The south was doomed from the first shoot that was fired at Fort Sumter. The south was no way matched against the north. The national banking act in February 1863 that helped the economy in the north boomed. In the north the union had almost the factories that created their weaponry. Also when the south had left and created the confederacy they only had eleven states and with the majority of their populations being blacks that were for the abolishment of slavery. In comparing to the south’s states the union had twenty-three states with full support of their population for abolishment of slavery. In short the union in all areas of the civil war had more financial backing, were equipped with more technical modern warfare, and had more soldiers that supported their cause to eliminate slavery that made the union victorious.
A strait overview of resources that the union had on the confederates was unmatched. Of the total population of the country 71% were of the union and 29% were that of confederacy. The wealth on the union side was 75% capered to 25% on the confederate side. Industrial workers were 92%, 11.5 to 1. Firearms were even a bigger union advantage, which was 97%, 32.3 to 1. To strengthen that number the iron production was 94%, 15.7 to one. Which was a big advantage in my opinion that the union had on the confederacy. Coal production was 97% on the union side. Wheat and corn were also in higher productions in the union. One of the only production materials that the confederacy overwhelmed the union with was cotton. The union had only 4% of prodution where the confederacy had 96%. The confederacy might have had the most cotton production during the civil war but that was no match to the overwhelming production of all oth...
... middle of paper ...
...waste ammunition.” During the war colonel Hiram Berdan formed a regiment of sharpshooter for the union army called Berdans sharpshooters. These new soldiers would be better shooters against their enemy and would be save great amounts of ammunition and money. Contests were held across the country to find these elite sharpshooters. To make the cut you had put 10 consecutive shots into a target at two hundred yards. Each shot couldn’t be more than to inches from the center of the bull’s eye. At the end of these contests 1,000 winners were enlisted in the 1st United States sharper shooters. The next generation of breechloaders called magazine rifles would prove ever more deadly to confederate opponents. “Guns such as Spencer and Henry repeating rifles were deigned to carry preloaded magazine of seven to fifteen bullets which could be inserted into the rear of the gun.”3
The North and South benefited in many different ways, and both sides would use dissimilar approaches. The Southerners were fighting for a way of life they believed in. Comparing the two, the North had an extensive amount of people which made it easier to establish armies. In the beginning, the Union army only consisted of 16,000 soldiers or less. Southerners deserted the army because they didn’t have the things they needed for fig...
Industrially the South couldn't keep up in output of weapons, ammunition and other supplies. That is one of the main reasons the South looked overseas for help. Jefferson Davis knew that the South was at a disadvantage so he looked to England and France. By the end of the war, the South had, more or less, plenty of weaponry still, but it just didn't have enough men to use the guns. By getting either England or France on the Confederate side, supplies would have been more plentiful and also it would have inevitably ended up doing great damage economically to England's maritime trade. However, the fact remained that foreign recognition was denied to the Confederacy in all its attempts.
Fig.1 Seventeen .223 Remington cases and the bullet impact sights on the Sherriff’s County Vehicle.
One weapon used in the Civil War is a Sharps Carbine. It was developed primarily for Calvary, because of the shorter barrel. They were much easier to handle on horse back than their longer brother the Breech-Loader. Sharps were preferred because they could be loaded on a moving horse, something virtually impossible with a Muzzle-Loader. Also, Breech-Loaders carbine which fired moisture proof metallic cartridges, where more reliable than rifles that fired paper cartridges. As I said be fore it is easier to load a Sharps than a Muzzle-Loader. A Muzzle-Loader took 9 long hard steps just to fire one shot. Even the most skilled solder could only get three rounds off in a minute on the old Civil War Muzzle-Loader. And No wonder. After each shot you have to (1) steady the gun on the ground take out a new cartridge out of a belt pouch. (2) Tear open a piece of paper with your teeth. (3) Empty the powder in the barrel and insert a bullet in to the muzzle. (4) Draw the long “rummer” out of its carrying groove under the barrel. (5) ram the bullet all the way down. (6) Return the rod back to its groove. (7) Lift the weapon half-cocked the hammer. (8) Fully cock the hammer, aim, and finally,(9) fire.
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.
A popular weapon used by both sides was the rifle. Rifles were invented before the Civil War and were greatly used in the War of 1812. However, more types were built and a larger amount was used during the Civil War. Rifles added a spin to bullets for a greater accuracy at longer ranges. Using this weapon, soldiers could fire 400 yards away, as opposed to the average 80 yards (Robertson 50). Rifles were the fastest and hardest weapon of the time. Rifles allowed their bullets to be shot harder and faster towards its target. New inventions, used by the Union more than the Confederate, included Parrott rifles. They were composed of iron. Robert Parker Parrott, an American soldier and inventor, created these weapons, hence the name Parrott rifles. Despite its name, the Parrott rifle was actually a cannon. Its size ranged from 10 to 300 pounders. It was not favored by most because it was considered unsafe (“Civil War Artillery”). Because of its bulkiness and heaviness, it seldom led soldiers to inaccuratel...
In order to understand the military strategy and tactics of the Union and the Confederacy, one must understand the manpower each side had, previous war experience of the commanding officers on both sides, and using rivers and railroads to their advantage. The Union had twenty states on its side, including five that were slave states. That meant that they were able to put up a mass number of Army troops from each state. When the war came, the North had a total population of twenty-two million people of which 1.3 million were industrial workers. Whereas, the South only had nine million people with 110,000 industrial workers.
The Civil War has been viewed as the unavoidable eruption of a conflict that had been simmering for decades between the industrial North and the agricultural South. Roark et al. (p. 507) speak of the two regions’ respective “labor systems,” which in the eyes of both contemporaries were the most salient evidence of two irreconcilable worldviews. Yet the economies of the two regions were complementary to some extent, in terms of the exchange of goods and capital; the Civil War did not arise because of economic competition between the North and South over markets, for instance. The collision course that led to the Civil War did not have its basis in pure economics as much as in the perceptions of Northerners and Southerners of the economies of the respective regions in political and social terms. The first lens for this was what I call the nation’s ‘charter’—the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, the documents spelling out the nation’s core ideology. Despite their inconsistencies, they provided a standard against which the treatment and experience of any or all groups of people residing within the United States could be evaluated (Native Americans, however, did not count). Secondly, these documents had installed a form of government that to a significant degree promised representation of each individual citizen. It was understood that this only possible through aggregation, and so population would be a major source of political power in the United States. This is where economics intersected with politics: the economic system of the North encouraged (albeit for the purposes of exploitation) immigration, whereas that of the South did not. Another layer of the influence of economics in politics was that the prosperity of ...
...f wearing down the north's patience. The south's idea of northerns as "city slickers" who did not know how to ride or shoot was wrong. Many of the men who formed the Union forces came from rural backgrounds and were just as familiar with riding and shooting as their southern enemies. Finally, the south's confidence in its ability to fund through sales of export crops such as cotton did not take into consideration the northern blockade. France and Britain were not willing to become involved in a military conflict for the sake of something they had already stockpiled. The help the south had received from France and Britain turned out to be a lot less than they expected. In conclusion, while all the south's reasons for confidence were based on reality, they were too hopeful. The south's commitment to a cause was probably what caused their blindness to reality.
The Civil War that took place in the United States from 1861 to 1865 could have easily swung either way at several points during the conflict. There is however several reasons that the North would emerge victorious from this bloody war that pit brother against brother. Some of the main contributing factors are superior industrial capabilities, more efficient logistical support, greater naval power, and a largely lopsided population in favor of the Union. Also one of the advantages the Union had was that of an experienced government, an advantage that very well might have been one of the greatest contributing factors to their success. There are many reasons factors that lead to the North's victory, and each of these elements in and amongst themselves was extremely vital to the effectiveness of the Northern military forces. Had any one of these factors not been in place the outcome of the war could have been significantly different, and the United States as we know it today could be quite a different place to live.
“Volley Guns” (Chivers, 2010, p.26) or also known as “Organ Guns” (Ellis, 1975, p.10) were first attempts at increasing firepower by adding several barrels at the firing itself, rather than simply attempting to increase the rate of fire. “Gunsmiths had long ago learned to place barrels side by side on frames to create firearms capable of discharging projectiles in rapid succession. These unwieldy devices, or volley guns, were capable in theory of blasting a hole in a line of advancing soldiers” (Chivers, 2010, p.26). An example of such weapons can be seen on July 28, 1835 when Giuseppe Fieshi unleashed terror on King Louis-Phillipe in Paris, France. He fired his 25 barrel “volley gun”, killing 18 of the king's entourage and grazing the King's skull. The weapon was ineffective however. Four of the barrels failed and another four ruptured. Two other barrels had exploded inside, grievously wounding Giuseppe. (Chivers, 2010, p. 27)