The Advantages The North Had Over The South In 1860

The Civil War lasted longer than both the North and South anticipated. Various factors influenced the North’s victory in the war. Leaders in the North believed that they would achieve victory over the South in a short period. This sentiment might have been influenced by the advantages the Union had over the South. Although the extent that specific advantages contributed to the Union’s victory remains the subject of debate over the war, there is consensus that the north had some advantages over the South with significant implications for the war (Thomas, 2020). Some of the notable advantages that helped the North to prepare for the war included a larger population, superior industrial might, superior infrastructure, and control of the navy.

Like why people work at a public health department? These points needs to be about how to ensuring workforce making sure that employees are coming in with the right attitudes and educational backgrounds that will allow them to be successful in their job. I think it could also include making sure there are enough staff to properly address the issues the community is facing. And then include main points. – good salaries – good funding – benefits that they can achieve from working in this department? – you can add others points What the public health administrator needs to do and who should hire based on what? To make sure he has successful employees that cover the work he wants and benefits from it. Like: a lot of staff with short working hours? Happy work environment like the place itself desks and coffee corners ? Provide some free courses for the employees? And you add other ideas

Don't use plagiarized sources. Get Your Custom Essay on
The Advantages The North Had Over The South In 1860
Just from $13/Page
Order Essay

Analyzing a document (external analysis)

The introduction of the document : The purpose of this section is to introduce your document and its subject (briefly) as well as to clarify the following issues:

a. The author: Who is the author? What do we know about the author? What motive (purpose) might the author have had in writing this document? What biases or assumptions might color the views of the author? What is the degree of familiarity of the author with the subject discussed in the document? Was the author a direct observer of the event/issue [if this is pertinent] or was the information obtained second-hand? Had the author any personal involvement in the events/issues described [if relevant]? Do we have any reason to think that the author does not describe what he/she believes to be true?

b. The time frame: When was this document produced? Is it contemporary to the events/issues it describes? In what context was it produced? How has it come down to us? Could it have been tampered with?

c. Place: Where was this document produced? Does the geographical location influence the content? Was this document meant to be public or private?

d. Category of document: What is the category in which this document falls (memoirs, poem, novel, speech, law, study, sermon, Church document, song, letter, etc.)? How would the type of writing affect the content and believability of the document? Is the document in the original language in which it was produced? Is the translation authoritative?

e. Audience: What is the intended audience of this document? Was the author representing a specific group? Or addressing the document to a specific group (or speaking to a specific group)?

Analyzing the document (internal analysis)

Main body of the document :

a. Content of the document: What does the author argue (main theme; secondary themes:

summarize them briefly but thoroughly. You might need to regroup ideas under some themes)? What specific information of importance is provided? What light does is shed on the society/events/issues described? Do not simply summarize but analyze the document as well: What does the author really mean? Does the source tell a consistent story? Are there contradictions? Evident errors [why would this be]? Does the source provide us unwittingly with information (what can be read between the lines)? Are there allusions made by the author that need to be explained?

b. Believability of the document: Given the external analysis and the content of the document, how credible is the information? Is it corroborated by other sources? Are important facts ignored? Why would such facts be omitted? Using other credible evidence, can you confirm or contradict the thesis of the document? Is the testimony sincere, exact? What makes you think so? Are there assertions made that are incorrect?


and taste our undisputed quality.