No American conflict sparks controversy quite like the Civil War. Depending on individual upbringing and locality, the question of who had the upper hand as hostilities came to a head in the 1860’s could still be up for debate. But personal and regional differences aside, it is safe to say that both combatants, the North and the South, had their own assets and proverbial Achilles’ heel in the war to come.
As we often assume, the North had a multitude of advantages going into the Civil War. The North had a higher population, which meant they not only had more men to call to arms, but also had a larger workforce to provision their campaign. Pockets of Union opinions supplemented the Northern advance, and several of the slave states that didn’t secede, including Delaware, Missouri, Maryland and Kentucky, added additional men to the Northern army (Farmer). They utilized not only their own men, but also the efforts of escaped slaves who wanted to contribute to the Union cause (Farmer). Being more industrial, the North was capable of producing copious amounts of quality supplies, and with twice the density of railroads per square mile, could distribute them more efficiently (U.S …show more content…
When the war started, the Confederacy had only one-ninth the industrial capacity as its opponent (U.S. History.org). This meant that not only did they have fewer provisions, but they also had problems transporting what they had to the battlefields, considering there were only half as many developed roadways and train tracks in the South as there were in the North (Lutz). Further straining the South was its monetary misgivings. Being a newly formed political body at the beginning of the war, the government printed too much money, which sent inflation skyrocketing and destroyed the economy (Farmer). Despite its disadvantages, the South was still a far more formidable rival than we often
As we often assume, the North had a multitude of advantages going into the Civil War. The North had a higher population, which meant they not only had more men to call to arms, but also had a larger workforce to provision their campaign. Pockets of Union opinions supplemented the Northern advance, and several of the slave states that didn’t secede, including Delaware, Missouri, Maryland and Kentucky, added additional men to the Northern army (Farmer). They utilized not only their own men, but also the efforts of escaped slaves who wanted to contribute to the Union cause (Farmer). Being more industrial, the North was capable of producing copious amounts of quality supplies, and with twice the density of railroads per square mile, could distribute them more efficiently (U.S …show more content…
When the war started, the Confederacy had only one-ninth the industrial capacity as its opponent (U.S. History.org). This meant that not only did they have fewer provisions, but they also had problems transporting what they had to the battlefields, considering there were only half as many developed roadways and train tracks in the South as there were in the North (Lutz). Further straining the South was its monetary misgivings. Being a newly formed political body at the beginning of the war, the government printed too much money, which sent inflation skyrocketing and destroyed the economy (Farmer). Despite its disadvantages, the South was still a far more formidable rival than we often