More handpicked essays just for you.
The strengths and weaknesses of the north and south in the civil war
Civil war military strategy
Technological innovations during civil war
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
The South Could Not Win the Civil War "The South could never have won the Civil War," is a true statement, reflecting the various ways in which the Southern states attempted to fight a losing battle from the beginning. The economic dependency of the South on cotton on slavery was obvious, whereas the North had diversified and sufficiently. The advantage also lay with the North for reasons such as better communication and transportation, and even more soldiers. The leadership in the North under Abraham Lincoln was far superior to the less savvy Jefferson Davis. It is also a fair argument to say that the just cause always overcomes, and morally, slavery was not just at all. In the 1850's the North was more populous and urban, due to all the Irish and German immigrants that traveled to the states. By1860, 9 out of the 10 biggest cities were in the North. The North also had 70% of the railroads, and more telegraph lines to send messages instantly. The North had a lot more industry also, with its 10,000 factories that brought in $1.5 billion dollars in goods compared to the South's 20,000 that brought in $155 million.(Source 1) The South did, however, have more slaves and more cotton. This was not any sort of military advantage, and merely made it more obvious to the North how desperate the South was to keep its peculiar institution running. Additionally, the first attack at Fort Sumter was poorly organized and was expected by the North. Lincoln had wanted to attack, but waited so as to retain the sympathies of any Northern moderates. The South's attack played into what he wanted. Once the war began, the military expertise of Ulysses S. Grant for the North made it an uphill battle for the South. His military skill alone was enough to give Robert E. Lee's forces in the South serious problem, but the Union army also greatly outnumbered the South's troops. Though Lee would prove to be a worthy general, his strategic downfall at Gettysburg would begin the inevitable loss for the South. (Source 2) In conclusion, it was obvious from the beginning of the Civil War that the South would not win the war. This having been said, Robert E. Lee was a fine general, but was simply without enough soldiers to lead a successful uprising.
President Abraham Lincoln demanded a decisive victory. He was tired of his military leadership’s inability to decisively engage and defeat Confederate General Robert E. Lee. Allowing the war to drag on was to the Confederacies advantage. Lincoln was so frustrated that he relieved General George B. McClellan for failing to defeat Lee at Antietam, and replaced him with General Ambrose Burnside, who proved to be very conservative in battle against General Lee. Knowing that General Lee was a student of Napoleonic warfare, Burnside feared that Lee always had a large Corps in reserve waiting to flank should he be decisively engaged from the front.
Lee had supreme confidence in his army, and believed that it could accomplish whatever he asked of it. This confidence sometimes led him to ask too much, such as in the case of Picket’s charge during the battle of Gettysburg. In Lee’s mind he was first and foremost a Christian, and a gentleman. These facts, although not bad, certainly caused Lee to be less aggressive, and to fight the war in a very old-fashioned manner. This was not so with Grant, who seemed to believe in a more modern type of total warfare. Perhaps because this war, as many contend, was the first modern war, it was impossible for the South, and it’s leaders to adapt to the situation.
The North entered the Civil War with many distinct assets that rendered them more competent than the Southern states. Those assets consisted of having more men, more financial stability, economic strength, and far reaching transportation systems. According to the book: Why the North Won the Civil War by Donald, David Herbert, and Richard Nelson the primary cause to the North’s success was given by, “the vast superiority of the North in men and materials, in instruments of production, in communication facilities, in business organization and skill – and assuming for the sake of the argument no more than rough quality in statecraft and generalship – the final outcome seems all but inevitable.” In many ways the north, during the Civil, was more economically dominant than the South
When the war began and the union blockaded all their ports the south was out of luck. They had very little industrial workers and manufactured goods compared to the north so during the blockade they could not make their own weapons or food other than corn. (Doc 2) The north had the advantage because they supplied the south with a lot of important items such as cotton-mills and steamships. (Doc 3) They also had better means of transportation. The north had better boats because they had factories equipped to make them and they also had more railroads to transfer weapons and equipment to soldiers. (Doc 1) The north was meant to win from the beginning and even though it took longer than expected they still beat the south and defeated slavery. No one document will tell you that slavery caused the Civil War, but if it had not been for slavery the war would have never
The North had about 2,129,000 soldiers while the South only has about 1,082,000 soldiers in their army. This means that in almost every battle in the civil war the South was being overpowered by the Norths numbers alone. The North's economy was much stronger than the Souths. The North's economy got so powerful because of their large amount of small farms and large factories. The North's production value was about $1.5 billion meanwhile the Souths was only about $155 million.
The Union economy was based on manufacturing, and even the minorities in the North were better off than those in the South most of the time. The Northern politicians wanted tariffs, and a large army. The Southern plantation owners wanted the exact opposite.
"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 and "Stonewall" Jackson, they lacked the number of factories and industries to produce needed war materials. Therefore, the North won the American Civil War due to the strength of their industrialized economy, rather than their commanders and strategies.
The most important difference between the north and south was the issue of slavery. The South was primarily agricultural, and the southern economy was based upon the existence of large family farms known as plantations. The plantation economy relied on cheap labor in the form of slaves to produce tobacco and cotton. Farmers on the plantation did not do the work themselves; they needed slaves in order to make the largest amount of money possible. The North, however, was primarily industrial in nature. The North believed that all men should be able to work and support themselves and their families, regardless of color. They also felt that if a man were happy doing his job, then he would be more productive. Therefore, both he and the business would make more money.
William Tecumseh Sherman also known as one of the greatest Union General, made a prediction in the winter of 1860 about the civil war when he visited the Louisiana State Seminary. He stated that the South would end up losing to the North because they aren’t economically stable enough to take on the Union. Sherman knew for certain that the South was going to lose no matter their efforts to win.
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders have some of the worst health outcomes in comparison to any other indigenous community in the world (AIHW, 2011). According to United Nations official Anand Grover, Aboriginal health conditions are even worse than some Third World countries (Arup & Sharp, 2009), which is astonishing, considering Australia is one of the worlds wealthiest countries. Thoroughly identifying the causes and analysing every aspect behind poor health of indigenous Australians, and Australian health in general, is near impossible due to the complexity and abundant layers of this issue. Even within the category of social determinants, it is hard to distinguish just one factor, due to so many which interrelate and correspond with each other. The aim of this essay is to firstly identify and analyse components of the social determinants of health that impact the wellbeing of Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders, and demonstrate how they overlap with each other. By analysing the inequalities in health of Aboriginal and non-indigenous Australians, positive health interventions will then be addressed. Racism and the consequences it has on Indigenous health and wellbeing will be discussed, followed by an analysis of how and why social class and status is considered a determining factor when studying the health of the Aboriginal population. The issue relating ...
Thank you for taking time to read my letter. As a nursing student of University of Technology Sydney, I studied contemporary indigenous subject this semester. In this letter I want to illustrate 3 main social determinants of health that impact indigenous Australian health which I found and analysed during my recently study. And also offer some suggestion that could help the government improve aboriginal Australian mental health conditions in the future.
Yes, slavery was the cause of the Civil War, half of the country thought it was wrong, and the other half just could not let it go or continue. The war was fought overall in different places, and the monetary and property loss cannot be calculated. Arguments about the causes and consequences of the Civil War, as well as the reasons for Northern victory, will continue as long as there are historians to wield the pen ? which is, perhaps even for this bloody conflict, mightier than the sword (Oates 388). The Civil War was a great waste in terms of human life and possible accomplishment and should be considered shameful. Before its first centennial, tragedy struck a new country and altered it for an eternity. It will never be forgotten, but adversity builds strength and the United States of America is now a much stronger nation (Oates 388).
...as the turning point of the American Civil War. The battle proved to show the most casualties of any battle throughout the war and resulted in a crushing and demoralizing defeat of the Confederates. Coming off of his “perfect battle”, Lee’s overconfidence proved to be a downfall as his expectation for his men greatly exceeded the reality of his army. Added to this, his disorganization and lack of coordination led to numerous disjointed attacks that failed and in turn exhausted his men. Finally, Lee ultimately knew less about his opponent throughout the entire battle, which was a huge switch from previous meetings between the two sides. He was forced to fight arguably the most important battle of the Civil War with insufficient intelligence of the enemy, its positions and its intentions. All of these factors are what caused the Confederates to fail at Gettysburg.
Robert Lee makes bold moves to win victories. Lee was outnumbered two to one at Chancellorsville in May 1863; instead of just defending against the Union armies, he made an audacious move and split his army into two to encircle the enemy. Without Lee’s courageous move, the Confederacy might have lost another battle. But even if Lee was defeated, his performance would still stay on tract. When Lee was defeated at Antietam in September 1862, he quickly withdrew the remnants of his forces across the Potomac, reorganized his army, and res...
Wilkinson, R. G., & Marmot, M. G. (2003). Social determinants of health: The solid facts.