Review paper Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words - 1

Review paper - Essay Example Their shape varies from simple helical and icosahedral (polyhedral or near-spherical) forms, to more complex structures with tails or an envelope. Viruses infect cellular forms of life and are grouped into animal, plant and bacterial viruses. There always been a discussion whether viruses are living organisms. Some consider them non-living as they do not meet the criteria of the definition of life. For example, unlike most organisms, viruses do not have cells. However, viruses have genes and evolve by natural selection. The viruses mutate and compete. They have been described as organisms at the edge of life. The main feature of virus is that it usually destroys or modifies the cell it infects , thus exist as a potential agent that could afflict mankind and cause numerous dieseases as ranging from common cold, rabies, small pox, mumps, polio ,chicken pox , measles, rubella, hemorrhagic fevers to the Acquired Immuno Deficiency syndrome. Viral infections in human as well as animal hosts usually result in an immune response and disease. Often, a virus is completely eliminated by the immune system. Antibiotics have no effect on viruses, but antiviral drugs have been developed to treat life-threatening infections. Vaccines th at produce lifelong immunity can prevent virus infections. The main area still now developed in antiviral therapy to stop the viral replication is targeted either on viral replication or the process of polyprotein clevage. Over a long period of known human history terrible epidemics involved humanity. The flu, smallpox, and plague killed millions of people. The epidemics of â€Å"Black Death† in the 14th century killed almost one third of Europe’s population. These terrible epidemics left traces in the genome of populations. There appeared a probability to resist diseases. Scientists find new surprising abilities of immunity to resist viral attacks. In this paper I would like to discuss some of the

Analysis a relationship about economic Statistics Project

Analysis a relationship about economic - Statistics Project Example The money in supply and inflation rate is always interconnected because a high amount of money in supply usually devalues demand for money. For instance, in a small town if all residents were to get $50 raise in their salary each month, if they were paying about $14 on their gas, then with the rise they will likely not mind paying $15 given the fact that it is relatively less than what they normally spent on gasoline per week. In most cases, this is normally how the relationship between inflation and money often starts, when the market is able to bear high prices due to increase in the money supply (Mishkin, 40). Therefore, most customers will most likely opt out of buying a product at the same price it was before the inflation occurred simply because the buying power of the currency has been worn out. The graph above shows the estimated value of the relationship between inflation and money growth. The rate of inflation depends on the amount of money in supply. When one takes into consideration the classical theory, money does not affect real variables but has an effect on nominal variables such as inflation. This, therefore, means that when plotting the graph, the rate of inflation will be plotted on the y-axis while the supply of money will be plotted on the x-axis. The blue dots are the actual values while the red line shows the fitted values. In the long run, the correlation between money and inflation is rather high and can be estimated to almost one. However, when the short term period is taken into consideration, the relationship between money and inflation is rather weak which could be an attributing factor as to why the curve showing the relationship between money and inflation is not straight. Several economic theories can be applied in order to try to explain the relationship between money supply and inflation. If one were to use the quantity supply theory, also refers to as monetarism, the relation between money in supply and

Human Belief System Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2000 words

Human Belief System - Essay Example Bruce focuses on the new biology known as epigenetic, which shows how the energy and consciousness are critical in changing life on earth as DNA and chemistry (Lipton 69). He brings his clarity, insight and humor unveiling how we perceive things including: 1. How thought and emotion controls the character of every cell. 2. Quantum physics and life 3. Cooperation and evolution and these are supported by following quote In fact, only five percent of cancer and heart suffering patients can associate their disease suffering to being passed on from parents to siblings. While the mediums of communication made a big excitement upon the discovery of the BRCA1 and BRCA2 breast cancer genes, they failed to criticize critically that 95% of breast tumor are not caused by genetic material passed on parents to siblings. The tendency of a medical condition in a significant number of cancer patients is derived from environmentally leads to epigenetic alterations and not intercepted DNA." (Lipton, pg 72) Among the refuters of Lipton ideas is the selfish gene which is a book on evolution which builds its principal on adaptation and natural selection theory. The name expresses the gene view of evolution where it follows that two or more individuals are genetically related and that makes them behave selflessly with each other. The selfish gene concept is proficient at explaining many forms of altruism. An organism is expected to evolve so as to maximize its inclusive fitness thus a number of its copies are passed on globally, this make the population to evolve toward evolutionary stable strategy. He proposes the idea of initial molecule that multiplied itself and survived over the other genes. Gene combination helps an organism to survive and to reproduce thus improving genes own chances of being inherited. As a result, those that succeed will be beneficial to the organism. Genes can reproduce each other at the expense of the organism, and thus power struggle is limited. (Dawkin, 112) Explains that the selfish gene can be subtle gene, and its world revolves on savage competition, ruthless exploitation and deceit. The act of apparent altruism does not exist in nature he explain how a bee will sting and die to protect the hive and birds risks their life to warn the flock of an approaching hawk thus providing an explanation that it’s the selection that favors gene that promotes cooperation among them (P.30). This happened to the point that communal nature of a colonyidentical genesis for all intents and purposes unrecognizable. This theory of selective genes is similar to the theory of evolution According to the Charles Darwin he held an opinion that life is similar. Therefore, there are descendants who originate from a common ancestor have the same characteristics and thus presumes that development of life is purely natural and modified with descent. He explains the concept of natural selection where it seeks to preserve and accumulate minor and advanta geous genetic mutation (Charles 162). A good demonstration is where an individual inherits a negative gene, and in turn passes on to his or her descendants these inferior members of the same group will be disadvantageous and thus will be outlived by the superior ones who exhibit positive genes as inherited by them. Therefore from the above it shows that this theory refutes Lipton since cell control the

Abortion and the Medical Profession Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words

Abortion and the Medical Profession - Essay Example Perhaps no other issue stirs up heated debates and fierce emotions than that of abortion. It is one of the most contentious issues in society today. Medical and health care professionals are often put into a serious quandary regarding abortion and their professional practice in regards to their personal and religious beliefs. This issue of abortion clearly has ethical implications for people who want to avail of these surgical procedures and the ones performing them. Like any divisive issue, there are no easy answers to such a sticky emotional issue. In most cases, it all boils down to one’s deeply-held personal beliefs that will determine a stance the person has on a certain issue such as abortion. Before the landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court passed in the Roe vs. Wade decision, abortion was legal in a few states but illegal in most states of the country. Other countries do likewise have similar ambivalent laws regarding such a basic issue as human life and the right to life of an unborn child. The medical profession forbids the taking of life as contained in its Hippocratic Code. However, there are clearly certain instances in which abortion is justified (based on medical grounds) to be performed such as a threat to the life of the pregnant woman or the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest.

Shot guns should be banned Essay Example for Free

Shot guns should be banned Essay Guns dont kill people, people kill people. Guns are the only way to protect a civilian from thugs around the world. America is also one of the most dangerous places due to thugs and ma?a gangs who are the criminal minds of murder and shootouts, they have access to any gun you can think of. How would you feel if you got in the way of one of these gangs? you need gun to protect yourself. You wouldnt want to end up dead do you? i strongly believe that all civilians should own a gun in the United states. Since when do criminals obey the law? Banning guns is just taking away Americans rights to defend themselves and their belongings. Banning guns is just opening the door for more shootings as now the criminals will have guns and normal law abiding citizens will be like sitting ducks. In my opinion the only thing that stops a criminal is the thought of the person inside has a gun waiting for me. The governments should make laws like no one with a mental illness may own a gun, because no one in their right mind is going to go and willingly kill several children. A gun cannot ?re itself, it has to have someone pull the trigger. If guns are banned criminals will just use other things like knives, pencils, cars and wrenches. Americans have a right to protect themselves with guns. If their Government decides to turn on them, Americans were given the right by the Second Amendment of the Constitution, to have guns for their protection. Taking away guns from everybody in America will not lower any crime rates. Thugs are not going to stop breaking the law regardless of the laws. They will get guns, if guns are banned and then people who need guns for protection have no way to protect themselves. Not only are guns needed for self protection, we use them for hunting as well, if America bans guns, animals like deers, and other wildlife would be over populated and will eventually be living in our community on the roads or even in our backyards, this will cause car accidents and loss of crops due to the animals eating them. I strongly believe that guns should not be banned in the U.S. To conclude guns assure the safety of civillians from danger and also help for hunting purposes. Guns are not the problem to murders, it is the people who pull the trigger, I certainly believe that guns must not be banned in America.

Silkwood Essay Example for Free

Silkwood Essay Silkwood took a big risk when she decided to blow the whistle on Kerr-McGee in 1946 for health and safety violations. Silkwood was concerned about her and her coworkers’ health and safety as she witnessed various health and safety violation acts that management ignored. Whistle blowing can be very dangerous for the one that is blowing the whistle as witnessed by the mysterious death of Karen Silkwood on the night of November 13th. Up until her job with Kerr – McGee, Silkwood lived a normal life and didn’t do anything in her life to make her stand out. It wasn’t until her investigation began, that Silkwood was starting to become more noticeable. According to friends that were close to her, Silkwood became more and more involved in the investigation and wouldn’t let the investigation go until all evidence and facts had been reported. However, Silkwood’s evidence and findings never did make it to the appropriate people due to the mysterious car crash that led to her death. Officers and scene investigators never did find the manila envelope containing the evidence, but Silkwood’s death brought to light the seriousness of the investigation and eventually, the closing of the Kerr-McGee Cimarron plant where Silkwood was last employed. While there are many rewards to whistle blowing, there are also many risks to whistle blowing as well. One of the rewards of whistle blowing is that the laws or acts being violated will be corrected by the correct regulation agencies. Whistleblowers are even able to submit a confidential report online through National Whistleblowers Center website where attorneys review the information and give advice on the best ways to proceed with the investigation. There are also information and additional resources available for those who are thinking about blowing the whistle on their company. A risk of whistleblowing on the company can lead to alienation between the whistleblower and their employer, boss, and co-workers. Some may fear retaliation if seen helping those gain evidence against the company or organization practicing unethical practices. They may also lose their job by blowing the whistle and family and friends may also be affected by the act as well because of their relationship to the whistleblower. As employees, it is our responsibility to protect the company or organization values while at the same time, also following our own moral values as well. Every company and organization has their own morals and values that they established, but if an employee witnesses or comes across evidence that does not uphold those values, than the employee has a responsibility to report those unethical practices. Employees also have their own person moral values that they usually use as standards when finding a company or organization to work for. When dealing with unethical practices, an employee bases their decision to report the company against their own personal moral values. It is than the employee’s responsibility to make that tough decision on reporting their company’s unethical practices and risking everything or leaving it up to someone else to make that decision. References Karen Silkwood. (2013). The Biography Channel website. Retrieved 05:47, Apr 28, 2013, from http://www. biography. com/people/karen-silkwood-9542402.

Why Did North America Win the Civil War?

Why Did North America Win the Civil War? Reasons for the North’s victory in the American Civil War are manifold, and it is unwise for the historian to attribute total decisiveness to any one reason. Abraham Lincoln’s inspirational leadership; greater industrial wealth and manpower; superior military strategy; the possession of a powerful Navy; the introduction of black soldiers into their ranks; the decision of European nations not to recognize the Confederate’s secession: all of these reasons and many others are argued to have been decisive for the North’s victory. The wise historian seeks to view the effect of these reasons in combination rather than as separate influences. To take one instance, the North’s naval blockade of Confederate ports was crucial for suffocating the export power and economy of the South, but this tactic was greatly strengthened by the decision of Britain not to break to blockade. Or to take another example: from the outset the North had far greater manpower than the South, but this advantage was consolidated by the incorporation of black slaves into that pool of manpower and by conscription policies that drew upon this manpower more effectively than those of the South. This essay then measures these various reasons in toto, asking how each affected the other and how ultimately they combined to prove decisive. * * * * * Historians on all sides agree that President Lincoln’s leadership during the American Civil War was a dominant reason for the Union’s ultimate victory. Lincoln’s political acumen and diplomatic skill, his knowledge of military strategy, his judgment on all fronts, and above all his moral authority and vigor made him indispensable to the Union’s cause. What is more, there was something unique in Lincoln’s dedication to the Union. In a certain sense he was the Union or at least a powerful symbol for it. Lincoln’s famous phrase ‘My paramount objective is to save the Union’[1] could be a motif that resonated throughout the North, and his unique commitment to the office of the President, to the Constitution and to the principle of democracy were of inestimable benefit to the continued conviction and morale of the North’s troops and civilians and to their various successes. None of Lincoln’s wartime acts was more consequential than when he issued the Emancipation Proclamation of January 1863. By declaring the freedom of all the slaves of the Confederacy, Lincoln transformed the American Civil War from what was originally a contest to maintain the Union into a struggle for freedom and democracy. This united the North in a moral purpose and gave solidity and resilience to the Union. Whilst Lincoln’s military decisions were often shrewd and decisive, it was his courageous legislative and constitutional decisions that contributed most to the North’s victory. Lincoln had campaigned for his presidency with the promise of pursuing democracy and legitimate government; yet the circumstances of the war forced him to threaten these beloved principles for the duration of the war. Lincoln put into abeyance habeas corpus, called-up the militia, manipulated the press, made declarations of martial law where it could not strictly be justified milita rily, allocated finance before congressional approval, suppressed draft riots with soldiers, and issued many other measures like these. Lincoln’s made extraordinary use of these executive powers and yet was not seduced by them. Thus he had a perhaps unique resistance to the temptations of personal power and this shone out to his soldiers and citizens who viewed him as a noble commander for whom they would willingly fight and die. By this strong and vigorous leadership President Lincoln stood for many people as an emblem of the Union itself. Lincoln also had a genius to peer beyond the implications of the Civil War for the Union alone. He detected in the conflict as few men could the larger future issue of democracy in the civilized world. Lincoln understood that the Union represented to many Europeans and others a symbol of democratic expectation and promise: the defeat of the Union in America would threaten the growth of democracy elsewhere in the world. He wrote: ‘T his is essentially a people’s contest †¦ to demonstrate to the world that those who can fairly carry out an election can suppress a rebellion; and ballots are the rightful successors to bullets’[2] and this conviction sustained his leadership through many crises. It is of course a conviction whose widest implications were known only to Lincoln himself. The effect of Lincoln’s leadership upon the war was strengthened by the quality of his generals and their superior military strategy. Pre-eminent amongst his generals was one man: Ulysses S. Grant. The outcome of the contest between General Grant and General Robert E. Lee was decisive for the North’s final victory. At the outset of the war Grant captured Fort Henry and Fort Donelson, won the battle of Battle of Shiloh and saved the surrounded Union forces at Chattanooga. These early victories led President Abraham Lincoln to appoint General Grant as lieutenant general or commander-in-chief of all Union forces – a rank specially created by Congress or him. General Grant’s military strategy was characterized by the distribution of his troops over wide areas and their coordinated attack upon several Confederate positions simultaneously. This theme emerged most strongly in Grant’s famous Overland Campaign against General Lee’s forces which commen ced in May 1864. Grant’s cleverly diverse strategies were difficult for the Confederate forces to predict: Grant his attacks between direct assaults, prolonged sieges and rapid counter-attacks. Grant’s military style was described as ‘that of a bull dog’ because he forever pressed forward, refusing to submit until the enemy had been defeated or surrendered. This tactic led to the slaughter of tens of thousands of General Grant’s men and to him being called ‘the butcher’; historians agree however that General Grant’s use of these tactics – and President Lincoln’s indulgence of them – were essential for breaking down the Confederate forces and for finally overcoming them. Moreover, General Grant was perhaps the first general in American history to glimpse the concept of ‘total warfare’ whereby it was necessary to destroy an enemy’s economic foundations – factories, farmlands, industri es etc., as well as to defeat them in battle. The strategies employed by General Grant in the Overland Campaign finally proved decisive when he fought to a draw at the Battle of the Wilderness and the Battle of Spotsylvania Court House, before finally forcing General Lee’s surrender at the Appomattox Court House April 9, 1865. * * * * The superior natural resources and manpower of the North meant from the outset that they were likely – if there was no foreign intervention – to win the war rapidly and with relatively light casualties. In 1860 the twenty-two states that would later continue in the Union had a total population of 22 million; the eleven states of the Confederacy had a population of 9 million (4 million of whom were slaves). In simple military terms this meant that the North had a far larger reservoir of manpower from which to draw either volunteer or conscript soldiers. Moreover, the North boosted its numbers by assimilating large numbers of black slaves who escaped from the southern states. The North had the further advantage of a superior railway system which allowed them to swiftly transfer troops from one battlefield to another. Moreover, the South made serious errors in its policies of conscription. At the beginning of the war the Confederate made the decision to rely upon volunteer soldiers for its armies. One historian wrote of the consequences of this decision that ‘Conscription would have been less odious if it had been made the excusive policy of raising armies at the outset †¦ It might have been regarded as a scientific way of allocating the man power of the country and distributing fairly the burdens of war’ (Moore, 1963). When the South belatedly turned to conscription men felt bitter and acrimonious about the policy; yet had it been issued at the outset it might have been received more favorably. The North was fortunate in its policy of conscription. They too had the eloquent appeals of President Lincoln with which to recruit new soldiers. In February 1861 Lincoln declared If all do not join now to save the good old ship of the Union this voyage nobody will have a chance to pilot her on another voyage.[3] This was an ominous warning that boosted recruitment significantly. Anticipating a rapid victory the North conscripted its soldier s for a three-month period only; whereas the South demanded one year’s service. Neither three-months nor one year were of course adequate to meet the needs of either army, but whereas southern fighters became disillusioned with the length of their conscription, the Union’s soldiers often gladly signed to fight again after their initial short period of conscription. This had a tremendous effect upon morale. In July 1861 after the first Bull Run the Union’s forces had suffered heavy defeats and the Union’s soldiers feared that their lives and properties would be threatened if they chose not to re-enlist. This necessity supplied President Lincoln with 500,000 extra troops at the vital moment. The South however convinced by the Bull Run that it was assured victory delayed for the whole summer and autumn the introduction of a policy of re-enlistment; thus when conscription was implemented through force in November Confederate soldiers were thoroughly demoraliz ed by being called to fight again. The Confederate Provisional Congress introduced the inept and foolish ‘bounty and furlough act’ in Dec. 11 1861 which gave generous but confusing freedoms to soldiers who chose to re-enlist. This incompetent decision disrupted the organization of the Confederate armies at a dangerous moment and weakened them considerably. The Confederate however weakened its potential manpower base by prohibiting the incorporation of its 4 million black slaves into its ranks for most of the war. The North was also highly industrialized in comparison to the South, and this allowed the North to produce munitions and military equipment that should have sustained and proved decisive against the largely agricultural economy of the South. To many historians it seems remarkable that the American Civil War lasted four years given the economic and manpower supremacy of the North. The Confederate however had the vital advantage that it needed only to protect its territory to assure victory (it could declare independence if the North remitted); the North however needed to attack. This attack consumed far greater resources that those needed for the defence of the southern states, and this is the principal reason why the conflict was so protracted. Eventually the superior supplies, industry and manpower of the North proved decisive. * * * * * ‘I never saw such fighting as was done by the Negro regiment †¦ The question that the negroes will fight is settled; besides they make much better soldiers in every respect than any other troops I have ever had under my command’ (Union General Blunt)[4] A principal reason for North’s victory in the American Civil War was their early realization that by incorporating black soldiers into their forces they would gain a vital manpower advantage over the South. In contrast, the Confederate’s slothful and belated realization of the need to enlist black soldiers was a strong contribution to their defeat. Historians estimate that as many as 180,000 black soldiers, in 163 units, were assimilated into the Union ranks during the American Civil War (McPherson, 1982) – and numerous others joined the Union Navy. This number represents as much as 10% of the Union’s total armed forces. The participation and influence of black forces in the war was enabled on July17, 1862, when Congress initiated two Acts permitting the enrollment of black soldiers in the armed forces; though official enlistment began in September of that year after the issue of the Emancipation Proclamation. The Union forces swiftly comprehended the importance of this decision and began to enlist black soldiers and sailors in large numbers. This enlistment was hindered however by the Union’s (and Confederate’s) prejudiced assumption that blacks would not be courageous and valiant soldiers. As General Blunt’s words tell, this assumption was quickly overturned amongst Union generals when black regiments were involved in a series of victorious battles against Confederate forces. The 1st Kansas Colored Volunteers were a powerful example of the influence that black soldiers could have upon the outcome of the war: contributing greatly to the success of the Battle of Island Mound, the Battle of Port Hudson, the battle of Honey Springs and many others. Perhaps the most significant single contribution of black soldiers to the war was when on July 17, 1863, they led the assault of the 54th Massachusetts against Fort Wagner. The desire of black soldiers to enlist in the Union forces was enhanced when Confederate forces committed atrocities against black such as the one at Fort Pillow. Events such as these, coupled with the existing idea amongst black slaves that the Union was fighting partly for their emancipation, led far greater numbers of black soldiers to join the Union than the Confederate. In sharp comparison, the Confederate army reacted viscously to the idea that black soldiers could play a decisive role in the outcome of the war. Although sixty to ninety-three thousand (Glathaar, 1996) blacks were involved in the Confederate in some form or another, the overwhelming majority of these were in non-fighting positions – musicians, cooks, cleaners and so on. Only at the end of the war did the Confederate wake up to the huge pool of manpower that they had thus far ignored. Indeed, for most of the war the participation of black soldiers in Confederation forces was legally prohibited. President Jefferson Davis made a serious and costly error when in 1864 he refused the suggestion of General Patrick Cleburne that the Confederate employ black troops in its forces in return for their freedom if they survived the war. Only in January 1865 after a further recommendation by General Lee to the Confederate Congress to permit the enlistment of black soldiers was a document si gned (Order 14) allowing this to happen. The lateness of this decision meant that that war was almost over before considerable black enlistment by Confederate forces could begin. Consequently, this failure of the Confederate was one of the most serious of the entire war and expedited their defeat. * * * * * The Union’s victory in the Civil War was much aided by the failure of European nations to give diplomatic recognition to the cause of the Confederacy. European recognition of the independence of the Confederacy would have enabled the southern states to call upon European nations to intervene in the civil war to uphold the Confederation’s right to independence. It was vital therefore for the North that this did not happen; fighting European forces as well as the Confederation armies would have seriously injured their chances of success. The decision of European nations to recognize the Confederacy has been attributed to several factors. Firstly, the North’s own diplomats proved highly successful in presenting their case to the European powers. This diplomacy was often forceful; W. H. Steward, Secretary of State, for instance instructed C. F. Adams, Minister to England, to warn the British to avoid ‘fraternizing with our domestic enemy’ lest they risked an Anglo-American war. A key diplomatic strategy of the North was then to present the South as rebels who had no legitimate rights to independence. Historians argue further that widespread sympathy amongst Europeans for black slaves meant that they were further disinclined to interfere in the civil war (Roberts, 1987). Unseen and unpredicted factors too such as crises in Denmark and Poland distracted the attention of Europe away from the American conflict. The continued failure of the Confederate forces to win consecutive battles meant that they co uld not convince European nations that the south could maintain its independence if granted – and European nations were never likely to militarily or economically back an unsuccessful war. The failure of the Confederate states to win European diplomatic recognition had much to do with the failures of their own diplomatic strategies. At the outset of the war the South predicted that since Britain depended heavily upon exports of southern cotton to sustain their own economy, that when the Union’s navy blockaded the export of this cotton Britain would be forced to intervene in the war. This intervention would ensure victory for the South and supply them with international recognition for their independence. Despite these predictions however Britain failed to enter the conflict and instead declared its neutrality in light of the blockade, as later did all other European nations. Britain had extended to the Confederation ‘belligerent status’ whereby it could draw international loans and trade internationally, but this fell far short of the military intervention and declaration of independence that the South had expected (Crook, 1975). What is more, Brita in had by its decision not to interfere militarily effectively condoned the blockade of the southern states by the North. Thus the effects of the British and European decision not to intervene were twofold for the Confederation. In practical terms, the South now had to confront the North alone and on an immensely more difficult single front. Psychologically, the morale and legitimacy of the secession had been bruised and damaged, and international approval effectively granted to the North. * * * * * This essay must end with the point with which it began: no single reason was totally decisive for the North’s victory in the American Civil War. That said, President Lincoln’s unique leadership and the superior industrial resources and manpower of the North were finally the most dominant reasons. In the aftermath of the first Bull Run in 1861 the Union’s forces were disillusioned and there was a danger that they would disintegrate because they had failed to seize the fast and easy victory that many had predicted they would. It required a man of President Lincoln’s personality, stamina, skill and vision to solidify the Union forces and to foster their perseverance through the long war which he knew was ahead. Lincoln himself was this unifying force: he was an emblem for the Presidency for the Constitution and for democracy. The supremacy of the North’s resources and manpower had been checked at the outset of the war by the need to attack the Confeder ate strongholds whereby the North consumed resources far faster than the South; yet despite this initial failure to make the advantage tell, these resources did finally overwhelm the Confederate defenders. Serious political and tactical errors by the Confederate during the Civil War meant that any slim chance of victory they had at the outset was washed away soon after the conflict began. The prohibition of black slaves from serving in Confederate forces and the delayed and ineffective introduction of conscription cost the South its opportunity to compensate for the North’s superior man power. Likewise, the political assumption that Britain and other European powers would move to break the Union naval blockade and so proclaim the legitimate independence of the South backfired disastrously. Once these errors had been committed and the North’s advantages handled effectively by Lincoln victory was assured. BIBLIOGRAPHY Belz, H. (1998). Abraham Lincoln, Constitutionalism and Equal Rights During the Civil War Era.  Fordham University Press, New York. Crook, D. P. (1975). Diplomacy During the American Civil War. Wiley, London. Curt, J. McLaughlin, M. (1977). Battles of the American Civil War. Sampson Low,  Maidenhead. Fuller, J.F.C. (1941). Conscription entry in Encyclopedia Britannica, Vol.6, p.282-6. London. Fuller, J. F. C. (1956). Decisive Battles of the Western World and Their Influence Upon History/From the American Civil War to the End of the Second World War. Cassel Co, London. Gallagher, G, W. (1997). The Confederate War. Harvard University Press, Massachusetts. Gienapp, W. E. (2003). Abraham Lincoln and Civil War America. Oxford University Press,  Oxford. Glatthaar, J. T. (1996). The Civil War’s Black Soldiers. Eastern National Park and Monument  Association, Conshohocken. Hattaway, H. (1983). How the North Won: A Military History of the Civil War. Urbana, Illinois. McPherson, J. (1998). Drawn with the Sword: Reflections on the American Civil War. Oxford  University Press, Oxford. McPherson, J. (1982). The Negro’s Civil War: How Negroes Felt and Acted During the War for   the Union. Urbana, University of Illinois Press. McPherson, J. (1984). Lincoln and the Strategy of Unconditional Surrender. Gettysburg  College, Gettysburg.   Moore, A, B. (1963) Conscription and the Conflict in the Confederacy. University of South  Carolina Press. Roberts, J, M. (1987) The Penguin History of the World. Harmondsworth, Penguin. Tripp, C.A. (2005) The Intimate World of Abraham Lincoln. Free Press, London. Tulloch, H. (1999). The Debate on the American Civil War Era. Manchester University Press,  Manchester. Westwood, H, C. (1992). Black Troops, White Commanders, and Freedom During the Civil War;   (With a Forward by John Y. Simon). Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale. Footnotes [1] The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, Vol. 5. Letter to Horace Greely, p388. [2] Words spoken by President Lincoln after the surrender at Fort Sumter April 14th, 1861. [3] The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume IV, Speech at Cleveland, Ohio  (February 15, 1861), p. 216. [4] General Blunt after the defeat of General Douglas Cooper at Honey Springs July 17th, 1863.