What do you think?
Rate this book
Why the North Won the Civil War
In this classic exploration of the Confederacy’s defeat in the Civil War, two-time Pulitzer Prize-winner David Herbert Donald and author of Lincoln assembles insightful and probing essays from six of America’s most distinguished historians.
Focusing on the political, military, economic, social, and diplomatic reasons behind the Union victory, this collection presents the most complete picture of this key aspect of Civil War studies. In an essay new to this edition, Henry Steele Commager offers a historiographical overview of the collapse of the Confederacy. Richard N. Current describes the economic superiority of the North and shows how the civilian resources of the South were dissipated during the war. T. Harry Williams examines the deficiencies of the Southern military strategy and leadership. Norman A. Graebner discusses the reluctance of France and England to aid the South. David Herbert Donald, in his own essay, reports that excessive Southern emphasis on individual freedom fatally undermined military discipline. And David M. Potter suggests that a lack of political leadership in the South resulted in gross incompetence. And exclusively for this edition, the editor has written a new foreword and completely updated the bibliography to create the most comprehensive and enlightening guide to understanding why the North won the Civil War.
Focusing on the political, military, economic, social, and diplomatic reasons behind the Union victory, this collection presents the most complete picture of this key aspect of Civil War studies. In an essay new to this edition, Henry Steele Commager offers a historiographical overview of the collapse of the Confederacy. Richard N. Current describes the economic superiority of the North and shows how the civilian resources of the South were dissipated during the war. T. Harry Williams examines the deficiencies of the Southern military strategy and leadership. Norman A. Graebner discusses the reluctance of France and England to aid the South. David Herbert Donald, in his own essay, reports that excessive Southern emphasis on individual freedom fatally undermined military discipline. And David M. Potter suggests that a lack of political leadership in the South resulted in gross incompetence. And exclusively for this edition, the editor has written a new foreword and completely updated the bibliography to create the most comprehensive and enlightening guide to understanding why the North won the Civil War.
128 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1960
30 people are currently reading
315 people want to read
About the author
David Herbert Donald
63 books130 followersMajoring in history and sociology, Donald earned his bachelor degree from Millsaps College in Jackson, Mississippi. He earned his PhD in 1946 under the eminent, leading Lincoln scholar, James G. Randall at the University of Illinois. Randall as a mentor had a big influence on Donald's life and career, and encouraged his protégé to write his dissertation on Lincoln's law partner, William Herndon. The dissertation eventually became his first book, Lincoln's Herndon, published in 1948. After graduating, he taught at Columbia University, Johns Hopkins and, from 1973, Harvard University. He also taught at Smith College, the University of North Wales, Princeton University, University College London and served as Harmsworth Professor of American History at Oxford University. At Johns Hopkins, Columbia, and Harvard he trained dozens of graduate students including Jean H. Baker, William J. Cooper, Jr., Michael Holt, Irwin Unger, and Ari Hoogenboom.
He received the Pulitzer Prize twice (1961 and 1988), several honorary degrees, and served as president of the Southern Historical Association. Donald also served on the editorial board for the Papers of Abraham Lincoln.
David H. Donald was the Charles Warren Professor of American History (emeritus from 1991) at Harvard University. He wrote over thirty books, including well received biographies of Abraham Lincoln, Thomas Wolfe and Charles Sumner. He specialized in the Civil War and Reconstruction periods, and in the history of the South.
He received the Pulitzer Prize twice (1961 and 1988), several honorary degrees, and served as president of the Southern Historical Association. Donald also served on the editorial board for the Papers of Abraham Lincoln.
David H. Donald was the Charles Warren Professor of American History (emeritus from 1991) at Harvard University. He wrote over thirty books, including well received biographies of Abraham Lincoln, Thomas Wolfe and Charles Sumner. He specialized in the Civil War and Reconstruction periods, and in the history of the South.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 26 of 26 reviews
January 16, 2023
Brilliantly written- well researched and well articulated points. Written originally in 1960 it offers a very fair in depth analysis into the reasons of Northern victory and subsequent Confederate defeat. I found it’s analysis not only accurate but very fair to both sides, and was not revisionist to the extent some ACW books are today.
June 23, 2009
Six historians, six points of view. A quote from the preface: "If [these essays:] do nothing more than demonstrate how complex the problem of historical causation is and how wary writers must be of oversimplification, they will have served their purpose." So you've been warned about the "peer-review" style — but if you can get past it, you will learn a lot from this slim volume.
The notion I retain from this book is that the outcome of the Civil War was embedded in the reasons for Secession: Slavery and States Rights.
Yes, Davis was a poor Commander-in-Chief (for instance keeping Robert E Lee at a desk and giving him a command when it was probably too late already; bypassing his field commanders with inane orders to lower officers, in the midst of battle);
Yes, the King Cotton strategy backfired (20/20 hindsight: when you have one riches, you use it rather than sitting on it in the idle hope of coaxing foreign support);
Yes, the Union had roads, people and industrial resources the South lacked (though the same disparity didn't prevent the Colonists from winning their Secession from Brittain).
But what did the Confederacy in was, in a darwinian fashion, what caused it to exist:
-Slavery: even though it was Brittain's strategic interest to support the Secession and weaken the Union, as well as her economic interest to secure cotton for her textile industry, the Royal Navy did not commit one ship to the Southern cause; British and French citizens were even forbidden to volunteer to serve the Confederacy. In a rare show of European solidarity, every nation chose to view the Civil War as a war of Good (Abolition) vs. Evil (Slavery).
In addition, the South diverted enormous ressources to prevent a slave revolt: almost half its population was kept from participating in the war effort, as neither the slaves, nor their owners and supervisors, were drafted in the army or even used to provide the logistical and financial needs of the army.
-States Rights: you can't win a war with a de-centralized power structure (for instance, Texas committed some of its soldiers to its own defense rather than participate in the eastern battles or even Vicksburg; regardless of competence, no officer could be promoted to command a regiment from another state).
Worse, the Confederacy had no financial ressource other than what the States chose to contribute: the war was financed 60% by printing money, 30% by borrowing and only 10% by the States (even those 10% were obtained not by tax, but by borrowing, reflecting Southern citizens' aversion to contributing their share of the national Treasury).
Of course this financing scheme produced third-world inflation: when the Confederacy was finally allowed to "impress" (commandeer) resources, that was payed for in a currency that lost half its value in the time it took to pay. Eventually, people stopped producing foods and goods they had to sell at a loss.
Finally, lacking boots, uniforms, munition, rifles, the starving rebel soldiers lost their stomach to fight.
In that way, it was not so much the incompetence of the Confederal administration or its weak economy that doomed the South, but the Articles of Confederation themselves.
Look at this: I've written my own essay rather than reviewing the essays in the book. Oh well, goes to show how much food for thought they contain.
The notion I retain from this book is that the outcome of the Civil War was embedded in the reasons for Secession: Slavery and States Rights.
Yes, Davis was a poor Commander-in-Chief (for instance keeping Robert E Lee at a desk and giving him a command when it was probably too late already; bypassing his field commanders with inane orders to lower officers, in the midst of battle);
Yes, the King Cotton strategy backfired (20/20 hindsight: when you have one riches, you use it rather than sitting on it in the idle hope of coaxing foreign support);
Yes, the Union had roads, people and industrial resources the South lacked (though the same disparity didn't prevent the Colonists from winning their Secession from Brittain).
But what did the Confederacy in was, in a darwinian fashion, what caused it to exist:
-Slavery: even though it was Brittain's strategic interest to support the Secession and weaken the Union, as well as her economic interest to secure cotton for her textile industry, the Royal Navy did not commit one ship to the Southern cause; British and French citizens were even forbidden to volunteer to serve the Confederacy. In a rare show of European solidarity, every nation chose to view the Civil War as a war of Good (Abolition) vs. Evil (Slavery).
In addition, the South diverted enormous ressources to prevent a slave revolt: almost half its population was kept from participating in the war effort, as neither the slaves, nor their owners and supervisors, were drafted in the army or even used to provide the logistical and financial needs of the army.
-States Rights: you can't win a war with a de-centralized power structure (for instance, Texas committed some of its soldiers to its own defense rather than participate in the eastern battles or even Vicksburg; regardless of competence, no officer could be promoted to command a regiment from another state).
Worse, the Confederacy had no financial ressource other than what the States chose to contribute: the war was financed 60% by printing money, 30% by borrowing and only 10% by the States (even those 10% were obtained not by tax, but by borrowing, reflecting Southern citizens' aversion to contributing their share of the national Treasury).
Of course this financing scheme produced third-world inflation: when the Confederacy was finally allowed to "impress" (commandeer) resources, that was payed for in a currency that lost half its value in the time it took to pay. Eventually, people stopped producing foods and goods they had to sell at a loss.
Finally, lacking boots, uniforms, munition, rifles, the starving rebel soldiers lost their stomach to fight.
In that way, it was not so much the incompetence of the Confederal administration or its weak economy that doomed the South, but the Articles of Confederation themselves.
Look at this: I've written my own essay rather than reviewing the essays in the book. Oh well, goes to show how much food for thought they contain.
January 7, 2024
Originally Published in 1960 by Louisiana State University Press.
Five Civil War historians were asked to present papers at the Annual Civil War Conference at Gettysburg College. While these were all experts on the Civil War, each had a slightly different topic to create a more well-rounded discussion.
The first essay, God and the Strongest Batallions by Richard N. Current, looks at economic factors that gave the North a decided advantage and how the North exploited them. It also looks at things the Confederacy failed to do to maximize their strengths.
T. Harry Williams wrote the second essay. It is entitled The Military Leadership of North and South.
Norman A. Graebner's essay Northern Diplomacy and European Neutrality actually looks at both Northern and Southern diplomatic efforts. This one interested me because it took a hard and sustained look at the responses of the governments of Russia, Great Britain and France to the Civil War.
Died by Democracy by David Donald looks at the Confederacy's extreme emphasis on individual liberty from the lowliest private refusing to follow orders to state governments refusing to help the national government to cabinet members actively working against President Jefferson Davis.
In a similar vein to the fourth essay, Jefferson Davis and the Political Factors in Confederate Defeat by David M. Potter focuses on Davis and how his choices and his personality made the factors previously mentioned by David Donald even worse.
These are 5 solid essays and are well worth the time of any student of the Civil War.
I rate this collection of essays 5 stars out of 5.
https://dwdsreviews.blogspot.com/2021...
Five Civil War historians were asked to present papers at the Annual Civil War Conference at Gettysburg College. While these were all experts on the Civil War, each had a slightly different topic to create a more well-rounded discussion.
The first essay, God and the Strongest Batallions by Richard N. Current, looks at economic factors that gave the North a decided advantage and how the North exploited them. It also looks at things the Confederacy failed to do to maximize their strengths.
T. Harry Williams wrote the second essay. It is entitled The Military Leadership of North and South.
Norman A. Graebner's essay Northern Diplomacy and European Neutrality actually looks at both Northern and Southern diplomatic efforts. This one interested me because it took a hard and sustained look at the responses of the governments of Russia, Great Britain and France to the Civil War.
Died by Democracy by David Donald looks at the Confederacy's extreme emphasis on individual liberty from the lowliest private refusing to follow orders to state governments refusing to help the national government to cabinet members actively working against President Jefferson Davis.
In a similar vein to the fourth essay, Jefferson Davis and the Political Factors in Confederate Defeat by David M. Potter focuses on Davis and how his choices and his personality made the factors previously mentioned by David Donald even worse.
These are 5 solid essays and are well worth the time of any student of the Civil War.
I rate this collection of essays 5 stars out of 5.
https://dwdsreviews.blogspot.com/2021...
February 20, 2016
This compact volume offers five perspectives on the North's victory in the Civil War -- diplomatic, economic, social, political and military. While this isn't a comprehensive look at the Civil War, it does offer solid arguments on why the North prevailed and gives an effective presentation of the five topics covered. A good, quick read.
July 26, 2020
The book I reviewed was Why The North The Civil War by David Herbert Donald and several other authors. The book contains a series of essays by various authors with varying inputs on what each believes to be the biggest factor in the South’s defeat in the Civil War. The book manages to provide comparisons of how military, political and social factors each contributed to the Union’s victory, almost turning the book into a lecture or discussion on the war that is right there for you to reference to. The author viewpoints range from how military leadership, economic imbalances, foreign policy, political leadership all shaped the war.
The book itself is very concise and easy to understand. It is very straight to the point and unlike a lot of other history books which can be very long, this one is much shorter and divided up into chapters easily referenced to. The arguments given by each of the authors are all straight forward as well, with each author arguing for a specific point of view on the war. All in all, this book is one that I would recommend for anyone just starting to get interested in the Civil War or history, as while the title is relatively short, it still packs a lot of great information easily understandable.
--Bibliomaniacs Teen Book Review
The book itself is very concise and easy to understand. It is very straight to the point and unlike a lot of other history books which can be very long, this one is much shorter and divided up into chapters easily referenced to. The arguments given by each of the authors are all straight forward as well, with each author arguing for a specific point of view on the war. All in all, this book is one that I would recommend for anyone just starting to get interested in the Civil War or history, as while the title is relatively short, it still packs a lot of great information easily understandable.
--Bibliomaniacs Teen Book Review
August 15, 2015
So much knowledge in so small a book! As one whose knowledge of military history is less than perfect, I found William's essay on military leadership to be understandable, and fascinating. Commager's and Potter's essays were clear and substantive. I had to award this book 4 stars rather than 5 for two reasons. One is the essay written by Richard Current who presented nothing new and did it in a way that seemed to drag. The other was the essay of Donald, the editor. This surprised me because I have read Donald's biography of Lincoln and rated it very highly. I must admit that I am being a bit unfair to Donald since he wrote this long before Mark Neely wrote his ground breaking book about civil liberties in the Confederacy where the author makes it abundantly clear that Davis respected those rights no more than Lincoln, and in some cases, was more dictatorial. Despite Donald's contention that Davis was a forthright protector of civil liberties, Neely uncovered facts about passports being required for travel in the South, (there was no such requirement in the North) the rights of Unionists being trampled on, and people being jailed, sometimes even killed because they disagreed with the policies of the government. Still, this little book is well worth reading.
April 13, 2008
good reference book
December 13, 2024
A very short, easy to read history book with several essays that outline different ways in how the North was able to win the American Civil War from 1861-1865. However, because of the books short nature it often feels like it omits details that could be covered if they book was longer. Despite this the book is designed to be short, readable and easy for any college civil war professor to assign. Overall its a book worth checking out if you're interested in Civil War history and need a quick introduction.
May 17, 2025
This collection of essays, originally published in 1960, is interesting both for its theme – why the South lost – and also for being an example of mainstream scholarship on the Civil War on the cusp of the change in academic fashion inaugurated by the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s. The essays by Richard Current (the South’s economic weakness compared to the North), Norman Graebner (the South’s failure to secure European recognition) and David Potter (the failings of Jefferson Davis as wartime president) are the strongest.
March 11, 2023
I had no idea when I picked up my little book off of my bookshelf that it would be such an inspired choice. At such a critical time in world history. I have an old edition, but I noticed that there have been two more recent printing's and that it gets consistently high reviews.
I found every chapter to be chock-full of insights that are relevant to the invasion of Ukraine. Anybody looking to understand what is going on right now should grab this book and inhale it.
I found every chapter to be chock-full of insights that are relevant to the invasion of Ukraine. Anybody looking to understand what is going on right now should grab this book and inhale it.
July 3, 2021
Solid collection of views and well presented. Knowing that these essays come from well respected author in their fields and the variety of perspectives they share on such a singular topic is of the utmost benefit to seeing how many different ways there are to interpret a single outcome. This resource is most valuable in widening ones view on the pedagogical value of a broad stance on
Learning.
Learning.
December 13, 2017
A very clear explanation or the reasons that the North won the Civil War, as well as the reasons that the South did not. Had to read it for a class, and it was by far the easiest book we were required to read.
June 5, 2019
Superb multi-historian analysis of the Civil War
This was a great overview of the Civil War by multiple historians. Very readable and provocative, this book captures the main reasons for the Civil War's final outcome.
This was a great overview of the Civil War by multiple historians. Very readable and provocative, this book captures the main reasons for the Civil War's final outcome.
January 31, 2019
5 different viewpoints on aspects of American Civil War.
September 14, 2023
If you're a history A-Level student, this book is an 11/10 for your coursework seriously.
May 30, 2025
Very interesting read! Looked at the economic, military, diplomatic, social, and political causes of the outcome of the Civil War. Learned a lot about the leadership of Lincoln vs Davis.
February 11, 2023
Five articulate and thought-provoking essays on the American Civil War
October 31, 2024
5 excellent essays published in 1960 by 5 Civil War academics on 5 different topics of economics, foreign relations, the competing generals and their West Point training, the effectiveness of the Union blockade, and political leadership & policy - all focused on why the South lost the war. My fav. is the on-going diplomacy towards intervening on behalf of the South . . . with the Brits (would have liked to, hated America's economic and political rising star), the French (torn between loving democracy & trying once again to out-do the Brits), & especially the Russians (never pit the South against the North, believing that a strong unified America was Russia's best bulwark against the powerful, meddlesome Brits).
December 6, 2014
This was a very amazing perspective, a series of lectures about the civil war, presented by various academics focusing mainly on, as the title suggests, why the North won the war. Lots of the info I wasn't aware of, some I was, and it was a short book so a fast read.
What was so interesting was that these were lectures pre-Vietnam. It's apparent that the history of the Korean war had not yet been worked out so the evaluation and comparisons of war tactics, mainly taught at West Point, were enlisted by almost every general who led battles on both sides. So, their main perspective was WW1 and WW2 which were vastly different wars than what was to come, which we now have the hindsight of studying. Where the first two World Wars used European style tactics such as, more men and heavier equipment gives a clear advantage, covert strategies adopted from Napoleon and his proteges, and even battlefield etiquette and rules of engagement.
In Vietnam, the West Pointers who ran the "war" (which we now know was never meant to be won anyway) was the same old tactics of the west versus something they had never experienced; Sun Tzu's Art of War. It's an expensive book for the amount of words, I'm not sure I'd buy it again if I knew what it was, but for anyone interested in this perspective of the Civil War it still deserves 4 stars for the quality of the lectures and the interesting pre-Vietnam perspective.
What was so interesting was that these were lectures pre-Vietnam. It's apparent that the history of the Korean war had not yet been worked out so the evaluation and comparisons of war tactics, mainly taught at West Point, were enlisted by almost every general who led battles on both sides. So, their main perspective was WW1 and WW2 which were vastly different wars than what was to come, which we now have the hindsight of studying. Where the first two World Wars used European style tactics such as, more men and heavier equipment gives a clear advantage, covert strategies adopted from Napoleon and his proteges, and even battlefield etiquette and rules of engagement.
In Vietnam, the West Pointers who ran the "war" (which we now know was never meant to be won anyway) was the same old tactics of the west versus something they had never experienced; Sun Tzu's Art of War. It's an expensive book for the amount of words, I'm not sure I'd buy it again if I knew what it was, but for anyone interested in this perspective of the Civil War it still deserves 4 stars for the quality of the lectures and the interesting pre-Vietnam perspective.
Read
May 1, 2015Reading this book is like watching a first-rate debating society. (In fact, the book began as a conference of five guys at Gettysburg College in November, 1958.) I wish there were more anthologies like this: “Why the Roman Empire Fell” or “What Happened to Last Year’s Yankees?”
I’m sorry to say that after all the arguments I remain a neo-Marxist, seeing industrial strength as crucial. But ultimately you can’t separate these causes (which are divided into the political, diplomatic, military, economic). Understanding history, in this analytical way, is a bit like trying to CHANGE history. If only we could go back and re-formulate Lee’s strategy, while keeping all the other factors constant – we’d know for sure.
I opened the book at random to the section on “Northern Diplomacy and European Neutrality” by Norman A. Graebner:
“Through Adams in London, Seward warned the British government, ’If any European power provokes war, we shall not shrink from it.’”
In other words, William H. Seward (Lincoln’s Secretary of State) had the balls to threaten all of Europe with war, in the midst of our fratricidal bloodbath (if they sided with the South)! No wonder the North won!
Another question: “DID the South really lose the Civil War?” After “losing,” they’ve held the nation politically hostage these 150 years. They are particularly adept at finding allies through the skillful use of racism. Race-hatred, it turns out, is stronger than muskets and Gatling guns.
I’m sorry to say that after all the arguments I remain a neo-Marxist, seeing industrial strength as crucial. But ultimately you can’t separate these causes (which are divided into the political, diplomatic, military, economic). Understanding history, in this analytical way, is a bit like trying to CHANGE history. If only we could go back and re-formulate Lee’s strategy, while keeping all the other factors constant – we’d know for sure.
I opened the book at random to the section on “Northern Diplomacy and European Neutrality” by Norman A. Graebner:
“Through Adams in London, Seward warned the British government, ’If any European power provokes war, we shall not shrink from it.’”
In other words, William H. Seward (Lincoln’s Secretary of State) had the balls to threaten all of Europe with war, in the midst of our fratricidal bloodbath (if they sided with the South)! No wonder the North won!
Another question: “DID the South really lose the Civil War?” After “losing,” they’ve held the nation politically hostage these 150 years. They are particularly adept at finding allies through the skillful use of racism. Race-hatred, it turns out, is stronger than muskets and Gatling guns.
August 24, 2025
Interesante y cortito libro, la edición que leí al menos. Cinco historiadores plantean cinco razones por las cuales la Confederación perdió la guerra, o el norte la ganó, hay discusión también de cual oración usar. Todas son muy convincentes y mas que excluir una de otras es lógico pensar que la suma de todas fueron lo que definió el destino de la Confederación.
June 1, 2013
Did the North win because of its superior economy? Its wealth? its larger man power? Its success in international diplomacy? Its superior generals? because Jefferson Davis was no Abe Lincoln? . Was it possible to create a Confederate nation on the basis of states rights and fight a war that required centralization of power?. On the face of it, the South had no chance- except the Colonies faced about the same problems when they won their independence from the British.
The analysis is fascinating- and the dynamics of international diplomacy, such as the key role Russia played in saving the Union by dissuading European intervention on behalf of the South... and why...and how - could be spot on in discussing the issues of our day.
A short read - but truly excellent
The analysis is fascinating- and the dynamics of international diplomacy, such as the key role Russia played in saving the Union by dissuading European intervention on behalf of the South... and why...and how - could be spot on in discussing the issues of our day.
A short read - but truly excellent
May 28, 2013
Great historical perspective (although may be a bit dated today) on why the North won the Civil war. Northern victory came as a result of more than the North's having more men and material. The north enjoyed other advantages such as a thriving two party system, generals who were not wedded to past military strategy, and a masterful foreign policy. However, despite what some "lost cause advocates" would have one believe, the North's vicitory in 1861 was not assured. The North through the more efficient management of its resources beat the South and won the war.
November 19, 2015
An excellent compilation on the economic, military, diplomatic, social, and political reason's for the South's defeat. While all the factors contributed to their downfall, the real weakness of the Confederacy was that the Southern people insisted upon retaining their democratic liberties in wartime. They were proud of their individualism and insisted on the States Rights and stayed away from centralization of control. The Confederacy died of democracy.
Donald also provides an extensive reading list on almost every topic imaginable pertaining to the Civil War.
Donald also provides an extensive reading list on almost every topic imaginable pertaining to the Civil War.
March 20, 2014
Interesting and insightful collection of essays that focus on economics, politics, leadership, and Warcraft - all of whom, when considered together, concisely explain the exact reasons why the Union overtook and succeeded in quelling the Confederate uprising. Note, this book is not an exercise in South-bashing but a comprehensive, sober and intellectual review of both sides in myriad ways. Excellent read.
Read
February 7, 2012God and the Strongest Battalions
The Military Leadership of North and South
Northern Diplomacy and European Neutrality
Died of Democracy
Jefferson Davis and the Political Factors in the Confederate
--great arguments for students to interpret
The Military Leadership of North and South
Northern Diplomacy and European Neutrality
Died of Democracy
Jefferson Davis and the Political Factors in the Confederate
--great arguments for students to interpret
Displaying 1 - 26 of 26 reviews