what states contributed the most during the Civil War

[franksolich]

I'm reading about the Lincoln-Douglas debates of 1858, and the mind took a detour along other lines.

That happens when one looks out the windows, seeing nothing but snow.

Of all the northern states, which northern state contributed the most to victory in the Civil War?  And of the southern states, which southern state contributed the most to trying to win the Civil War?

In terms of proportions of resources--human, industrial, financial, and morale.

It strikes me that Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine, contributed a greater proportion of their tinier resources to the northern cause, than did the great big huge behemothic New York, for example.

In fact, given all the trouble New York caused the northern states, New York's contribution was probably negative for the northern cause, if one compares what they gave to it (men and money) with what they took away from it (obstructionism, resistence).

What surprises me on the southern side is the paltry contribution "big" states such as Arkansas and Texas gave to that cause; unlike New Yorkers on the other side, they weren't against the war or anything, but it seems they contributed hardly anything.

Because of geography, probably Missouri was the northern state that suffered the most damage, military and civilian, and Virginia the southern state.

I just thought I would throw this out, to see where it goes, compared with where similar threads elsewhere went.  For the record, I have no dog in this fight; in 1861, there were only a few hundred white men here in Nebraska, nearly all of them half-breeds of Indians and Frenchmen.

[redwhit]

Where ever could that "can of worms" smiley be? 

I have to start out with my usual caveat - I am not by any stretch of the imagination a military historian.  That fact won't keep me from shooting off my mouth, though.

One problem you're going to find in this analysis is that, in many cases, it is somewhat akin to comparing apples and oranges.  The two very different power stuctures made for different governance and, by extension, contribution to the war effort.  While neither side had given up on the reliance of state militias, the Union was better at creating a more unified military command structure.  The Confederates had military problems similar to those in the War of 1812, such as when militias refused to cross the Canadian line since their mandate was interpreted to defense of the United States.  Confedrate militias would be raised and deployed for the defense of their state only in some cases.  This hampered the Confederate military effort, especially, I would argue, when Lee tried to go on the offensive.

Socially, there was almost certainly more ambivalence towards the war in the North, at least until Lincoln turned it into a crusade with the Emancipation Proclomation.  The busybodies in Massachusetts were rather intent on telling everyone else how to live their lives (sound familiar) but questioning the war's purpose was common among the lower classes, especially immigrants - a rapidly growing segment.  The draft and the $300 exemption really exacerbated the issue.  After all, thought many immigrants, what was the purpose of fighting for even cheaper labor?

That's an awful lot of words to say I don't know but the question you asked sounds worthy of a book-length treatment, even a dissertation - I've not seen that question asked before and it's a really good one.  Besides, I'm only on my Master's thesis right now - this one's above my pay grade right now. 

Thanks for juicing my brain this morning, sir.