the North had a lot of factories and industrialization. The South required a lot of slaves to produce all that cotton.…

Advantages And Disadvantages Of The South In The Civil War

In fighting the North, Rebels were forced to fight with the Union’s significantly favored army and navy, as well as their stronger, newer technology and industrial equipment. The South, consisting of fewer states, and less territory, naturally had a smaller population to work with. Additionally, seeing that a large majority of that population consisted of slaves, who were not permitted to fight in the Confederate forces, this population of those fit to fight shrunk even smaller. The CSA, or Confederate States of America, led by Jefferson Davis, brought more disadvantages upon themselves by not only banning these slaves from joining the military, but also forcing them to continue the production of cotton. In doing so, the slaves could not assist in military and wartime matters such as building forts or making ammunition.…

Why Did The Confederacy Lose The Civil War?

How did the Confederate States of America lose the Civil War? Though a stimulating question that deserves contemporary debate, many historians claim the reason the Confederacy lost the war is based on southern resources, military strategy, civilian leadership or the institution of slavery. However, while all explanations can be classified as valid reasons as to why the Union won and the Confederacy lost, the case can be made that all four reasons were significant causes to the final result of the American Civil War. To start, the resources used by the Confederacy can be, more or less, attributed to the presence of slavery. At the beginning of the war, one third of the Confederate population consisted of slaves (Barney 148), and it can be…

What Were The Causes Of The Civil War Essay

In the beginning of the war the material advantages of the north were not as beneficial as they were later on in the war. " The South was for the most part, fighting a defensive war on its own land and thus had the advantage of local support and familiarity with the territory"(Brinkley 368). This meant that the north only had an advantage in size and most of the material advantage they had didn’t matter since they were fighting on the south 's…

The North's Role In The Cause Of The Civil War

Economic differences between the North and the South played a pivotal role in the cause of the Civil War. The North was industrialized, and their work depended on machines and manufacturers. They had long winters, and short summers, making it hard for them to use agriculture as their main source of economy. The North had five times the number of factories than the South, and over ten times the number of factory workers. In addition, 90% of the nation's skilled workers were in the North.…

Civil War DBQ

The Civil War was one of the most memorable and historical wars in America. The conflicting beliefs of the north and south lead to a war that consisted of at least 616,000 casualties. Originally, the war began in hopes to prevent the states of the south from leaving the Union of the U.S. States of the south seceded because of a difference of ideas regarding slavery. Some people believe that slavery was the primary cause of the Civil War, though slavery did play a major role in the upbringing of the civil war I do not believe that it was the dominant cause of the war. The first reason that I believe that the statement that the Civil War’s primary cause was slavery is incorrect is that the war began, to prevent disunion in the U.S but, slavery was only a factor that would cause disunion or secession of the south.…

Pros And Cons Of The Civil War

The civil war did not rely just on people. As the book states it relied on home fronts, population, economic strength, financial means, and citizen resolve. When comparing advantages it seemed like the north would win just because of the states difference. The north had 23 states compared to the 11 states in the south.…

Was The South Losing The Civil War Inevitable

The South losing the civil war was almost inevitable due to the fact that they had less of almost all resources, The confederates were out populated and the North had higher skilled leaders. Victory was nearly guaranteed for the North due to the Union having more resources. During the war the north had 120,000 factories while the south only had 21,000. With the greater amount of production they were able produce more weapons such as guns and cannons which contributed to the war effort.…

How Did Slavery Led To The Civil War

Slavery had always been an issue in the United States after their independence from Great Britain. Although both north and south had slaves, it was a bigger issue in the south. The reason for this is because the south was very agricultural. The issue of slavery brought many problems like making southerners believe that their institution of slavery was under attack by the republicans and Lincoln, debates before the civil war, and southerners believe they had to succeed. Southerners believed their institution of slavery was under attack by Lincoln and the republicans because the republicans did not believe in slavery.…

Essay On Why Did The North Win The Civil War

The reasons that the North won the Civil War was because blockade helped the North out. The Union had more men with which to fight and couldn’t afford to lose any men. This meant that not only was confederacy losing men to them being killed but, they also lost men to the prisons in two ways. The 1st one was that men become POWS (Prisoner Of War) and were not exchanged, so as to be likely to return to the battle line. The second one, was as prison guards.…

Separation Of The Northern States In The Late 19th Century

The northern states came out of the civil war already, to an extent, industrialized which gave people in the north an advantage in the new industrial world. With more people…

South Civil War Advantages

Therefore they had an abundance of trained military officers that could lead them to victory. They were also fighting a defensive war, meaning they were fighting on land they knew and were determined to defend. Although the South had these advantages that made them a staunch adversary of the North during the Civil War, the Union had a multitude of advantages over the…

Why Did The South Lose The Civil War Analysis

Why Did The South Lose The Civil War? The primary reason why the South lost the Civil War was because of their insistence upon retaining democratic liberties during wartime. The Union’s victory was then achieved because of their ability to suppress certain liberties for the greater good of the people. For instance, the Southern soldiers were disobedient and overconfident because the little guy had been able to achieve amazing victories in previous wars.…

Cause Of The Civil War Essay

Introduction The American Civil war occurred during the years 1861 – 1865, and as stated in the article titled “The Civil War”, it “was the cauldron that created modern America. The war preserved the Union, ending the possibility of the American nation dividing into two or more separate countries, in the process altering the nations politics and government, creating a strong presidency and an increasingly important federal infrastructure” (Finkelman sec. 1) However, the American Civil War did not come without coast, as wars never do, an estimated 620,000 men lost their lives in the line of duty. One of the many, yet major causes of this war, came about through slavery; and the standpoint that the northern states took, wanting to abolish slavery,…

Related Topics

• American Civil War
• Slavery in the United States
• Abraham Lincoln
• United States
• Southern United States

Ready To Get Started?

• Create Flashcards
• Mobile apps
•   Facebook
•   Twitter
• Cookie Settings

Essay about Did the North Win the Civil War before it Began?

Did the North Win the Civil War before it Began? I agree with the idea that the North had won the Civil War before it began to the extent of Lincoln’s conservative political stands. Trying to receive the favor of the South while winning in the North would require Lincoln to take neutral stands in heated political issues like slavery. It wasn’t really wan by the North until he broke away from these stands to enact the Emancipation Proclamation and turn the tides of war in favor of the North. “This Lincoln always publicly condemned the abolitionists who fought slavery by extra constitutional means – and condemned also the mobs who deprived them of their right of free speech and free press.” (Holfstadter, Lincoln and the Self-Made …show more content…

It would be like a baseball team fighting to protect their right to play with footballs. The South’s dominating strategy in winning the civil war was attrition. They believed they could wear down the political will of the North if they held out long enough to make the Northerners tired and question value of the means to achieve the ends. Military stalemates, guerilla war tactics and inconclusive battles would help the South achieve this goal. “Confederate armies did not have to invade and conquer the North: they needed only to hold out long enough to force the North to the conclusion that the price of conquering the South and annihilating its armies was too high, as Britain had concluded in 1781 and as the United States concluded…” (Why Did the Confederacy Lose?, pg 117)The South really enjoyed McClellan’s performance in the Southern theatre with his tendency to retreat when he could have won. This was another helpful hand the South would need to cause attrition. In response, Lincoln knew he had to do two things to prevent attrition and win the war more quickly. He needed to fire McClellan, and shift the theme of the war in the view of the North so that it would not lose its thunder. He did this by issuing the Emancipation Proclamation and converting the war for unionism into the war for morality. The

Abraham Lincoln: America's Greatest President Essay

• 3 Works Cited

Additionally, after Lincoln’s yearning to abolish slavery through his Emancipation Proclamation, and succeeding, Lincoln started to focus on his most important priority, to win the Civil War. Although Lincoln hated the deaths and destructions that war brought, he believed that this was the only solution to preserve the Union. This pacifist was the leader of the bloodiest war in American history with more than 45,000 total people being missing, wounded, captured, and killed. Furthermore, Lincoln was the foundation of the Union’s victorious military strategy and led the north to triumph. Lincoln’s strategy was a type that was based on destroying the opposing forces instead of conquering their territory. Also, he conducted the Union armies to attack the enemy on all fronts. These strategies would surely catch the opponents off guard and ultimately give the Union a win on their battle record. Similarly to playing lacrosse,

Was Northern Victory in the Civil War Inevitable? Essay

Several factors played in to the American Civil War that made it have the outcome that it did. Although the South had better trained officials due to their military school, the North was far more advanced than they. The North had the advantage over the South in several ways. However, the outcome of the Civil War was not inevitable: it was determined as much by human decisions and human willpower as by physical resources, although the North’s resources gave them an edge over the South.

Similarities Between Civil War And Reconstruction

The shift from a struggle to save the Union into a war to destruct slavery made the Civil War a true success. Lincoln changed the military strategies after realizing that simply seizing Southern territory would not bring the victory to the Union. He decided to defeat the South’s armies instead of seizing the capital. The Union concluded that slavery was the economic and social keystone of the Confederacy and to win the war the Union must take down the slavery institution (Give me liberty! 509). With the change of military strategies came the change of the Union policy on slavery. The Union general Daniel E. Sickles noted that Negroes were the ones who provided the Union with the most valuable and reliable information of the South’s military movements (Give me liberty! 513). Northerners claimed that emancipation would weaken the enemy’s ability to sustain the war. As a result, in 1863, Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation, which declared free more than 3 million slaves

Lincoln and the Republicans

• 7 Works Cited

The Civil War was a war that was fought over the civil and humane treatment of every person, regardless of their outward appearances. It left a scathing scar on the nation After the atrocities that were suffered in the Civil war, the nation need a way to heal it’s wounds and unite again. Lincoln had a battle of his own to fight within the congress for the Reconstruction of the nation, While Lincoln believed that the south had suffered enough and had a long road to recovery, the radical republicans wanted to punish the south. They believed that the act of secession by the southern states was treason and the penalties should be strict.

Why Did The North Win The Civil War?

First, the South couldn’t have won the civil war because state’s 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

American Civil War: The Southern Strategy

It can be said that the South began the Civil War from a winning position. They had declared their independence, formed their own country and government, and they needed only to keep what they already had. But this was a monumental task as the government was required to protect every inch of land within the Confederacy. As a new country, the Confederacy needed to demonstrate the ability to defend its own territory from external threat. Without this ability, the Confederacy could never receive the international recognition and support it needed to survive. Aside from this reason, the South also needed to protect the institution of slavery from outside interference. If the Northern armies took control of a particular Southern area, the Confederates felt that they would free all the slaves, thus destroying the entire structure of society and its economic value. Because of this, Jefferson Davis was forced to devise a flawed war strategy which attempted to preserve the entire Confederacy at the cost of concentrating his forces.

The Making of a Confederate

He defends the South’s position on slavery which is a deeply grounded belief. Abraham Lincoln describes this situation as a disagreement on the definition of liberty in his “Address at Sanitary Fair, Baltimore” (1864). He explains that liberty may mean “for each man to do as he pleases with himself, and the product of his labor; while with others the same word may mean for some men to do as they please with other men” (Forner 287). It is easy to see how this disagreement was heading in a catastrophic direction as the South continued to fight for the whole reason they came to America in the first place. The Confederates were willing to fight to death to defend their definition of freedom because the North winning the war equated to the very same thing in their minds; the end of their lives.

Essay on The Battle of Antietam

President Lincoln was thinking of taking a risky step to seal victory. At this point in time he came to the realization that he needed to move in a different direction. The strategic goal to restore the Union was not a good enough reason to keep the Northern states interested and behind the war.

Abraham Lincoln Book Summary

McPherson’s book on Abraham Lincoln is about his struggle as president to keep the union together. The book explained the different strategies, decisions, and speeches Lincoln used in order to keep the confederacy from seceding from the union. His timing on military strategy and national strategy helped the outcome of the revolution. McPherson also talks about the lives of African Americans after the Emancipation Proclamation was put into effect. The most believed reason for the Civil War was Lincoln’s decision to abolish slavery and the emancipation. McPherson discusses how this outraged the south, where slavery was necessary for the everyday functions of their plantations. Lincoln immediately had to defend his decision and himself. “Thus

McPherson and Hearn on Abraham Lincoln Essay

Although James McPherson presents Lincoln as having numerous qualities that defined him as a brilliant leader, he wastes no time in revealing what he believes to be Lincoln’s greatest strength. In his Introduction, McPherson states regarding Lincoln’s political leadership: “In a civil war whose origins lay in a political conflict over the future of slavery and a political decision by certain states to secede, policy could never be separated from national strategy…. And neither policy nor national strategy could be separated from military strategy” (McPherson, p.6). Lincoln could not approach the war from a purely martial standpoint—instead, he needed to focus on the issues that caused it. For the catalyst of the war was also the tool for its solution; a war started by differing ideologies could only be resolved through the military application of ideology. This non-objective approach to the waging of the war almost resembles the inspired approach McPherson brings to his examination of Lincoln himself.

Why Did the South Lose the Civil War Essay

A frequently, and sometimes hotly, discussed subject; the outcome of the American Civil War has fascinated historians for generations. Some argue that the North's economic advantages proved too much for the South, others that Southern strategy was faulty, offensive when it should have been defensive, and vice-versa. Internal division in the South is often referred to, and complaints made against Davis' somewhat makeshift, inexperienced, government. Doubts are sometimes raised over the commitment of Southerners to a cause many of them were half-hearted about. Many historians have argued that the South lost the will to fight long before defeat was inevitable. However, many of these criticisms could easily be applied to the North, had the

Why the North Won the American Civil War Essay

Union officer William Tecumseh Sherman observed to a Southern friend that, "In all history, no nation of mere agriculturists ever made successful war against a nation of mechanics. . . .You are bound to fail." While Sherman's statement proved to be correct, its flaw is in its assumption of a decided victory for the North and failure to account for the long years of difficult fighting it took the Union to secure victory. Unquestionably, the war was won and lost on the battlefield, but there were many factors that swayed the war effort in favor of the North and impeded the South's ability to stage a successful campaign.

Essay on Why The North Won the Civil War

"If wars are won by riches, there can be no question why the North eventually prevailed." The North was better equipped than the South, with the resources necessary to be successful in a long term war like the Civil War was, which was fought from 1861 – 1865. Prior, and during the Civil war, the North's economy was always stronger than the South's, boasting of resources that the Confederacy had no means of attaining. Compared to the South, The North had more factories available for production of war supplies and larger amounts of land for growing crops. Its population was several times of the South's, which was a potential source for military enlistees. Although the South had better naval leadership and commanders, such as Robert E. Lee

Lincoln's Plan For Reconstruction Essay

Abraham Lincoln is credited to be the reason the Union won the civil war. His death and lack of leadership, rise of the radical republican power, and southern refusal to accept northern policies can arguably be the reason reconstruction failed. After the Union won the war the next task to be addressed was how to readmit the south into the union. Lincoln set the standard in his 1865 second inaugural address stating “malice towards none, and charity for all”. These words would be remembered in the following years as people, like Johnson, look to Lincoln’s ideals during the reconstruction years. Lincoln’s plan for reconstruction supported the idea of a strongly governed united country. Lincoln was one of the few to recognize that one needed to look past personal glory, and instead, do what was best for the country as a whole (Herman Belz pg.5). However, because of Lincoln’s untimely assassination in 1865, the newly re-formed United States was left in the hands

Abraham Lincoln And The Civil War Essay

The Civil War was a war between the union, and confederate states in the United States that occurred from 1861-1865. Many people believed that the Civil War was about slavery and southern states right to defend their states’ rights. The confederates were fighting for their liberty and independence under the leadership of Abraham Lincoln, who they felt was a tyrant. However, the union, was fighting to preserve their territory, that was created by their founding fathers from chaos and dismemberment. President Jefferson Davis believed that the civil war was based on the confederate rights to secede from the union. Jefferson also felt that Abraham Lincoln was to blamed for the start of the civil war, since he was against slavery. Lincoln’s intended goal was to preserve the union, he claimed slavery was not the reason. “If I could save the union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all slaves I would do it, and if I could slave it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that (Shi &Tindall, 2015, pg.465)”. Lincoln told everyone that if the southern states were to return to the union that slavery would still exist. However, many people believed that Lincoln wasn’t being truthful.

Related Topics

• American Civil War
• Confederate States of America
• Slavery in the United States
• Emancipation Proclamation

For more audio journalism and storytelling, download New York Times Audio , a new iOS app available for news subscribers.

A Journey Through Putin’s Russia

Our moscow-based reporter traveled around the country to gauge the mood before a presidential vote..

This transcript was created using speech recognition software. While it has been reviewed by human transcribers, it may contain errors. Please review the episode audio before quoting from this transcript and email [email protected] with any questions.

From “The New York Times,” I’m Sabrina Tavernise, and this is “The Daily.”

[THEME MUSIC]

Russians go to the polls today in the first presidential election since their country invaded Ukraine two years ago. The war was expected to carry a steep cost for Vladimir Putin, but as my colleague Valerie Hopkins explains, the opposite has happened. Today, Valerie travels around Russia to understand how Putin has done it and how long that can last.

It’s Friday, March 15.

So, Valerie, the presidential elections in Russia are starting today, and it’s the first one since the beginning of the invasion of Ukraine two years ago. And back then, there was this idea that the war could potentially become ruinous for Vladimir Putin, both politically and economically. And here we are with Putin running for re-election two years later.

So we come to you as our on-the-ground Russia expert to talk about where we are in the arc of President Putin’s power.

Well, Sabrina, these elections are set to run Friday to Sunday. 29 regions are voting online, and some of them have already started. And it’s a big event for Putin, but you and I both know very well that elections aren’t necessarily the best measure of the people’s choice in Russia.

Putin is running once again without any real genuine competition. Some of my friends in Moscow actually just refer to it as the voting.

The voting.

Because it’s not really an election.

People are going to vote, but it’s not truly a choice.

Exactly. So Putin is expected to just glide to another six-year term, his fifth. And that puts him on a path to becoming the longest-serving leader in Russia since the Russian Revolution more than 100 years ago.

Incredible.

And what’s so remarkable is that this isn’t just a story about an autocrat extending his reign. This is a leader with pretty sky high polling numbers right now and seemingly broad support.

So tell me about that. What is that support?

I mean, Sabrina you and I both know that opinion polls are to be taken with a grain of salt in Russia, especially in a time when repression has become very intense and is only getting stronger by the month. But polls conducted by independent pollsters like the Levada Center, which use focus groups and really big sample sizes, show that Putin’s approval rating is at 86 percent.

The highest in nearly a decade.

86 percent?

Yeah. And even the more general question, is Russia going in the right direction, that answer has really shocked me. It’s 75 percent. Right now it’s the highest it’s ever been since a pollster started asking the question in 1996.

That is incredible. I mean, the highest number since the beginning of polling, basically.

Yes. And for me, that’s really so incongruous. Because remember, you and I were on the ground in Ukraine when the war started, and Russia began being deluged with Western sanctions. One company after another announced they were pulling out. And then, slowly, it became clear that this war was going to last much longer and be far more deadly than anyone originally expected, I think including Mr. Putin himself. And it seemed like Russia’s future was a massive question mark.

So looking at the polls now, it’s remarkable to see that Putin has managed to get past all of that. And so I really wanted to get out into the country and talk to some of the people behind these numbers, to understand what it is that has kept their support for Vladimir Putin so high and how he’s been able to defy the expectations that so many people had at the beginning of this war.

So where did you start?

So a few months ago, I decided to go to the ninth largest city in Russia, Samara. It’s a city on the Volga River. And I was interested in Samara because it’s a pretty big industrial city, and I really wanted to see how ordinary people living there were feeling about the war and were experiencing all these changes to Russia’s economic life.

I mean again, this was one of the big questions hanging over the war — would it crater the Russian economy? And it occurred to me that a really good place to get a feel for that is at the mall.

[MUSIC PLAYING]

So I went to one downtown with a couple of my colleagues. And I was really interested to go and see what ordinary life is like for people who are doing some shopping or catching a film.

Valerie, you are a Russian mall expert. Also a Russia expert, but our Russian mall expert. Continue. What did you see in this one?

This mall was really interesting. I saw a lot of activity. One thing I have to say I appreciate is that there’s a group of young teenage boys who are playing with large-size chess pieces. Very Russian.

There’s no empty storefronts. They’ve all been replaced by new brands from different countries in the world, some of them Russian, some of them from the Middle East, the Gulf.

And let me tell you, Sabrina, that’s really different from what I saw in malls even in Central Moscow at the end of 2022. Many Russian, especially young, hip, urban Russians were devastated by the departures of Zara, H&M, McDonald’s, Coca-Cola.

And these were departures of Western companies because of the sanctions.

Absolutely. And you would go to malls, and it would just feel like a dead zone. Stores shuttered, dark hallways. You could see what was no longer available to you as a Russian consumer. And now all that has changed.

But I don’t know. There’s also a lot of new stores, like BFree and GJ. I don’t know what that is.

Oh. But that’s a Russian brand, right?

Of course, Zara and H&M have been replaced by stores that we in the States have never heard of, but you could still get a lot of the same goods. It seemed like your average mall teenagers walking around, drinking soda.

[SPEAKING RUSSIAN]

One of the big questions I get from friends back home is, did you try the fake Coca-Cola, Dobry-Kola, the new brand that has essentially taken over all of Coca-Cola’s business inside of Russia?

So I’ve just bought a Dobry-Kola.

And for the uninitiated, Dobry-Kola means —

Cool-Cola. I mean, yeah, I’ve seen various translations — Good Cola, Cool Cola.

Let’s see if there’s any difference whatsoever.

Hmm. I don’t think so.

So what does Good Cola taste like?

Pretty much like the real thing. Maybe like a normal knockoff Coke.

Do you think there’s any difference?

A little bit.

I don’t know if Coca-Cola took their secret sauce when they left or not.

But I don’t mean to paint a picture of a mall full of only knockoffs. I think, frankly, I was astonished by the amount of Western goods still available. There was still Chanel, all of the luxury cosmetics and perfume are widely available in Russia.

So really what you’re seeing is a mall that has actually returned to some semblance of economic normal.

Yeah. In the past two years, Russia has been able to really successfully reorient its economy. Consumers clearly still have the money to buy expensive Western products, so they’re often paying a huge premium, importing them from China, from Kazakhstan, from Georgia, Armenia and the neighboring countries through middlemen.

Oh, let’s talk to the Apple people. They’re selling all the Apple products. Let’s find out how do they get them. Are they more expensive? [SPEAKING RUSSIAN]

This became really clear to me once I set foot into a shop selling Apple products.

So tell me about that shop.

So it looked like an ordinary Apple Store. They had all the MacBooks and MacBook Pros and accessories, iPhones. And in fact, when I first went in just to inquire about the price —

The salesman that I talked to was really proud to say that it wasn’t that much more expensive than in the West, and that actually they had gotten the latest iPhone model in stock three days only after it debuted in America.

Interesting. So what did the guy say?

He shrugged his shoulders about the economy, about the sanctions. He said, we have no problems getting any of this stuff in. People are still able to buy it. And he told me that he actually felt very confident that Russia would be able to survive and maybe even thrive economically.

He compared Russia to Iran, which has been under sanctions for decades, not that it’s the most economically successful country in the world.

His point was that other countries have figured out how to survive economic sanctions. And Russia is as well positioned as anyone to do that. I mean, he mentioned how resource-rich Russia is. It’s one of the world’s biggest oil producers, and that has already helped it to generate money to keep the economy afloat.

So this is one of the keys to Putin’s success, right? Keep the people happy with iPhones. Have the stuff still come in. Make sure that they’re not cut off from the world in terms of the stuff that they want.

Exactly. Standing in this fake Apple Store in the Samara mall, the war felt really distant to this guy. He’s injured, so he couldn’t be mobilized, although he does feel bad for some of his friends who are fighting. But he said the war is not really this immediate presence in his life and that his life really hasn’t changed at all.

And when I thought about it more, it wasn’t all that surprising to me. I mean, here we were in a relatively big city, and I knew that Russia had been drafting far more soldiers from rural areas around the country than they are from cities.

I started to think I needed to go further afield, to the more rural communities that are actually bearing the brunt of this war. So my team and I hopped in a car, and we drove for hours along a potholed road all the way to a little village called Oatmeal.

We’ll be right back.

So, Valerie, tell me about the town of Oatmeal. And is it actually called Oatmeal?

Well, yes. I mean, in Russian it’s Ovsyanka. It was a collective farm back in the days of the Soviet Union. In some of the open fields, you can just see the remains of collapsed infrastructure, but the village of Ovsyanka itself provides almost no jobs. Mostly people are working in subsistence agriculture or hunting for scrap metal, doing odd jobs here and there.

I mean, the place is really impoverished. Every year, it seems like there’s another suicide, which in a really small place takes its toll. It feels like a place with a lot of despair.

So really a classic post-Soviet economically depressed landscape, a place that had been this large functioning farm, this collective farm with the whole village employed in working it, and after the Soviet collapse, that just died.

Right. I mean, this is a place that really hasn’t seen any of the fruits of Putin’s economic success story. And these small depressed villages are the kind of places that have sent a lot of people to this war.

So I arrived in Oatmeal and went straight to the house of the Kadyrov family, who had lost their son in the war.

And I was really interested in how the family would make sense of their loss and of the war and what they thought of Russia in that moment and what they thought of Putin who launched this war. And as we arrived, the family were waiting for his body to be brought by the local military officials.

And as we sat cross-legged on the floor of their main room, as mourners trickled in and out to pay their respects, they told me about him.

His name was Garipul S. Kadyrov.

He was an ethnic Kazakh, like most of his relatives. But to his friends and family, he was known by his Russian nickname, Vitya.

He was a soft spoken farmer. And shortly after Vladimir Putin announced a general mobilization, officials from the military commissariat came to his house and told him he was going with them.

And so his family said that, though he didn’t expect to be drafted, as soon as he was called up, he said it was his duty. And he went that very day to start his military training. But after just a few months into his tour of duty, he was killed in a part of Ukraine that had been a meat grinder for Russian soldiers.

Shortly after we arrived, a military convoy came carrying his body.

His mother sobbed most of the day, and one of his sisters was wailing so much that she needed to take sedatives.

And just witnessing the pain, it was immense.

And then the whole village assembled for a formal ceremony for him with military honors.

[BAND PLAYING RUSSIAN ANTHEM]

The head of the district government even came to speak.

He gave a patriotic speech about him dying for the sake of freedom.

He said it is precisely thanks to guys like him that there are peaceful skies over our country. And by participating in the special military operation, which is what Russia calls the war, they are protecting our freedom, our lives, and the health of our children.

So what did the family make of all of this?

Well, despite the fact that they had lost their son, their brother in the war, despite the poverty and pain of this small village community —

— you hear them embracing certain elements of Putin’s messaging around the war. Many relatives repeated a lot of the shorthand that Putin has been using from the beginning.

Saying that this was for the good of the motherland.

And that this has long been Russian territory, that most of Ukraine has always historically been a part of Russia, that Ukrainians and Russians are actually one ethnic group.

One thing that really stuck out to me the most was the fervent belief that this is a war against the West.

There was a strong conviction that the West had turned Ukraine against Russia, and this was not a war of choice for Putin.

And so I don’t think this was purely that they were taking Putin’s propaganda wholesale. But you could see a need to make sense of their loss and to understand the tragedy that befell their family.

But there is another element in this too, which is something the family didn’t really speak about. And that’s the fact that men who often are not able to really provide very much for their families while they’re alive know that if they do die, their family can get somewhere up to $60,000, $70,000, $80,000 in compensation payments after their death.

Wow. So extremely meaningful for a family like Vitya’s.

Absolutely. This is a place where presumably people are living on maybe the equivalent of hundred, couple hundred dollars a month. So these salaries are an incredible boon. And in fact, Putin, in his most recent state of the union speech last month, actually talked about wanting to elevate the role of soldiers and veterans in society and give them more leadership roles and more opportunities. And this is widely perceived as an attempt by Putin to reengineer a new middle class comprised of people involved in the war effort.

Wow. God. I mean, it’s very dark, but it’s also quite cunning of Putin, that there is an economic element to this war for the people who are dying, and that is something that can blunt any potential political opposition to it. So the people doing the dying are not going to be the people asking the questions, in part because this money is coming in, and he knows that.

Yes. And I mean, Sabrina, I’ve spoken to other family members who have lost their sons and husbands in this war, and they all say that no amount of money can bring back their son. But it does have an effect of making these families far less vocal and far less prone to uniting in some kind of a protest movement that could challenge Putin.

But, Sabrina, with all that being said, the longer I spend time in the Kadyrov house, the more I realized that there were so many layers to this family’s grief, and that there were people present at the funeral who really aren’t on the same page about this war.

So tell me about those people.

So I had this really surreal reporting experience. After this military honors ceremony, the crimson military-issued casket was actually brought into the house, where, according to local custom, Vitya was to spend one final night at home before being buried in a nearby cemetery. And as members of his family gathered around his coffin, they got into a debate actually about why he died.

They’re gathered around his casket. Nobody knows what was inside. The members of the family knew that the body had actually been decomposing for some time in the trench before the Russians were able to get it out. So many people were heartbroken that they couldn’t wash the body, they couldn’t see the body. And I think that drove one of the family members especially to start speaking out against the war.

He called the war in Ukraine nonsense.

And then he said, what? Defending the motherland? From whom?

He said that he thought the people who believed that this war was necessary had been in some kind of a stupor.

He was one of the few people in the family who was willing to say, actually we attacked Ukraine, not the other way around.

There were other people around who chimed in.

One family member compared it to Putin’s annexation of Crimea, saying, what do we even need that for? In other words, Russia is already such a vast and huge country, I mean, the biggest one territorially in the world. Why do we need new territories? And this idea of a greater unified Russia encompassing Ukrainian land wasn’t really landing for him.

I mean, these are very brave questions. Saying this also to you sitting there, an American reporter, this is the thing Putin has really been focused on, that people not say things like this. And yet there they were, saying these things against the war.

There’s no doubt this is a really dangerous thing to say to a journalist at a time when the Russian government is really policing all kinds of dissenting voices on this war. And the extent of repression in Russia now is so strong that even whispering about them can get you in huge trouble, can land you in jail, can land you with a fine.

With my colleague Anton Troianovski and other members of our bureau, we’ve been reporting on the way that people have been fined for anti-war scribbles on a bathroom wall or a simple request to a DJ to play a song by a Ukrainian musician, not to mention people who take the risk of standing in the street with an anti-war slogan.

Right. Boosting the economy and paying off soldiers is one thing, but repression is really the foundation of what Putin has been up to here.

Absolutely. I mean, that’s what holds this whole system together. There are a lot of people in Russia who share anti-war views and who are fed up with more than two decades of Putin in power. But they have very little recourse to do anything to change the situation at this point.

We’ve been reminded of that in the past few weeks in the aftermath of the death of Alexei Navalny, the biggest and most important opposition politician and dissident in post-Soviet Russia. His supporters have shown up to memorials, to his funeral. But everywhere you turn, you’re reminded of the repression that still keeps all of them in check.

I went to some of the memorials and watched as riot police stood on, checking people’s IDs and encouraging people not to linger. While I was there, I talked to a 17-year-old student who said he had been too scared to put down flowers because of possible consequences. And he’s right to worry. I mean, hundreds of people have been arrested across Russia for the simple act of laying down flowers or publicly mourning Navalny.

So even in this moment where the opposition may have been galvanized to some degree in the lead-up to election day, we’re still reminded of the hold that Putin has on Russia.

So, Valerie, to answer the question you started with, how has Putin managed to keep such a tight grip on things, repression is still central to how he’s doing that. But he’s also worked extremely hard to keep people happy in malls, with their iPhones, keeping the economy going, and also paying out those bonuses to soldiers’ families in these very poor areas. And at this moment, heading into his re-election, that’s all basically working.

That’s true, Sabrina. But these are a lot of plates he’s spinning, trying to keep the economy afloat while paying huge salaries to military personnel and revamping the entire military industry. The Kremlin has dipped into reserves to make these financial payments. The economy has changed so much, and no one knows how it will be affected in the long run. The oil price could change. And on top of that, the kernel of dissent remains despite this inertia of repression.

Interesting. So he’s, of course, very much in control, but it’s tenuous. I mean, for it to work, Putin really needs to keep his eyes on all of these areas at once.

Absolutely, Sabrina. I mean, it’s a precarious balance.

And traveling across this vast country, I’ve seen the tremendous power and reach of Putin. Even if these elections are not legitimate, he’s still on the cusp of becoming one of the longest-serving leaders in Russia’s history. And that is a testament to his tremendous staying power. But you also do see the cracks and the tension here. And so the question is whether these cracks begin to widen or whether Putin will prevail, as he has over yet another tumultuous period in Russia’s history.

Valerie, thank you.

Thank you, Sabrina.

Alexei Navalny’s widow, Yulia Navalnaya, has called on Russians who oppose Putin to show up at the polls at noon on Sunday as a sign of collective protest. Earlier this week, Navalny’s top aide, Leonid Volkov, who was helping lead that call to action, was beaten and sprayed with tear gas near his home in Vilnius, Lithuania. Just hours before the attack, Volkov had given an interview in which he expressed concern for the safety of Navalny’s supporters, saying, quote, “the key risk is that we will all be killed.”

Here’s what else you should know today. A jury in Michigan found James Crumbley guilty of involuntary manslaughter, holding him partially responsible for failing to prevent his son from carrying out the state’s deadliest school shooting in 2021. Crumbley’s wife was convicted of similar charges in a separate trial last month.

The couple’s parenting skills had come under intense scrutiny as had their son’s access to a handgun that his father had bought. Now two separate juries have taken the unusual step of holding parents criminally responsible for their child’s crimes.

And Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York condemned Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu during a speech on the Senate floor, calling him a major obstacle to peace in the Middle East and calling for new leadership in Israel.

As a lifelong supporter of Israel, it has become clear to me the Netanyahu coalition no longer fits the needs of Israel after October 7.

Schumer’s speech was the sharpest critique yet from a senior American elected official. He was effectively urging Israelis to replace Netanyahu, who is under indictment in Israel for bribery and fraud.

I believe in his heart he has his highest priority is the security of Israel. However, I also believe Prime Minister Netanyahu has lost his way.

Schumer, the highest-ranking Jewish elected official in the United States, said that he believed that Netanyahu had chosen himself and his ambition as a politician over his country. Schumer also said that Netanyahu had allowed too many civilian deaths in Gaza, which he argued had reduced support for Israel around the world.

Today’s episode was produced by Rob Zipco, Mary Wilson, and Shannon Lin, with help from Summer Thomad. It was edited by Brendan Klinkenberg and Michael Benoist, fact-checked by Susan Lee and Milana Mazaeva, contains original music by Dan Powell and Marion Lozano, and translations by Milana Mazaeva. It was engineered by Chris Wood. Our theme music is by Jim Brunberg and Ben Landsverk of Wonderly.

That’s it for “The Daily.” I’m Sabrina Tavernise. See you on Monday.

• March 19, 2024   •   27:29 Trump’s Plan to Take Away Biden’s Biggest Advantage
• March 18, 2024   •   23:18 Your Car May Be Spying on You
• March 17, 2024 The Sunday Read: ‘Sure, It Won an Oscar. But Is It Criterion?’
• March 15, 2024   •   35:20 A Journey Through Putin’s Russia
• March 14, 2024   •   28:21 It Sucks to Be 33
• March 13, 2024   •   27:44 The Alarming Findings Inside a Mass Shooter’s Brain
• March 12, 2024   •   27:30 Oregon Decriminalized Drugs. Voters Now Regret It.
• March 11, 2024   •   29:07 The Billionaires’ Secret Plan to Solve California’s Housing Crisis
• March 10, 2024 The Sunday Read: ‘Can Humans Endure the Psychological Torment of Mars?’
• March 8, 2024   •   29:40 The State of the Union
• March 7, 2024   •   32:31 The Miseducation of Google’s A.I.
• March 6, 2024   •   23:07 The Unhappy Voters Who Could Swing the Election
• Share full article

Hosted by Sabrina Tavernise

Featuring Valerie Hopkins

Produced by Rob Szypko ,  Mary Wilson and Shannon Lin

With Summer Thomad

Edited by Brendan Klinkenberg and Michael Benoist

Original music by Dan Powell and Marion Lozano

Engineered by Chris Wood

Listen and follow The Daily Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Amazon Music

Russians go to the polls today in the first presidential election since their country invaded Ukraine two years ago.

The war was expected to carry a steep cost for President Vladimir V. Putin. Valerie Hopkins, who covers Russia for The Times, explains why the opposite has happened.

On today’s episode

Valerie Hopkins , an international correspondent for The New York Times.

Background reading

Mr. Putin, in pre-election messaging, was less strident on nuclear war .

What to know about Russia’s 2024 presidential vote.

There are a lot of ways to listen to The Daily. Here’s how.

We aim to make transcripts available the next workday after an episode’s publication. You can find them at the top of the page.

Fact-checking by Susan Lee and Milana Mazaeva .

Translations by Milana Mazaeva .

The Daily is made by Rachel Quester, Lynsea Garrison, Clare Toeniskoetter, Paige Cowett, Michael Simon Johnson, Brad Fisher, Chris Wood, Jessica Cheung, Stella Tan, Alexandra Leigh Young, Lisa Chow, Eric Krupke, Marc Georges, Luke Vander Ploeg, M.J. Davis Lin, Dan Powell, Sydney Harper, Mike Benoist, Liz O. Baylen, Asthaa Chaturvedi, Rachelle Bonja, Diana Nguyen, Marion Lozano, Corey Schreppel, Rob Szypko, Elisheba Ittoop, Mooj Zadie, Patricia Willens, Rowan Niemisto, Jody Becker, Rikki Novetsky, John Ketchum, Nina Feldman, Will Reid, Carlos Prieto, Ben Calhoun, Susan Lee, Lexie Diao, Mary Wilson, Alex Stern, Dan Farrell, Sophia Lanman, Shannon Lin, Diane Wong, Devon Taylor, Alyssa Moxley, Summer Thomad, Olivia Natt, Daniel Ramirez and Brendan Klinkenberg.

Our theme music is by Jim Brunberg and Ben Landsverk of Wonderly. Special thanks to Sam Dolnick, Paula Szuchman, Lisa Tobin, Larissa Anderson, Julia Simon, Sofia Milan, Mahima Chablani, Elizabeth Davis-Moorer, Jeffrey Miranda, Renan Borelli, Maddy Masiello, Isabella Anderson and Nina Lassam.

Valerie Hopkins covers the war in Ukraine and how the conflict is changing Russia, Ukraine, Europe and the United States. She is based in Moscow. More about Valerie Hopkins

Advertisement