The document discusses the American Civil War, debating whether it was clear from the beginning that the North would defeat the South due to its advantages. It presents an argument that agrees the North's advantages would allow it to win for reasons related to population, industrial capacity, rail transportation, and naval power. The document provides background on the high human costs of the Civil War and ongoing historical debates around its causes and impacts.

1. Discussion 13 – Topic; the Civil War
The Civil War was the bloodiest conflict in American history.
To this day, historians write and debate what caused it and why
the North won.
Make an historical argument in response to this statement:
“From the beginning, it was clear that the North’s advantages
would allow it to win over the South.” Agree? Disagree?
Begin your answer like this: “I agree (disagree) that from the
beginning it was clear that the North’s advantages would allow
it to win over the South for the following reasons:”
First, (50 words or more)
Source: (can be hyperlink or Author)
Second, (50 words or more)
Source: (can be hyperlink or Author)
Third, (50 words or more)
Source: (can be hyperlink or Author)
Fourth, (50 words or more)
Source: (can be hyperlink or Author)
Background:
America’s Civil War (or War Between the States) erupted in
1861 and lasted for four long years and, without question, was
the mostly costly in terms of human lives at the time. The odds
of a soldier dying or being seriously wounded were higher than
any other war, and there were untold numbers of inhuman acts
committed both on and off the battlefield. Military leaders of
both sides stubbornly adhered to the “frontal assault” tactic
which proved to be a slaughterhouse for the attacking side. I
visited the Petersburg battlefield and gazed with astonishment
at the infamous “crater” in which attacking Union troops were
picked off as fish in a fishbowl. Many fought bravely and with
honor and perished. Some, on both sides, became disillusioned
and lost enthusiasm.
Was it worth it? Traditional historians have always maintained

2. that it was because it saved the Union and forged a new stronger
nation, as well as ending slavery and the sectional gap. They
have seen it as an unfortunate but morally justifiable struggle
against the Southern evil. Revisionists aren't so sure. Some
liberal historians like Howard Zinn argue that it was really a
titanic struggle between the elites of each section to protect and
expand their wealth and control of the country but fought by the
common man who was used as cannon fodder. Some
conservative revisionists like DiLorenzo claim it was a diabolic
plot by Lincoln and his friends to expand the power of the
national government and the wealth of the Eastern rich.