Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
History essay agricultural revolution
American civil war social impacts
The impact of the civil war
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
The American Civil War, a war between the North and South, Union and Confederacy. During the Civil War, the North and the South fought with their own advantages and disadvantages, though one 's advantage would be mainly the other’s disadvantage. So instead of thinking it as strengths and weakness, there were aspects that were either good or bad for the regions during the war. The main factors between the North and South were their morale, the type of society each had, the location of the war, their leadership, and their population. Each of these topics helped decide the outcome of the war. First off, when the war was fought each side had a certain spirit throughout the group called morale which is a self-confidence and enthusiasm that helps throughout the war. For the South, morale was high and it was a great strength at the start of war because they were fighting for their way of life. The Confederacy relied heavily on slaves for labor and they didn’t want slaves to become a part of society, so they had high spirits in the beginning of the war to win (Boyer). The North compared to the South had morale …show more content…
This was an advantage for the North who had strong industrial power and farmland used for food crops (Lombardo). Industrially, the North had 101 thousand factories, 1.1 million factory workers, and 20 thousand miles of railroad, all those drastically surpassed the South which had 9 thousand factories, 70 thousand factory workers, and 1.7 thousand miles of railroad. In addition to industrial, the union outclassed in agricultural too because they focused more on food crops rather than profit-based crops. Since the North outperformed the South with their development, they overall had more money which could finance the war better
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
D. W. Griffith's film "Birth of a Nation" shows that the South fought the war not only to protect slavery, but also to preserve a whole culture, a way of life. Their wealth and identity belonged to the land they lived on. Southerners fought to protect sovereignty, pride, identity, and their decision to secede which was under attack by a despot - President Lincoln. Few of the southerners could give up their culture without a fight.
...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 decades leading up to the American Civil War showed a great divide in the economic, political, and regional attitudes between the North and South. These divisions still plague the country today. However, there is a divide on whether economic anxieties or political differences were the major factor in the run up to the Civil War.
Another reason the South well fell short of a victory was the obvious difference in population between the South and the North. The North at the time had twenty-two million men while the South had a meager nine-and-a-half million, of whom three-and-a-half million were slaves. While the slaves could be used to support the war effort through work on the plantations, in industries and as teamsters and pioneers with the army, they were not used as a combat arm in the war to any extent. This cuts the South's manpower by a third, leaving a fifteen-and-a-half million difference in the population of the two areas. Give the South fifteen-and-a-half million more possible soldiers, and the outcome would have been different.
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
Throughout the early parts of the century the North had heavily concentrated on industrial improvement while the South had mostly concentrated on agricultural means. This proved to be of great significance, as the two sides would find themselves in a high cost and high demand war. During the onset of the war the "North contained 80% of total U.S. industry" (Rivera pg.1), and many of these production facilities were quickly and easily transformed in order to support the demands of the military. The South on the other hand had very few production facilities and most of them lay along the contested Border States, and they lost most of these facilities when West Virginia, Kentucky, Maryland, and Delaware opted to...
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...
The North region, also called the Union, was already different from the South before the Civil War even started. The North side did have their disadvantages as well as benefits. One disadvantage was the lack of favorable soil and climate. Their type of conditions only allowed for small farmsteads rather than the big plantations the South had. This weakness handicapped the North side from producing more resources such as cotton, but they were considered to have more food and money than the South. The North had some good leaders but they did not have as many leaders as the South. President Lincoln was one of their leaders, as well as their biggest supporter. “His utter determination to win was key in the Civil War; having the support of the President, although things weren't always in the favor of the Union states, is a major point in the pursuit of victory” (internet 4). Having the President on their side helped with morale as well. They had a bigger population due to immigrant labor from Europe to wor...
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 Southern and Northern states varied on many issues, which eventually led them to the Civil War. There were deep economic, social, and political differences between the North and the South. These differences stemmed from the interpretation of the United States Constitution on both sides. In the end, all of these disagreements about the rights of states led to the Civil War. There were reasons other than slavery for the South?s secession. The manifestations of division in America were many: utopian communities, conflicts over public space, backlash against immigrants, urban riots, black protest, and Indian resistance (Norton 234). America was a divided land in need reform with the South in the most need. The South relied heavily on agriculture, as opposed to the North, which was highly populated and an industrialized society. The South grew cotton, which was its main cash crop and many Southerners knew that heavy reliance on slave labor would hurt the South eventually, but their warnings were not heeded. The South was based on a totalitarian system.
The country was going through major changes, socially and economically. Though Davis led the South through dramatic changes, no change has ever had more importance than the abolishment of slavery. The sex of the world. Both the North and the South gained knowledge from this horrid experience of the war.
“Why did the North win the Civil War?” is only half of a question by itself, for the other half is “Why did the South lose the Civil War?” To this day historians have tried to put their finger on the exact reason for the South losing the war. Some historians blame the head of the confederacy Jefferson Davis; however others believe that it was the shear numbers of the Union (North). The advantages and disadvantages are abundant on either sides of the argument, but the most dominate arguments on why the South lost the war would be the fact that state’s rights prevented unification of the South, Jefferson Davis' poor leadership and his failure to work together with his generals, the South failed to gain the recognition of the European nations, North's superior resources made the outcome inevitable, and moral of the South towards the end of the war.
The American civil war was an important event in the history of United States. It changed the internal structure of American society and had a greater impact than the revolution. The basis of the civil war was due to slavery. It overthrew the once dominated planter elite politically and its slaveholding class. During early decades of the nineteen-century the planters of American south were not about to follow the path of gradual emancipation that the northern states had raged. The economies of the south and north, continues to go in opposing directs.