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.

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


order now

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.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 thatslavery and war were the two things that at leat keep me going and I knew icould say alot on both.

I couldn’t quite figgure out how i was going to jointhe two until i did some research and other reading and started to rememberthe civil war and it’s purposes. I not one to into history but i came acrosssome very interesting information which i felt could bring my points ofview out quite effectively. So here it is my feelings and viewpoints onSlavery during, within, and after the civil war.The Civil War was doubly tragic because it was completelyunnecessary. Slavery had been ended in other nations with the stroke of apen, and yet in the mighty United States the country was willing to go towar over the issue of whether slavery should remain. The southerners feltthat it was their constitutional right to own slaves and did not see a timewhen they should be required to give up that right.

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


order now

However, upon theelection of Lincoln as President, the southerners felt threatened, and felttheir slave holding rights were being threatened, and in an effort to protectthese rights they chose to secede from the union. Why would any oneperson want to own another human being with the same intestines, some ofthe same feelings yet a different color for their own good . This was quitecrazy if you ask me , I feel that the southerners should have felt threatenedand that if what they were doing were so right why feel so threatened aboutdoing it.The northerners and Lincoln saw the importance of maintaining a united country, set out to bring back the seceded states. Thus the Civil Warbegan. During the civil war many Americans were either killed or wounded,this number was only surpassed by World War II.

While the civil waroriginally began as a quest to bring the southern states back to the union.However, the goal of the war did soon change to that of abolition. While thewar may have seemed necessary to the soldiers and governments who wereparticipating, in retrospect it was unnecessary. In three separate Europeancountries, slavery had been abolished prior to the American Civil War, andeach without arms being raised. Slavery had been abolished in Britain in1838, Sweden in 1848, and in Holland in 1863. It indeed could havesimilarly been abolished in the United States. However, the southerners,who were dependent on the slave institution, refused to give up their right toown slaves easily.

Had the South been more progressively thinking manylives would have been saved and blood need not have been shed in the nameof slavery. This is particularly true because if the south had given up theirright to free labor (slavery), they would have soon received the gift ofmechanical labor. Indeed they might have profited more from the use of themachines which were soon to be invented, as they did not require housing,and food.

However, the southerners were deeply rooted in their institutionof slavery and were prepared to go to war over their feelings. Did it evercome to mind that the slaves were to willing to got o war over their ownfreedom. If one were to ask that question then that would have been a war too unforgotten.

Duuring this war the battlefields were transformed intoshambles where during the duration of the war 634,703 union soldiers werekilled or wounded, and 335,524 confederate soldiers were killed orwounded. Indeed this was the second most intense war second to WorldWar II. In the civil war 3,846 soldiers from both the union army and theconfederate army were killed per month of fighting.

This clearly shows theintensity of the battle and the strong will which drove both sides to continuefighting in the face of such catastrophe. The financial burden endured byboth sides was astronomical for the time period. The union force spent acombined 3.2 billion dollars which in terms of current currency values is27.3 billion dollars.

The confederacy spent two billion or 17.1 billiondollars. This is the price both sides were willing to pay in the name ofslavery.

The North and South went to war over the issue of slavery andendured a great expense in terms of human lives, and money. They couldhowever have followed the example of Britain, Sweden, and Holland andsimply signed away the institution of slavery and saved thousands of lives,and billions in dollars. However, the south was too deeply rooted in theinstitution of slavery, and when the Emancipation Proclamation came whichfreed the slaves they still treated them as they did before, often outside ofthe legal limits. Even after the 14th amendment which legally made peopleof color American citizens, there were strong racial and prejudicial feelingswhich ran rampant in the south, for example the KKK, and Jim Crow Laws, and literacy tests for the right to vote. African Americans endured thesehardships for years and slavery still exixts in some way, form, or fashion outthere in the world today in the year 2001. Slavery was one of the numberone events in our country that was not a whole cause but part of a cause forwar in the united states. It also is a n event that has disgraced and put shameto 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 Iconclude this paper I would just like to add taht I feel that alot of the thingsin the late 1700’s and early 1800’s could have truly been prevented ifpeople were willing to compromise. But it seems as if the stubborness of thepeople today is literally deeply rooted from the ones’ before us. Do youthink the war were fighting now could lead to the financial burden and thenext recession as it did during the other wars fought in or country? I ask youthat because i’m quite unsure but I do know the world is supoosed to be abetter place and it is getting crazier and crazier by the minute like werestarting all over again.American History

Civil War

Writing about recordedhistory should be a relatively easy task to accomplish.

Recorded history is based on facts. Regardless of what timeperiod one may write about, one will find enough informationabout that time of period. The key is to put everything in alogical and understandable manner. This paper will be aboutthe Civil War.

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


order now

I will try, to the best of my knowledge, todiscuss the Norths and Souths positions and Arguments forgoing to war, their initial military strategies and their strengthand weaknesses. The paper will actually be a summary fromchapter 10 of the book Battle Cry of Freedom: The CivilWar Era By: James McPherson, Amateurs Go To War.Before discussing the war itself, one must understand theUnions and the Confederates arguments and reasons forgoing to war. Lets start at the beginning, when the Southwas first showing animosity for the North, which eventuallyled to sessionist ideas by the South. The Compromise of1850 was drafted in response to the threat of a SouthernConvention, because of Zachary Taylors decision to carveout two huge territories in the Far West and to admit them inthe union as free states.

Henry Clay drafted the compromise,which includes eight parts. The first pair would admitCalifornia as a State and organize the remainder of theMexican cession without any restriction or condition on thesubject of slavery. The second pair of resolutions settled theboundary dispute between Texas and New Mexico in favorof the latter and compensated Texas by federal assumptionof debts contracted during its existence as an IndependentRepublic. Clays third pair of resolutions called for abolitionof the slave trade in the District of Columbia but a guaranteeof slavery itself in the District. As if these six proposalsyielded more to the North then to the South, Clays final pairof resolutions tipped the balance Southward by denyingcongressional power over the interstate slave trade andcalling for a stronger law to enable slave holders to recovertheir property when they fled to free states Battle Cry offreedom: The Civil War Era, McPherson James, (p.70-71).The Northerners hated the fugitive slave law, because in thepast it was never enforced and it never gave a trial by jury toany runaway slaves. The only testimony heard was that ofthe slaveholder and he usually recovered his slave.

Not onlythat, but the slaveholder was compensated $10 for winningthe trial because of all the trouble he had to go through inrecovering his property. Because of the passage of thecompromise, the North had to enforce the law which ithated. As the United States expanded westward, two newterritories were carved out and the issue of slavery aroseagain. The U.S. government let the two new territoriesdecide themselves whether or not to permit slavery. Since itwas up to the people to decide the slavery issue, Northernabolitionists enticed anti-slavery supporters to move into thenew regions and vote to make Kansas and Nebraska freestates.

Southern pro-slavery supporters did exactly as theNorth did to make Kansas and Nebraska slave states. Thetwo sides clashed with one another over this issue and therewas literally a Civil War in Kansas. One particular situationthat occurred in Kansas was the sacking of the city ofLawrence. Pro slavery advocates of the city of LeCompton,Kansas set up a group or a posse that went to theanti-slavery city of Lawrence, Kansas, ransacked, burnedand literally destroyed the city. In response to this attack bythe Southerners the Northerners took revenge. John Brown,a radical abolitionist, decided to do a similar thing to theSoutherners. He planned an attack on LeCompton, Kansas.

Enroute to LeCompton he encountered about five proslavery supporters, and without remorse, hacked them todeath at Potawattamie Creek in Kansas. The entire countrywas slowly being divided into two parts and even congresscould not do anything to resolve the problems. Politicalparties were splitting along North/South lines and evenviolence was a common occurrence in congress. The laststraw, which eventually split the Union, was the election of1860. On the eve of the election, Southerners had alreadyagreed that if a republican wins the election, they wouldleave the Union. Well, history shows that Lincoln, arepublican, was elected and the south truly did leave theUnion. During the four months, prior to President Lincolnsinauguration, President James Buchanan did nothing todiscourage secession. It may be even concluded that he wassympathetic to the Southern cause.

South Carolina was thefirst state to secede from the Union, and by February 1861seven more southern states followed South Carolinasexample. Finally, when Lincoln took the office, all of thefederal arsenals in the south have been overrun byConfederate forces. In Fort Sumter, South Carolina, federaltroops were literally surrounded and their supplies eventuallyran out. Lincoln made a decision to send an unarmed supplyship to the harbor of Fort Sumter. Lincolns reasoning wasthat if the South fires on an unarmed supply ship, it would bean act of war.

If it doesnt it would mean that the South isbluffing and it really does not want to secede. Well, on April12, 1861 Confederate troops fired on the unarmed supplyship at Fort Sumter and the Civil War began. The Northsprimary reasons for going to war was to keep the countrytogether. The South was fighting for state sovereignty, theright of secession and interpreting the constitution the waythey wanted to, Battle Cry of Freedom: The Civil War Era,James McPherson, (p.

310). Slavery was not the reason theCivil War began. Lincoln had argued that it wasunconstitutional for any state or states to secede from theUnion, which is why keeping the Union together, as onecountry, was the Norths most important cause for war. TheSouth was fighting for the sacred right of self government,Battle Cry of Freedom: The Civil War Era, JamesMcPherson, (p. 310). The South felt that it was fighting forthe same reasons that the founding fathers had fought for inthe war for Independence.

According to southernersseceding from the Union, all they wanted was to be leftalone, and not to be bothered by the North. After Davisspeech to the Confederate Congress he included the phraseAll we ask is to be let alone, which inturn specified themost immediate, tangible Confederate war aim: defense frominvasion. Battle Cry of Freedom: The Civil War Era, JamesMcPherson, (p.

310). Slavery was not the major issue orcause for going to war. Slavery handicapped Confederateforeign policy. The first Southern commissioners to Britainreported in May 1861 that The public mind here is entirelyopposed to the government of the Confederate States ofAmerica on the question of slavery.

The sincerity anduniversality of this feeling embarrass the government indealing with the question of our recognition. The Northinitially stated that the war was not about slavery. Lincolneven mentioned that he had no purpose, directly orindirectly, to interfere with slavery in the states where itexists, Battle Cry of Freedom: The Civil War Era, JamesMcPherson, (p. 312). The Constitution protected and willcontinue to protect slavery where it existed. As was statedearlier, 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 preparedfor this war.

Although the North was the manufacturing partof the country, it had to somehow change its peacetimeeconomy to a wartime economy. Most of the arms thatbelonged to the North were very old and outdated. It hadold muskets and cannons that dated back to the war of1812. Northern leadership was crippled as well. Most of thepristine military academies were in the South, and most ofthe graduates of those military academies served in theconfederate armies.

Many of the Norths military leaderswere veterans of the war of 1812. Many of the Northsleaders were in there 60s and beyond. The army hadnothing resembling a general staff, no strategic plans, noprogram for mobilization, Battle Cry of Freedom: The CivilWar Era, James McPherson, (p. 312).

The Northern navywas in better shape then the army. Although 373 of theNavys 1,554 officers and a few of its 7600 seamen left togo with the south, the large merchant marine from which anexpanded navy would draw experienced officers and sailorswas overwhelmingly northern. Battle Cry of Freedom: TheCivil War Era, James McPherson, (p. 313). TheNortherners military strategy was to basically cut theSoutherners lines of communications, to slowly choke theConfederate army to surrender.

The navy did a good jobfollowing this strategy. The North set up blockades, whichthe navy carried out to the best of its ability. TheConfederates had quite possibly the best leadership in thewar. Although to win, it needed more then best leadership.The South had primarily an agrarian economy.

This factalone was a major obstacle for the South during the war.The South had the men, leadership, and even someammunition when the war began. The South had to find theresources, employ those resources, and finally put thoseresources together. The confederacy had only one-ninth theindustrial capacity of the Union. Northern states hadmanufactured 97% of the countrys firearms in 1860, 94%of its cloth, 93% of its pig iron, and more then 90% of itsboots and shoes. Battle Cry of Freedom: The Civil War Era,James McPherson, (p. 318). When it came to the Navy, theConfederates had no navy.

Although lacking materialresources, they used tugboats, revenue cutters, and riversteamboats to be converted into gunboats for harbor patrol.Battle Cry of Freedom: The Civil War Era, JamesMcPherson, (p. 314). The Confederates also came up withthe idea of the first submarine. The Confederacy sent intoaction the worlds first combat submarine, the C.S.

S.Hunley, which sank three times in trials, drowning the creweach time, before sinking a blockade ship off Charleston in1864, while going down itself for the fourth and last time.Battle Cry of Freedom: The Civil War Era, JamesMcPherson, (p.

314). The Confederacy was also the first tointroduce torpedoes/land mines. Even though theseinnovations were developed during the war, they did notprove substantial enough to win the war. Jefferson Davisstrategy was to take a defensive position rather then anoffensive one. The basic war aim of the confederacy, likethat of the United States in the revolution was to defend anew nation from conquest. . Battle Cry of Freedom: TheCivil War Era, James McPherson, (p. 314).

Davis reasonedjust as Washington did during the revolution, that retreatingagainst a stronger enemy is not bad all the time. It gave timeto regroup your forces and build a counterattack against theenemy. Although the south did try this tactic at the beginningof the war, they didnt follow this strategy at the end of thewar. The south had the temperament that they could easilywhip the Yankees and that they should take the war tothem.

The idea of waiting for blows, instead of inflictingthem, 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). Inconclusion, the lack of adequate resources proved to be thedevastating factor for the Confederacy. Although theConfederacy had the excellent leadership at the beginning ofthe war, later, southern public opinion showed that thepeople in the South were sick of taking the defensiveposition and wanted to attack the North. Because of thisstrategy, the Confederacy lost many soldiers in battles whiletrying to fight in the North.

The Souths last ditch effort at theend of the war was a promise of freedom for any slave thatfights against the Union. Even though the North had inferiorleadership, its manufacturing capabilities surpassed that ofthe South. At first the North did not have many men enlistedin an army. However, later on the North had voluntaryregiments of men fighting for the Union. The Norths majorlines of communication were never destroyed and the Unionarmy was always well supplied.

In conclusion the North wonbecause it had superior resources and industry to sustain thewar effort to its conclusion. William L. Yancey and A.Dudley Mann to Robert Toombs, May 21, 1861, in JamesD. Richardson, comp.

, A Compilation of the Messages andPapers 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