Compare And Contrast Union And Confederate Armies

The American Civil War has become a point of controversy and argument when discussing key events in shaping America. The arguments that arise when discussing the war tend to focus on whether the Confederate was constitutionally justified in seceding, or whether the North had the right to prevent the secession. However, when discussing the America Civil War and the idea of separation, it is important to be mindful that separation did not simply end at the state level. Letters written by Jesse Rolston, Jr. and Jedediah Hotchkiss portray two significantly different attitudes toward the war, despite the fact that the writers both fought for the Confederate States and give accounts of the same battle, one of which ended in the Confederate’s favor. When examining the documents, both writers express different viewpoints on life on and off the battlefield. This significant difference represents a division amongst the Confederate army.

The challenges that the Union and the Confederacy faced during the Civil War were very different. Critical weaknesses that seemed unfit for war, plagued the opposing American forces, and would serve to be a continuous obstacle that would need to be conquered by patriotism of the people, for their opposing views. To allow for both sides to be competitive, the efforts put forth had to mold to the varied needs of the armies by both the civilian population and their militaries. To the people in the south the similarity to the colonists in the Revolutionary War, was assimilated to their separatist cause in the Civil War and would be their drive to compete with the dominating Northern states. This mindset started the Confederacy in the Civil

Throughout the 19th century, the distinctions between the North and South in the United States were controversial. Prior to the Civil War, the North consisted of business owners and middle-class men. The South consisted of mostly farmers. The North was industrial, using railroads and factories. The South was agricultural, with mostly farms and plantations. The North paid their labor workers. The South used slaves. Not only did their opposing views on slavery and the separation of the two cultures, tensions arose that eventually led to one of the most gruesome wars in history.

ship the cotton but this meant that the South had to pay the North to

The Civil War that occurred was one of the darkest times in our history as a country. It was a time where there was a complete breakdown of social and political systems. Hundreds of thousands were killed and hundreds of thousands more were aversely affected. However, it was also a time of remembrance and significant moral progress. It is remembered as the turning point in American History and would be the foundation for the Civil Rights movement many years later.

The romanticized version of the Civil War creates a picture of the North versus the South with the North imposing on the South. However, after reading “The Making of a Confederate” by William L. Barney, one can see that subdivisions existed before the war was declared. The documents analyzed by Barney primarily focus on the experiences of Walter Lenoir, a southern confederate and a member of the planter elite. His experiences tell a vivid story of a passionate and strongly opinioned participant of the Civil War as well as demonstrate a noticeably different view involving his reasoning when choosing a side. Between analyzing this fantastic piece of literature and other resourceful documents from “Voices of Freedom” by Eric Foner, one

There were many different Union Leaders and many Confederate leaders. Such as Jefferson Davis (Confederate) and Abraham Lincoln( Union )They both helped shape our country into what it is today. Both Leaders tried their hardest to command their troops as good as they could. They both made many different impacts on our country.

Before the Civil War, the North and the South were very different. Their values were completely different. The North was more industrialized, urbanized, and was more reliant on wage labor. On the other hand, the South continued to be a rural, agricultural society, and depended on slavery to harvest the cash crops that they made a living off of. Such big differences brought about the Civil War. Was there something that could have been done to avoid the Civil War in the first place?

Despite the unexpected hardships the Union faced, the Civil War ended with an overwhelming Union victory. However, due to the context of total war, the South was left in shambles. Following the Civil War was an Era known as Reconstruction-the process of Southern states to be reentered into the United States. What started as a peaceful reconciliation almost ignited a whole new Civil War. Although both the North and the South sparked tremendous amounts of damage, which destroyed Reconstruction the most? The South destroyed Reconstruction due to their strong opposition to the idea of Reconstruction and free civil rights for slaves.

The victory of the Civil War in 1865 may have given slaves their freedom, but the progression of rebuilding the South brought about a new set of substantial challenges for America. The death of President Abraham Lincoln took American by surprise. President Lincoln was not clear of his plan of Reconstruction; however, Lincoln did state that he had a simple plan for rebuilding. After the death of Abraham Lincoln everyone was confused on how to merge two pieces of the country back together. When Andrew Johnson took over presidency he made the decision to follow through with the simple plans that Abraham Lincoln had stated. However, the Congress had a different plan for Reconstruction; the Congress wanted to make the south pay for what they had done. The Congress and President Johnson had several similarities and differences in the reconstruction plan, the Republicans had strong determination to control the South and prior to 1877 the Republicans had

When we compare the military leaders of both North and South during the Civil War, it is not hard to see what the differences are. One of the first things that stand out is the numerous number of Northern generals that led the “Army of the Potomac.” Whereas the Confederate generals, at least in the “Army of Northern Virginia” were much more stable in their position. Personalities, ambitions and emotions also played a big part in effective they were in the field, as well as their interactions with other officers.

Since I have joined the Confederate army, There have been some good and bad days. The first couple days were good becuase I met new friends and got to know where they are from. There lives are different from each other’s. For example, Mike is from a city named Charlotte, North Carolina, Austin is from a small town in Texas, Nick is from Tallahasee, Florida and Joe is from Atlanta, Georgia. We trained together in the same camp before the march up north.

One of the few newspapers to act like Switzerland received a huge amount of backlash for doing so. The Republican paper did not succumb to the Union or confederate side and instead advocated for both sides, since the two editors of the paper had different views, but the public was not pleased with this decision. “The general public deemed it weakness and ‘a sign of duplicity’ to publish articles advocating both sides of the issue and dubbed the paper ‘the swill tub’ (Sachsman, 2014, p. 53). A Virginia paper tried this tactic as well, to no avail. “The attempt, however, on the part of any opposition paper to be simultaneously a Union journal and a Southern journal was becoming illogical if not well neigh impossible” (Cappon, 1936, p.14). This explains why the majority took a side during the civil war, as no newspaper wanted to loose the core of their audience due to not taking sides. It is important to note that not all of the papers in this era were propagandist. The Enquirer was able to omit their opinions and write objectively about the war. “Wise and his successors objectively reported the news rather than venting their dissatisfaction with Confederate’s conduct of the war” (Davis & Robertson, 2009, p. 37). This should have been how all the papers of this era reported the war yet a backlash amongst the public contributed to a public outcry, which can be detrimental to a newspapers survival.

Union and the Confederacy. The Union and the Confederacy would have gone to war anyway without it because people already determined which side that they would choose . For the Confederacy's military strategy come to found out that they only protected its boundaries so that they could fulfill independence and political strategies. The Confederate constitution had dominated gradual emancipation. As for the Union leaders military strategy they were using a pugnacious military campaign to reinstall the Union and the political strategies were using secession as an attack on representative government. I would say that the Union was more successful because with their strategy they deciding to come up with a campaign to restore the Union and that their

Confederate States of America, the name adopted by the federation of 11 slave holding Southern states of the United States that seceded from the Union and were arrayed against the national government during the American Civil War.