The Empire Strikes Back

The Empire Strikes Back:

An Analysis of the Revolutionary and Civil Wars

The American Revolutionary war began in 1775, when the Battle of Lexington and Concord occurred. The American Civil War arguably began with the attack on Fort Sumter. In the Revolutionary war, the British colonists were forced to unite as Americans to take down a leviathan, the empire of Great Britain. It was thought that America would never win, but when the Treaty of Paris(1783) was signed, it was apparent a major upset had occurred. Yet when the North, the leviathan, was fighting the Southerners in the Civil War, the North won, in what became known as the bloodiest war in American history. In order to determine how these outcomes occurred, one needs to analyze the similarities and differences, allowing one to also determine what these results mean.

When fighting in the Revolutionary war, the British had the heavy burden of being the superiors, forcing them to invade foreign territory and crush all embers of rebellion, lest they spread and become a forest fire. Americans fighting for the North had to overcome the Southern rebels and preserve the Union, also forcing them to invade a “foreign” land. British strengths included manpower, a superior economy, a superior army and navy, and organization. These strengths are shared by the North as the North had a greater population, due to Westward expansion and a steady stream of immigrants into the Eastern seaboard. The North also had a superior economy due to the Industrial Revolution, manufacturing bases in the North, and the American System had brought a superior transportation system in the North and West. The North also had the benefit of the small, albeit formed, Union Army, and were militarily superior than the South. Generals such as McDowell and McClellan would prove an invaluable asset for the North. The North was also organized by a strong and lasting Constitution, and a popularly elected President, Abraham Lincoln. Through this action, the North had an aura of togetherness and agreement. Additionally, the Northerners shared many weaknesses the British had, including a lack of motivation and the definition of victory. Southerners had seceded from the Union to protect their interests from what they viewed as a discriminatory government. Bearing the economic destruction of the Tariff of 1828, and the anti slavery sentiment growing in the North due to the Second Great Awakening and a progression of attitudes, it is no wonder the South seceded. To them, they were not leaving a Union, they were forming their own nation, by leaving an oppressive one. To the South, the Civil War was not a Civil War, rather another revolutionary war against a tyrant. Some may say that in the South’s eyes, the empire was striking back, and they did not intend to lose again, similar to the American opinion of the British during the war. The Northerners had no true reason to fight besides preserving the Union, and despite Webster’s motivational speech in the Webster-Hayne Debate, Northerners did not have the same fire the Southerners did. The North, like the British, also had a weakness in terms of the definition of victory. The British needed to crush the Americans without decimating them, else the Americans would want to rebel even more. The Northerners needed to reunite the Union, but if they decimated the South, it would leave America with a useless tract of land and an embittered people. It is for these reasons that the North in the Civil War and the British in the American Revolutionary war were similar. However, the Southerners and the Americans were also similar. Americans and the South both had the advantages of morality(discussed above), defensive posture, and the definition of victory(also discussed above). Both the Americans and the South did not have to invade their enemies, they simply had to man their ground. This is a key advantage as fighting in familiar territory would increase their odds of victory, and decrease their odds of defeat. They also shared weaknesses. The South however did not have a disadvantage the British had, supplies. By the South choosing to stay in the agrarian economy, and the invention of the cotton gin, provided by the Yankee Whitney, all allowed the South not to rely on foreign trade for money, and gave them the ability to “live off the land,” as their land provided sustenance and economic benefits. Political weaknesses and manpower still plagued the South. The South had a significant population, but the amount of slaves was a significant part of this. They were nowhere near comparable in size to the ever growing North and as a result they would need to focus on strategy, rather than simply attacking Northern troops.

Yet despite the similarities between the Civil and Revolutionary wars, the Americans were not the South, and the Northerners were not the British. Both wars entailed different results, one a win for an empire, the other a win for the underdog. But what led to this defeat, both for the British and South? Foreign allies and enemies, leadership, and organization all posed different circumstances for the two wars. But it is still important to note the similarities the sides had in both wars, as they played a significant effect. The Civil War yielded about 620,000 American casualties, a devastating outcome for an important victory. Was it worth it? The Americans won against the British, leading to further conflicts, a destruction of a civilization(Native Americans), and the creation of a new superpower. Was it worth it? When asking these questions, historians will generally agree with the latter and disagree over the former. Hence, it is important for everyone to realize that any conflict will have opposing views, and despite similarities between conflicts and sides, every single war and battle is inherently unique.