Final answer:
The North utilized its industrial superiority and a naval blockade to sustain a conquest strategy, while the South's strategy was mainly defensive, leveraging its home-ground advantage and aiming for European recognition. Guerrilla and trench warfare were not the primary strategies for either side, but industrial production and supply line control were critical to the North's victory.
Step-by-step explanation:
The comparison of northern and southern war strategies during 1861-1865 reveals distinct approaches. The North, with its advantages in population and industrial capacity, had to conquer and pacify a large area to win. It relied on its greater industrial capabilities and extensive railroad network to mobilize and sustain its forces, implementing a naval blockade as part of a strategy known as the Anaconda Plan to squeeze the South economically. The Union's strategy also involved campaigns to capture key Confederate cities, such as the capital, Richmond.
The South's strategy was largely defensive, capitalizing on its advantages of fighting on home ground with the support of the local populace and knowledge of the terrain. The Confederates aimed to outlast the North's will to fight while seeking recognition and support from European powers.
They relied on skilled military leaders from West Point and the combat experience of recruits familiar with firearms and horseback riding. Although the South used trench warfare at various points, it was not a primary strategy, and offensive maneuvers were conducted with the goal of deterring the North and gaining diplomatic leverage.
Neither side primarily focused on guerrilla warfare or trench warfare, although both were used to different extents during the conflict. Ultimately, the North's emphasis on industrial production and control of supply lines, combined with a strategy of total warfare to disrupt the South's ability to sustain itself, proved decisive in their victory.