Military Strategy and Economic Factors Influencing Civil War Outcome

This essay provides a detailed analysis of the military strategies employed by the Union Army from 1861 to 1862 and the economic positions of both the North and the South during the American Civil War. It examines the initial strategies of the Union, including the Anaconda Plan, and their effectiveness, while also exploring the economic disadvantages faced by the Confederacy, such as limited industrial development and resources, in comparison to the economically stable North. The essay argues that the South's economic limitations significantly impacted the overall course of the war, despite their military efforts and explores the reasons for the Union's ultimate victory, including their greater resources, population, and the leadership of Abraham Lincoln.

Running Head: MILITARY STRATEGY 1
Military Strategy and Economic Position of North and South
Student’s Name
Institutional Affiliation
Date

MILITARY STRATEGY 2
Military Strategy and Economic Position of North and South
Q 1: According to Kreiser, (2011) union's most immediate organised plan originated from
major general Winfield scot. He suggested that what turned out to be scornfully referred to as
anaconda proposal. He predicted that 80000 men of union column pushed down Mississippi
river, disjoining the union in twain whereas the confederacy naval force founded barricade
chocking out the south (Kreiser, 2011).
A fundamental component to Scott's scheme was his confidence since the majority of
southern people were professional unionists just stifled by difficult subgroup. It implied that a
lazy way of dealing with conducting the war would permit period for the hidden coalition
romanticism to salvage its equitable residence. Scott's plan overvalued strengths and depths
of southernism union and thought little of southernism backing for withdrawal.
Consequently, Lincoln established a barrier which turned into an initial and regular
component of the coalition plan, and the important band of coalition naval technique.
Lincoln, however, didn't assist Scott's sluggish pressure. The people of the north stuck by
Lincoln and stacked by the battle despite their first two years of almost conceding the defeat.
Abraham was focused` to sue the war, and as long as the north was behind him like a solid
wall. According to Poast, (2014) Lincoln needed a fast war, which pressed for quick action.
Whenever one of the people had to run in the ford pick upon the road, it’s always the
groundhog that loses regardless of how much power it processes. Trusting it’s methodically
plausible; he structured unpleasant in Virginia by armed forces of General Robert Patterson
and Irvin McDowell which intended taking Manassas junction (Poast, 2014). It, however,
ended in coalition downfall on Bull Run banks in 1861.
General McClellan promptly proposed one of the most comprehensive intentional
strategies for impeaching a war (Saunders, 2015). This stratergy is necessary for violence

MILITARY STRATEGY 3
besides several facts of the union simultaneously and even supported the consideration of
Mexico's assistance. Saunders, (2015) argued that McClellan would have liked to finish the
war in a unique crusade after appropriately getting ready. The main segments of McClellan
planned incorporated the sending of 20000men force, clearing Missouri with the troops,
moreover to those brought up in eastern Tennessee and Kentucky, downward the Mississippi
River : the East Tennessee and seizure of Nashville .
The nations rail lines shifts from Nebraska and Kansas besides western Texas and red
river all anticipated to exploit free state romanticism and coalition; and thought of a progress
since California passing through New Mexico, and in additional assistance from Mexico
itself (Robinson,2015). The phase of Anaconda strategies were crucial although it was
important to destroy the united army in order to make the south to give up. Though Lincoln
had very little knowledge of military experience, he felt very powerful that the confederate
troop and violently engaged the army in various different areas to overcome them. In the year
1862 the confederacy launched a campaign to stop the control of river Mississippi in the
northern part and apprehended the New Orleans in the month of April.
Q 2: Fahs, (2010) explains the reason as to why the south lost is due to the idea that
the north was superior to the south. Regardless of the long-held view that the south had
brilliant generals, they processed a brilliant army commander whose name was called lee. All
others were the second retreat of the best. The northern was economically stable than the
south, and this lead to winning people such as Grant, Sherman, William George H, Thomas
and Phillip Sheridan.
The South's compared to the north were highly outclassed in industrial development
(Stepan, 2015). One factor that leads to their winning is recognition of European and
presence of military aid. There was also a recollection of some people like Jefferson Davis

MILITARY STRATEGY 4
which showed that there was nowhere the European could intervene at all. There was no way
a country like England, or France could involve them with the North America war that would
not have ended up doing significant damage mostly in England's maritime trade.
The south had no workforce and output when the war ended; the south had more or
less more weapons still. They had no enough men who were supposed to use the available
guns. I don't accept that the south lost the war because it lost its will, like some of the
theorist's dictates. There is nothing more stubborn than a stubborn or the willingness.
We can't hold the southern that they thought to win the war but we can see this in
prospect, but they had no time they could have done that. Niblett, (2010) explains why it was
very crucial thing they could not know was willpower of Abraham Lincoln to triumph and
the implausible continuing power of the northern people; avoidably greater workforce and the
presence of the resources were to conquer the battle.
The most standing and outrageous thing is, the south seized out as long as It did. This
is surely unbelievable to the brave people and to the self-sacrifice people of the south men
plus the armies and people at home who used to sustain then during the war (Barnett, 2012).
The south ultimately lost the battle by reason that the north and Abraham Lincoln become
much focused to conquer the battle. The south lost the battle since they had no resources that
could make them face the war like the north did.
Conclusively the south had several factors that lead to the defeat by the North; it is
evident that Northern had a population of about twenty two million people compared to the
south with about nine and half a million people. Out of this number three and a half were
treated as slaves. Slaves had no capacity to support the war; they were mainly working on
plantations and also in industries. It is seen that the south could have won the battle if they

MILITARY STRATEGY 5
had well equipped men of war which could be led by abled generals and a president who was
wiser enough. When Lincoln was re-elected the way to the south to win went down.
References

MILITARY STRATEGY 6
Barnett, C. (2012). Lords of War: From Lincoln to Churchill: Supreme Command 1861-1945.
Casemate Publishers.
Fahs, A. (2010). The Imagined Civil War: Popular Literature of the North and South, 1861-1865.
Univ of North Carolina Press.
Kreiser Jr, L. A. (2011). Defeating Lee: A History of the Second Corps, Army of the Potomac.
Indiana University Press.
Niblett, R. (Ed.). (2010). America and a changed world: a question of leadership. John Wiley &
Sons.
Poast, P. (2014). Lincoln’s Gamble: How the Southern Secession Crisis Became the American Civil
War. Unpublished manuscript, Rutgers University.
Robinson, N. (2015). Have you won the war on terror? Military videogames and the state of
American exceptionalism. Millennium, 43(2), 450-470.
Saunders Jr, R. (2015). The Early Morning of War: Bull Run, 1861. The Journal of Southern
History, 81(4), 994.
Stepan, A. C. (2015). The military in politics: changing patterns in Brazil. Princeton University
Press.