In the first half of the 19th century, when the movement to the western area became widespread, two streams of colonization, the North and South, from the free and slave states were formed. Both slavery and free capitalism systems coexisted in one state. However, the constitution of northern states banned slavery. Their interests differentiated also in the Congress. North public sympathized for slaves of the South, but few dared to advocate for their release because they were the private property of planters. The Civil War between northern and southern states was the inevitable consequence of the growing differences between two social systems in the country. The issue of slavery was at the core of these conflicts. Confrontation that lasted long four years, millions of lives, devastation of a huge, once fertile region were the sad results of the war that led to the death of not only the Confederacy, but the institution of slavery itself. The war left many unresolved issues. In particular, it was not clear how to reunite the Republic (Weigley, 2000).
Disunity and distrust that prevailed between the North and the South became a result of the Civil War. In the ideological, cultural, and social terms, rival forces were almost equal. However, in financial support a clear bias was observed. Rich, urbanized Union with its vast expanses, and human resources confronted smaller and economically weaker agricultural Confederation. Southerners dared to oppose such a powerful opponent. Northern states had richer resources than Southerners. In terms of population, the North had more people than the Confederacy. Northern factories produced 92% of all industrial goods. Two-thirds of railroad tracks ran in the north. In addition, the North owned most of the shipping and trading companies. Most of industrial capacity and human resources of the country were concentrated in the North, but the South was more united and strong militarily. It seems that Southerners were not aware of the territorial and economic superiority. Their reckless actions were doomed to failure from the very beginning (Engle, 2001).
However, as it turns out, supporters of the Confederation evaluated the situation quite differently. They had no doubt of success of their actions. Their optimism was based on the idea of the expected duration of the confrontation. Of course, the North had a major economic power, but it needed a lot of time on the mobilization of resources and the efficient use of it for military purposes. If the war had not delayed, the Confederation could have been successful in conducting military actions. The South was sure to win because it had certain advantages over the North, actual just in the context of rapid war. First of all, the Southerners had military superiority by qualified and experienced officer corps. It happened that the most talented military leaders cooperated with the Confederacy. All officers of the Confederacy had better combat training than their fellow northerners. Another important consideration was the fact that the army of the Confederation had more simple and limited problems than their opponents. While the "victory" of the Union assumed the rebelling invasion of the South and its conquest, the Confederates had only to defend their land from invaders. To start the war in a deadlock would be complete triumph of southerners. Lincoln had serious problems regarding military aspect. First, he had to find a decent general, who agreed to carry the banner of the bloody and brutal war. On the other hand, the northerners had absolute advantage in human resources. Out of three million soldiers who took part in the Civil War, nearly three-quarters fought for the Union. This meant a significant superiority of the northerners in the infantry, which influences the outcome of the war. Developed North industry smoothly delivered artillery, which also served as a considerable advantage. Moreover, considering years of shipping practice, the northerners could advance against enemies superior navy. The only strong point of the South was experienced cavalry, but in XIX century the military value of this kind of troops had been steadily declining (Mitchell, 2001).
From a geographical point of view, the situation was also evolved quite well for the North. Tennessee and Cumberland opened access on states of Kentucky, Tennessee, northern Mississippi, Alabama and West Virginia. Control of the Mississippi allowed cutting off western regions of the Eastern Confederation. As a result, the entire South was transformed into a vast battlefield. Lands of the Confederacy had to suffer ruin and desolation that are inevitable companions of war. As years passed, damage done to the southern plantations, farms and villages only amplified and eventually reached incredible proportions. From a political point of view, leaders of the northerners showed more skills in the art of transforming internal conflicts in the military channel, than their southern counterparts. It should be noted that Lincoln had a staff of assistants in the face of talented and experienced members of the cabinet. Given a fact that the opposition party had sufficient weight in the northern states, the Republicans were interested in maintaining a united front, reluctantly supported the president. In contrast to the southern Democrats, who had demonstrated distrust towards the federal government, northern Republicans understood the importance of a strong central government in time of war and tried hard to help it. This factor played a great role in the victory over decentralized, mired in the parochial interests Confederacy. During the unexpectedly protracted war, superior assets of the Union, such as natural, industrial, and human, became increasingly important. The North was able to provide continuous massive pressure on its opponent, and at the end this huge and ruthless tremendous strength fractured desperate determination of the Confederacy (Rhodes, 2009).
Buy custom Civil War essay
|← The Catholic Reformation||Columbus Letter to Ferdinand and Isabella →|