Civil War

.. e sectional balance of power which, both New England and the South maintained, had been established by the three-fifths ratio clause in the Federal Constitution. The third and most dangerous phase of this sectionalism, perhaps the sine qua non of the Civil War, was the failure to observe what in international law is termed the comity of nations, and what we may by analogy designate as the comity of sections. That is, the people in one section failed in their language and conduct to respect the dignity and self-respect of the people in the other section. These three manifestations of sectionalism were so closely related that at times they can be segregated only in theory and for the sake of logical discussion. Indeed, as I have suggested, all were manifestations of that egocentric sectionalism that caused a section to regard itself as the nation.

Let me call to your mind some familiar facts of American history that illustrate each of these phases of sectionalism. During the first twelve years of the government under the Federal Constitution, the old commercial-financial aristocracy of New England, with the aid of the same classes of people scattered throughout the urban centers of the seaboard, controlled the national government through the instrumentality of the Federalist party. An analysis of the chief measures of the Federalist regime and of the mental processes behind their enactments-as disclosed in speeches and letters and newspaper editorials -reveals the dominant section, New England, with its compact, homogeneous population, its provincial outlook, thinking, talking, and acting as if it were the United States; its way of life, its economic system, and its people the only truly American; while the remainder of the country, the people, and their interests and ways of life were alien and un-American. Most of the laws enacted during the control of the New England Federalists were considered by the South and much of the middle states as being for the sole benefit of the commercial and banking interests of the East, and as injurious, even ruinous, to the agricultural sections. In order to give constitutional sanction to these centralizing, sectional laws, the Federalist party under the brilliant leadership of Alexander Hamilton evolved the doctrine of implied powers, which seemed to the agricultural sections, now under the leadership of Thomas Jefferson, to be pulling the foundations from under constitutional government. This sectional and centralizing policy of the New England-dominated Federalist party culminated in the Alien and Sedition Laws which were met by the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

These resolutions may be regarded as a campaign document to be used in ousting the Federalists and New England from power. They were also a threat of the minority section to withdraw from the Union should Federalist New England continue in power and continue its policy of ignoring the agricultural sections of the country or of running roughshod over their interests. The overthrow of New England’s control of the national government by the Jeffersonian party in 1800 resulted in a twenty-four-year regime of the Virginia dynasty, during fifteen years of which-that is, until after the War of 1812-the government was distinctly dominated by the South and Southwest. If Hamilton had been positive that the welfare of the nation depended upon reinforcing and maintaining by special government favor the capitalistic system of the East, Jefferson was more positive that democratic and constitutional government and the welfare of the American people depended upon maintaining the supremacy in government and society of a landowning farmer-people whose center of gravity was in the South and middle states. To Jefferson, commerce, finance, and industry were only necessary evils to be maintained purely as conveniences and handmaidens of agriculture.

Such doctrinaire conception of government and society boded it for New England; and the period from 1801 until the end of the War of 1812 was filled with laws, decrees, and executive acts that seemed to threaten the economic and social existence of that section. One measure in particular seemed to be destined to end forever in favor of the South the sectional balance of power, namely, the purchase of Louisiana. During all this time New England’s standing committee on secession, the Essex Junto, was maneuvering to bring about the withdrawal of New England from the Federal Union; nor is there any sufficient reason to suppose that it would not have eventually succeeded in the disruption of the Union had not the ending of the war with Great Britain brought a termination of the policies that seemed so detrimental to the social and economic interests of the East; and had not the outburst of genuine nationalism at the victorious ending of the war actually resulted in the adoption of measures distinctly favorable to New England. The point that I wish to emphasize is that the rise to power of the South and middle states was marked by the same egocentric sectionalism as characterized the dominance of Federalist New England: the agricultural sections thought of themselves as the United States, thought of the American farmers as the only simon-pure Americans, and looked upon the interests of the agricultural population as the national interests. It is not the ambition of this paper to attempt a summary of the antebellum history of the United States; but simply to use the twelve year sectional regime of the Federalists and about the same length of rule by the Jeffersonian party to illustrate that tendency of the dominant section to consider itself the United States and its people the American people, and by the same token ignore or treat with contempt the peculiar needs of the minority sections.

The second manifestation of that egocentric sectionalism which led to the American Civil War was, as you will recall, the attempt of one section to gain a permanent ascendancy by destroying the sectional balance of power or permanently undermining the prestige of the other section. Let me pause for a moment, in discussing the overthrow of the balance of power, and review for you very briefly just how and why there had been an approximate balance of power established between the slaveholding and non-slaveholding states during the constitutional convention. The delegates to the convention, from both the northern and southern sections of the country, were unanimously in favor of a constitution that would establish a much stronger and more effective government than that which had so signally broken down under the Articles of Confederation. There was a fundamental difference, however, as to what specific powers should be granted to this new government. New England and the capitalistic segments of the middle states were above all else determined that the new government should be able to control foreign and interstate commerce and to make commercial treaties that could be enforced. The agricultural sections of the country looked with considerable disfavor upon such a grant of powers.

The South was so much opposed that it quietly passed out the word that it would never enter a Union where commerce was so thoroughly controlled by the national government unless it were assured a position of approximate political equality in that government. Otherwise, the power over commerce would be used by the North, dominated by the East, for its sole benefit and to the detriment of agriculture and the South. Finally, the balance of power was worked out by the technique of counting three-fifths of the slaves in apportioning representation in Congress and in the electoral college. This was called the three-fifths compromise between the North, which wanted to count all the slaves in apportioning direct taxes and none in apportioning representatives, and the South, which wanted to count all the slaves in making up representation and none in making up taxation. But an examination of the speeches and correspondence of the delegates indicates that it was also, and more important, a means of giving the South approximate equality in the Federal government in return for granting New England’s profound desire to have the Federal government control interstate and international commerce. That the sectional balance of power should be obtained by the process of counting three-fifths of the slaves in determining representation was a natural but unfortunate arrangement.

It was natural inasmuch as the Southerner regarded his slave as a human being and as part of the population; it was unfortunate in that it quickly identified the political influence of the South with the institution of slavery, and in doing so it went far toward engendering or increasing hostility in New England and finally in the whole North toward both slavery and the South. As long as New England was able to dominate the Federal government there was no important opposition to the theoretical balance of power obtained by the three-fifths ratio; but when New England lost her status with the collapse of the Federalist party her leaders immediately seized upon the three-fifths ratio as the explanation. During the period that ended with the Hartford convention and the treaty of peace the New England leaders were unceasing in their attack upon slave representation, as they called it. At the Hartford convention it formed the leading grievance. The convention demanded an unconditional repeal. During this same time Jefferson purchased the Louisiana Territory, not for the purpose of destroying the sectional balance of power, but complacent in the belief that it would do so. We thus behold, during the earlier Jeffersonian period, the spectacle of the agricultural South and the commercial East tampering with the sectional balance of power. Of course, permanent balance of power was impossible in a rapidly expanding country, and both sections must have realized that eventually the forces of nature would tip the balance in favor of one section or the other or in favor of a section not yet born. Such eventualities were regarded as remote and were not permitted to disturb the peace of mind. It was the overthrow of the sectional balance by artificial, political methods which caused uneasiness and wrath, for it indicated inter-sectional ill will or gross selfishness.

The Missouri controversy, 1819-20, marked the decline of the agitation by the Northeast to repeal the three-fifths ratio clause as a means of weakening the political power of the South and inaugurated the second and final phase of the struggle of the North to destroy by artificial methods the sectional balance of power. This second phase was to prevent the formation and admission into the Union of any more slave states, which meant, from the political and social point of view, the exclusion of southern states. While the demand for exclusion was based partly upon what we may call moral reasons, Rufus King and the other northern leaders in this debate were quite frank in asserting that the Missouri debate was a struggle between the slave and free states for political power. The two phases of that sectionalism which led to the Civil War, while causing a slow accumulation of sectional grievances, were not marked during the thirty years prior to the Missouri debates by excessive ill will or serious disregard for the comity of sections. Indeed, up until the time of the Missouri debates, despite the rivalry of sections which almost disrupted the Union, there was maintained a certain urbanity and self-restraint on the part of the leaders of the rival sections; for as long as the founding fathers lived and exercised influence over public affairs, there seems to have been a common realization-indeed, a common recollection-that the nation had been founded upon the principle of mutual tolerance of sectional differences and mutual concessions; that the nation had been constructed upon the respect of each section for the institutions, opinions, and ways of life of the other sections.

But the years laid the founding fathers low and their places were taken by a new and impatient generation who had no such understanding of the essence of national unity. The result was that urbanity, self-restraint, and courtesy-the ordinary amenities of civilized intercourse-were cast aside; and in their gracious place were substituted the crude, discourteous, and insulting language and conduct in inter sectional relations now so familiar in the relations between the totalitarian nations and the so-called democracies. It was the Missouri debates in which intersectional comity was first violated; and it was the political leaders of the East, particularly the New Englanders and those of New England origin, who did it when they denounced in unmeasured terms slavery, the slaveholder, and southern society in general. It is noteworthy that the southern leaders, with the exception of one or two, including John Randolph, ignored this first violent, denunciatory, insulting language of the northerners during and immediately after the Missouri controversy; ignored them at least in that no reply in kind was made with the possible exception of two or three, including John Randolph, who demanded that the South withdraw from the Union before it was too late. The private correspondence of the southerners, however, reveals them as resentful and apprehensive of future bad relations with the North. Ten years after the Missouri Compromise debates, the moral and intellectual leaders of the North, and notably those of New England origin, took up the language of abuse and vilification which the political leaders of that section had first employed in the Missouri debates.

Quickly the political leaders resumed the tone of the Missouri controversy: and thus was launched the so-called antislavery crusade, but what in fact was a crusade against the southern people. For over three decades this attack upon slavery and the entire structure of southern society down to the custom of eating corn bread and turnip greens grew in volume and in violence. (A discussion of the motives behind this crusade would lead us far afield and into bitterly controversial questions. It does seem clear, however, that political and economic considerations were thoroughly mingled with the moral and religious objection to slavery.) One has to seek in the unrestrained and furious invective of the present totalitarians to find a near parallel to the language that the abolitionists and their political fellow travelers used in denouncing the South and its way of life. Indeed, as far as I have been able to ascertain, neither Dr.

Goebbels nor Virginio Gayda nor Stalin’s propaganda agents have as yet been able to plumb the depths of vulgarity and obscenity reached and maintained by George Bourne, Stephen Foster, Wendell Phillips, Charles Sumner, and other abolitionists of note. History Essays.

Civil War

As I sat thinking about what to write about i started to realize that
slavery and war were the two things that at leat keep me going and I knew i
could say alot on both. I couldn’t quite figgure out how i was going to join
the two until i did some research and other reading and started to remember
the civil war and it’s purposes. I not one to into history but i came across
some very interesting information which i felt could bring my points of
view out quite effectively. So here it is my feelings and viewpoints on
Slavery during, within, and after the civil war.

The Civil War was doubly tragic because it was completely
unnecessary. Slavery had been ended in other nations with the stroke of a
pen, and yet in the mighty United States the country was willing to go to
war over the issue of whether slavery should remain. The southerners felt
that it was their constitutional right to own slaves and did not see a time
when they should be required to give up that right. However, upon the
election of Lincoln as President, the southerners felt threatened, and felt
their slave holding rights were being threatened, and in an effort to protect
these rights they chose to secede from the union. Why would any one
person want to own another human being with the same intestines, some of
the same feelings yet a different color for their own good . This was quite
crazy if you ask me , I feel that the southerners should have felt threatened
and that if what they were doing were so right why feel so threatened about
doing it.The northerners and Lincoln saw the importance of maintaining a
united country, set out to bring back the seceded states. Thus the Civil War
began. During the civil war many Americans were either killed or wounded,
this number was only surpassed by World War II. While the civil war
originally began as a quest to bring the southern states back to the union.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

However, the goal of the war did soon change to that of abolition. While the
war may have seemed necessary to the soldiers and governments who were
participating, in retrospect it was unnecessary. In three separate European
countries, slavery had been abolished prior to the American Civil War, and
each without arms being raised. Slavery had been abolished in Britain in
1838, Sweden in 1848, and in Holland in 1863. It indeed could have
similarly been abolished in the United States. However, the southerners,
who were dependent on the slave institution, refused to give up their right to
own slaves easily. Had the South been more progressively thinking many
lives would have been saved and blood need not have been shed in the name
of slavery. This is particularly true because if the south had given up their
right to free labor (slavery), they would have soon received the gift of
mechanical labor. Indeed they might have profited more from the use of the
machines which were soon to be invented, as they did not require housing,
and food. However, the southerners were deeply rooted in their institution
of slavery and were prepared to go to war over their feelings. Did it ever
come to mind that the slaves were to willing to got o war over their own
freedom. If one were to ask that question then that would have been a war
too unforgotten. Duuring this war the battlefields were transformed into
shambles where during the duration of the war 634,703 union soldiers were
killed or wounded, and 335,524 confederate soldiers were killed or
wounded. Indeed this was the second most intense war second to World
War II. In the civil war 3,846 soldiers from both the union army and the
confederate army were killed per month of fighting. This clearly shows the
intensity of the battle and the strong will which drove both sides to continue
fighting in the face of such catastrophe. The financial burden endured by
both sides was astronomical for the time period. The union force spent a
combined 3.2 billion dollars which in terms of current currency values is
27.3 billion dollars. The confederacy spent two billion or 17.1 billion
dollars. This is the price both sides were willing to pay in the name of
slavery. The North and South went to war over the issue of slavery and
endured a great expense in terms of human lives, and money. They could
however have followed the example of Britain, Sweden, and Holland and
simply signed away the institution of slavery and saved thousands of lives,
and billions in dollars. However, the south was too deeply rooted in the
institution of slavery, and when the Emancipation Proclamation came which
freed the slaves they still treated them as they did before, often outside of
the legal limits. Even after the 14th amendment which legally made people
of color American citizens, there were strong racial and prejudicial feelings
which ran rampant in the south, for example the KKK, and Jim Crow Laws,
and literacy tests for the right to vote. African Americans endured these
hardships for years and slavery still exixts in some way, form, or fashion out
there in the world today in the year 2001. Slavery was one of the number
one events in our country that was not a whole cause but part of a cause for
war in the united states. It also is a n event that has disgraced and put shame
to the culture of african americans.Even though not everyone owned slaves,
one bad apple spoils the bunch. Hopefully people will learn from history,
and immoral actions or events like slavery will not take place again. As I
conclude this paper I would just like to add taht I feel that alot of the things
in the late 1700’s and early 1800’s could have truly been prevented if
people were willing to compromise. But it seems as if the stubborness of the
people today is literally deeply rooted from the ones’ before us. Do you
think the war were fighting now could lead to the financial burden and the
next recession as it did during the other wars fought in or country? I ask you
that because i’m quite unsure but I do know the world is supoosed to be a
better place and it is getting crazier and crazier by the minute like were
starting all over again.


American History

Civil War

Writing about recorded
history should be a relatively easy task to accomplish.

Recorded history is based on facts. Regardless of what time
period one may write about, one will find enough information
about that time of period. The key is to put everything in a
logical and understandable manner. This paper will be about
the Civil War. I will try, to the best of my knowledge, to
discuss the Norths and Souths positions and Arguments for
going to war, their initial military strategies and their strength
and weaknesses. The paper will actually be a summary from
chapter 10 of the book Battle Cry of Freedom: The Civil
War Era By: James McPherson, Amateurs Go To War.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

Before discussing the war itself, one must understand the
Unions and the Confederates arguments and reasons for
going to war. Lets start at the beginning, when the South
was first showing animosity for the North, which eventually
led to sessionist ideas by the South. The Compromise of
1850 was drafted in response to the threat of a Southern
Convention, because of Zachary Taylors decision to carve
out two huge territories in the Far West and to admit them in
the union as free states. Henry Clay drafted the compromise,
which includes eight parts. The first pair would admit
California as a State and organize the remainder of the
Mexican cession without any restriction or condition on the
subject of slavery. The second pair of resolutions settled the
boundary dispute between Texas and New Mexico in favor
of the latter and compensated Texas by federal assumption
of debts contracted during its existence as an Independent
Republic. Clays third pair of resolutions called for abolition
of the slave trade in the District of Columbia but a guarantee
of slavery itself in the District. As if these six proposals
yielded more to the North then to the South, Clays final pair
of resolutions tipped the balance Southward by denying
congressional power over the interstate slave trade and
calling for a stronger law to enable slave holders to recover
their property when they fled to free states Battle Cry of
freedom: The Civil War Era, McPherson James, (p.70-71).

The Northerners hated the fugitive slave law, because in the
past it was never enforced and it never gave a trial by jury to
any runaway slaves. The only testimony heard was that of
the slaveholder and he usually recovered his slave. Not only
that, but the slaveholder was compensated $10 for winning
the trial because of all the trouble he had to go through in
recovering his property. Because of the passage of the
compromise, the North had to enforce the law which it
hated. As the United States expanded westward, two new
territories were carved out and the issue of slavery arose
again. The U.S. government let the two new territories
decide themselves whether or not to permit slavery. Since it
was up to the people to decide the slavery issue, Northern
abolitionists enticed anti-slavery supporters to move into the
new regions and vote to make Kansas and Nebraska free
states. Southern pro-slavery supporters did exactly as the
North did to make Kansas and Nebraska slave states. The
two sides clashed with one another over this issue and there
was literally a Civil War in Kansas. One particular situation
that occurred in Kansas was the sacking of the city of
Lawrence. Pro slavery advocates of the city of LeCompton,
Kansas set up a group or a posse that went to the
anti-slavery city of Lawrence, Kansas, ransacked, burned
and literally destroyed the city. In response to this attack by
the Southerners the Northerners took revenge. John Brown,
a radical abolitionist, decided to do a similar thing to the
Southerners. He planned an attack on LeCompton, Kansas.

Enroute to LeCompton he encountered about five pro
slavery supporters, and without remorse, hacked them to
death at Potawattamie Creek in Kansas. The entire country
was slowly being divided into two parts and even congress
could not do anything to resolve the problems. Political
parties were splitting along North/South lines and even
violence was a common occurrence in congress. The last
straw, which eventually split the Union, was the election of
1860. On the eve of the election, Southerners had already
agreed that if a republican wins the election, they would
leave the Union. Well, history shows that Lincoln, a
republican, was elected and the south truly did leave the
Union. During the four months, prior to President Lincolns
inauguration, President James Buchanan did nothing to
discourage secession. It may be even concluded that he was
sympathetic to the Southern cause. South Carolina was the
first state to secede from the Union, and by February 1861
seven more southern states followed South Carolinas
example. Finally, when Lincoln took the office, all of the
federal arsenals in the south have been overrun by
Confederate forces. In Fort Sumter, South Carolina, federal
troops were literally surrounded and their supplies eventually
ran out. Lincoln made a decision to send an unarmed supply
ship to the harbor of Fort Sumter. Lincolns reasoning was
that if the South fires on an unarmed supply ship, it would be
an act of war. If it doesnt it would mean that the South is
bluffing and it really does not want to secede. Well, on April
12, 1861 Confederate troops fired on the unarmed supply
ship at Fort Sumter and the Civil War began. The Norths
primary reasons for going to war was to keep the country
together. The South was fighting for state sovereignty, the
right of secession and interpreting the constitution the way
they wanted to, Battle Cry of Freedom: The Civil War Era,
James McPherson, (p. 310). Slavery was not the reason the
Civil War began. Lincoln had argued that it was
unconstitutional for any state or states to secede from the
Union, which is why keeping the Union together, as one
country, was the Norths most important cause for war. The
South was fighting for the sacred right of self government,
Battle Cry of Freedom: The Civil War Era, James
McPherson, (p. 310). The South felt that it was fighting for
the same reasons that the founding fathers had fought for in
the war for Independence. According to southerners
seceding from the Union, all they wanted was to be left
alone, and not to be bothered by the North. After Davis
speech to the Confederate Congress he included the phrase
All we ask is to be let alone, which inturn specified the
most immediate, tangible Confederate war aim: defense from
invasion. Battle Cry of Freedom: The Civil War Era, James
McPherson, (p. 310). Slavery was not the major issue or
cause for going to war. Slavery handicapped Confederate
foreign policy. The first Southern commissioners to Britain
reported in May 1861 that The public mind here is entirely
opposed to the government of the Confederate States of
America on the question of slavery.The sincerity and
universality of this feeling embarrass the government in
dealing with the question of our recognition. The North
initially stated that the war was not about slavery. Lincoln
even mentioned that he had no purpose, directly or
indirectly, to interfere with slavery in the states where it
exists, Battle Cry of Freedom: The Civil War Era, James
McPherson, (p. 312). The Constitution protected and will
continue to protect slavery where it existed. As was stated
earlier, the North fought the war to keep the Union together,
because of the fact that secession was unconstitutional.

Militarily, both the North and the South were not prepared
for this war. Although the North was the manufacturing part
of the country, it had to somehow change its peacetime
economy to a wartime economy. Most of the arms that
belonged to the North were very old and outdated. It had
old muskets and cannons that dated back to the war of
1812. Northern leadership was crippled as well. Most of the
pristine military academies were in the South, and most of
the graduates of those military academies served in the
confederate armies. Many of the Norths military leaders
were veterans of the war of 1812. Many of the Norths
leaders were in there 60s and beyond. The army had
nothing resembling a general staff, no strategic plans, no
program for mobilization, Battle Cry of Freedom: The Civil
War Era, James McPherson, (p. 312). The Northern navy
was in better shape then the army. Although 373 of the
Navys 1,554 officers and a few of its 7600 seamen left to
go with the south, the large merchant marine from which an
expanded navy would draw experienced officers and sailors
was overwhelmingly northern. Battle Cry of Freedom: The
Civil War Era, James McPherson, (p. 313). The
Northerners military strategy was to basically cut the
Southerners lines of communications, to slowly choke the
Confederate army to surrender. The navy did a good job
following this strategy. The North set up blockades, which
the navy carried out to the best of its ability. The
Confederates had quite possibly the best leadership in the
war. Although to win, it needed more then best leadership.

The South had primarily an agrarian economy. This fact
alone was a major obstacle for the South during the war.

The South had the men, leadership, and even some
ammunition when the war began. The South had to find the
resources, employ those resources, and finally put those
resources together. The confederacy had only one-ninth the
industrial capacity of the Union. Northern states had
manufactured 97% of the countrys firearms in 1860, 94%
of its cloth, 93% of its pig iron, and more then 90% of its
boots and shoes. Battle Cry of Freedom: The Civil War Era,
James McPherson, (p. 318). When it came to the Navy, the
Confederates had no navy. Although lacking material
resources, they used tugboats, revenue cutters, and river
steamboats to be converted into gunboats for harbor patrol.

Battle Cry of Freedom: The Civil War Era, James
McPherson, (p. 314). The Confederates also came up with
the idea of the first submarine. The Confederacy sent into
action the worlds first combat submarine, the C.S.S.

Hunley, which sank three times in trials, drowning the crew
each time, before sinking a blockade ship off Charleston in
1864, while going down itself for the fourth and last time.

Battle Cry of Freedom: The Civil War Era, James
McPherson, (p. 314). The Confederacy was also the first to
introduce torpedoes/land mines. Even though these
innovations were developed during the war, they did not
prove substantial enough to win the war. Jefferson Davis
strategy was to take a defensive position rather then an
offensive one. The basic war aim of the confederacy, like
that of the United States in the revolution was to defend a
new nation from conquest. . Battle Cry of Freedom: The
Civil War Era, James McPherson, (p. 314). Davis reasoned
just as Washington did during the revolution, that retreating
against a stronger enemy is not bad all the time. It gave time
to regroup your forces and build a counterattack against the
enemy. Although the south did try this tactic at the beginning
of the war, they didnt follow this strategy at the end of the
war. The south had the temperament that they could easily
whip the Yankees and that they should take the war to
them. The idea of waiting for blows, instead of inflicting
them, is altogether unsuited to the genius of our people,
declared the Richmond Examiner. Battle Cry of Freedom:
The Civil War Era, James McPherson, (p. 337). In
conclusion, the lack of adequate resources proved to be the
devastating factor for the Confederacy. Although the
Confederacy had the excellent leadership at the beginning of
the war, later, southern public opinion showed that the
people in the South were sick of taking the defensive
position and wanted to attack the North. Because of this
strategy, the Confederacy lost many soldiers in battles while
trying to fight in the North. The Souths last ditch effort at the
end of the war was a promise of freedom for any slave that
fights against the Union. Even though the North had inferior
leadership, its manufacturing capabilities surpassed that of
the South. At first the North did not have many men enlisted
in an army. However, later on the North had voluntary
regiments of men fighting for the Union. The Norths major
lines of communication were never destroyed and the Union
army was always well supplied. In conclusion the North won
because it had superior resources and industry to sustain the
war effort to its conclusion. William L. Yancey and A.

Dudley Mann to Robert Toombs, May 21, 1861, in James
D. Richardson, comp., A Compilation of the Messages and
Papers of the Confederacy, 2 vols. (Nashville, 1906), II, 37.

5 1
History

x

Hi!
I'm Adrienne!

Would you like to get a custom essay? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out