Response: A Soldier's Motivation

I think military service is wroth the risk because you get so much respect from others for risking your life, and also you get grea honor. For me to join the military, it would take a lot to persuade me because joining the military isn't exactly on my list of what I want to do when I grow up. Honestly, I wouldn't have joined in the middle of the civil war because I would be too scared. If I were to join, almost everything would be difficult for me. I'm not exactly athletic or anything, and I would miss my family way too much. So I don't think the military is right for me.

Re: Soldier's Motivation (Late Sorry)

For me, it would take a lot for me to join the army. I am horrible at running and will most definitely be killed before the fighting takes place because of the physical training. Also, if I had a family during a war, I would not want to leave them behind. Sure it sounds like a great adventure, going out into war for our country and fly jet planes if you're in the Air Force or ride humvees and shoot the enemies as a ground troop, but I am too much of a coward to expose myself into a life or death situation or to face the trauma of killing people. If there was another civil war, I will try to avoid it and hope for the best that the better side will win.

Just Curious...

So...how did that history testing go today?

A Soldier's Motivation - Response

      Men and women join the military for various reasons today. Some of the reasons they join are similar to the reasons of the Civil War soldiers. Many people today are seeking adventure and glory. For example, the commercials about the military on Channel One make serving our country seem heroic and important. Escaping the boredom and monotonous routines of everyday life seems appealing when compared to the busy and active life of a soldier serving in a war. Many times, peer pressure effects the decisions of a person to enlist in the military. When everyone else is volunteering for a honorable cause, not volunteering would make you the odd one out and it is human tendency to follow the crowd. But pressure to join the military does not always come from peers; pressure could come from a family line of military personnel. If your family needs more money, joining the military helps because of the recruitment money offered. (In modern times, you are paid for your service and not just for being recruited.) Being loyal to our country or our state also caused and causes people to join the military. People are motivated to fight because of their love for the country and their love for the protection of the freedoms our Founding Fathers had established. There were and are immigrants who want to prove that they do belong to the country and just want to fit in with America, and what better way to do it than lay your life on the line for it?

     Some of the reasons people join the military differ from the reasons of Civil War soldiers. There are benefits that come with serving our country: compensation, bonuses, discounts, education, special recognitions, etc. People can make a living out of joining the military because they are paid wages instead of only recruitment money. Being in the military comes with honor and pride, which attracts some to join the military.

     Military is worth the risk involved, if that is the type of occupation that suites you. For me myself, military service would not be worth the risk involved because I am not the type of person who would last very long out on the battlefield, or even in the training camps. But for someone who is strong, adventurous, and wants a way to honor America, military service would be worth the risk. Everything in the world has a risk involved, and for some, their desire to join the military outweighs the dangers of it.
     It would be almost impossible for me to be motivated enough to join the military in the middle of a war. The main reason I would join would probably be because of the chances of higher education if I returned alive from my service and the financial gains that I would earn for serving. I would not have joined the military during the Civil War because the whole idea of the military and fighting does not interest me, but instead frightens me, and the conditions that the soldiers had to suffer through worries me. I would probably be the soldier screaming and hiding behind others, doing more harm than good.
     Everything would be hard for me if I were a soldier. Seeing people that I know being shot and killed would be very difficult, and the idea that my life could be taken away would haunt my thoughts throughout my entire time of service. Even though you can die any second, anywhere in the world; the chance seems even greater and more intimidating in the midst of war. Not being able to see my family or my friends for months or even years at a time would be devastating. No one I know closely would be there to help, comfort, or talk to me. The thought of holding a gun and shooting someone, possibly killing them, is horrifying for me. Their death would be hard on me and haunt me, even if they were the enemy and were willing to kill me. Also, the physical training and conditioning would be hard for me to endure.
     There are numerous reasons why a soldier would be motivated to serve their country in the military. But no matter the reason, the fact that they are serving their country and laying down their lives to uphold the values of freedom and equality is amazing; they are our nation's heroes that need to be honored and thanked.

RESPONSE TO "A SOLDIERS MOTIVATION"

I think that people join the army today to actually defend their country. Back then, in the Civil War times people joined the army to get a sense of excitement an adventure, when now it is for legit reasons. For me to join the army, there would have to be some really bad stuff going on in the United States.  I wouldn't just loin the army for no reason, unless I had family who been in the army or anything like that. In my opinion the army isn't really worth all that is risked when yo go yo war. Yes, I know the commercials make the service look so cool, but in reality they send you to camp for a couple of weeks or so, and send you out to war. If your are a person with gun skills or tactical strategy skills, you might have an edge on everybody. But for those who are people just joining the army, they are entering a world they've never seen before. The reasons that people join the army now, and why they joined the army back in the Civil War times differ. Something that would be hard for me to do in the army is discipline. Physical training I would be fine with, and me being away from my family wouldn't bother me. But, being in a straight line all the time, and learning drills, would be harder for me. Especially in serious situations, I would be so nervous and what not, I might just mess up.

A Soldiers Motivation Response

  I think that the reason people join the army today is still very similar to the reason people had back then in Civil War. I think that people join the army because they want to protect the people and the country they love and grew up from. People also might join because protecting your own country is a very honorable job. When you join the army, the army gives you a lot of benefits. I think that joining the army is worth the risk of dying because I'm fighting to protect my country. If I die protecting my country and everyone is safe because of what I did, I would die happily. Fighting to protect my country and people I love and what I believe in would be plenty of motivation for me to join the army. If I was in the army, hardest thing for me to bear would be separation from family and friends for a long time.

A Soldiers' Motivation Response

Men and women joined the military back then because life was incredibly boring for them. They needed adventure, and needed to get out. In some cases, some of them joined because they needed to help their family or due to motivation. Most people who joined the armies nowadays most likely do it because of motivation and they want to serve their country. I do not think it's worth the risk to join the army. I would not have volunteered to join if I lived during the Civil War. I'd have to get really motivated and convinced in order for me to join.

Re: A Soldier's Motivation

The United States Military, as of today, is portrayed as this perfect group that has immaculate buildings, tough personnel, and an awesome fighting force. Because of this, over a million people have enlisted in the military to fight with the strongest military in the world. Back in the Civil War, however, America's soldiers were fighting for completely different reasons.

Unlike present day America, the majority of the population had the job of a farmer. They would work ten hours a day on a farm in a routine schedule. They longed something different and exciting. Secondly, they wanted to become famous. Thirdly, they wanted to I would not have enlisted, because: most of the soldier's time was spent in a camp drilling; it was improbable to become one of the American army's war heroes or generals.

          There are many reasons men and women would join the military today. Some join for the honor of serving their country, while others join to seek adventure and experience new things. People might join the military for financial reasons or to receive an education. These reasons are very similar to the reasons people joined to fight in the Civil War. They were bored of being farmers and decided to do something more exciting or just needed money. I believe joining the military is worth the risk. I would be motivated to fight in a war if it meant protecting my family at home. I would join the Civil War to fight for what I believe in and I believe that slavery is wrong. The hardest part of being a soldier for me is probably home sickness. I would miss my family too much.  

A Soldiers Motivation Response

During the Civil War people joined the army because of things like boredom and a need for adventure.  However back then the hardships of war were unknown to just a common farmer.  Today everyone knows these hardships, yet they still join.  Not for adventure, or because they're bored, but for their loyalty to their country.  Some things change while others stay the same.  However some soldiers are still motivated by the same things as in the past.  The money, loyalty to their country, or even just because their friends are doing can cause people to join the army.  In the end it is all worth it despite the losses and tragedies.  Knowing that just one person can save hundreds of others is an inspiring thing.  Being able to do something that could help others would be motivating enough for me to join the army today, despite the risk of losing my life or being away from family.  These things would definitely be hard to overcome but keeping them safe while fighting in a war is worth the risk.

a soldier's motivation

I think men and women join the army because they feel motivated to serve their country and protect it. They also might join because it might be exciting to them or a childhood dream. These are also some of the same reasons people joined in the past because they wanted to serve their country and to fight for what they believed in. In my opinion i do not think joining the military is worth the risk involved because of course there is always the chance you will die in battle but your death will hurt more people than just you because it affects your family, friends, and people you know. I would not have joined during the Civil war.

Re: A Soldier's Motivation.

Personally, I don't think you can just generalize the motivation of a person to become a soldier with one reason. There are so many different aspects of the situation. However, you can compare the motives of the modern day soldier to those of American history. A strong and common possibility one could have is just the pure desire to serve their country. Many who join the fighting forces of America feel that it is their soul duty to do as much as they can for their country even if it means their life. As a soldier, there heart is for their country and loved ones. It is who they are fighting for that gives them all the more motivation. With great risks comes great adventure as well. The average man or women could be seeking excitement and fame in their life and find a soldier's life the perfect occupation. They find their purpose in life to be something bigger than themselves. The rewards and becoming a soldier are very evident. They receive pay and discounts, but in a more sentimental sense, glory and pride. Although there are so many positives in becoming a soldier, unfortunately there are strings attached. You would be separated from those you care about for an inevitable amount of time. You also change as a person, sometimes for better or worse. The course of war and violence can really change a person physically and mentally. As a soldier, you put your life as soon as you step onto that battlefield. Your daily lifestyle is full of potential danger. Today in modern time, I could understand how someone could believe that the fatal risks of a soldier's life could be worth it. Today's society treasures the service of our citizens and gives them honorable recognition. However, during the Civil War era, I question the situation. Legally, I was not even allowed to fight, so I find the value and drive in becoming a soldier hard to come by.

Response to: A Soldier's Motivation

During the Civil War, only men were allowed to join the military. All of the men had different reasons for why they wanted to join. Some men wanted adventure, others wanted to show their loyalty, some needed the money to feed their families,  and some men were pressured to join because their fellow friends and neighbors joined. Nowadays, men and women are allowed to join, and they join to serve their country, or for the recruitment money. Rarely do men and women join the army to risk their lives for adventure or boredom. 

I'm willing to fight for our country, but I won't fight in the form of joining the military. I can't imagine killing somebody else unless it was for self-defense. I will do anything in my possibility to help out the war effort (donations, letters, packages), but I feel like going out into war won't help me, because if I were to perish in war, it would cause my family to freak out, and I don't feel like that is a good reason to join. 

During the Civil War, women weren't allowed in the army, and I probably would have helped the wounded men around the area i lived in. I wouldn't have the guts to actually go out and battle for whichever side I happened to be on (Union). If I did join, I would fear the safety of my family more than death.

So in all, I would probably have helped in anyway but actually fighting.

A Soldier's Motivation- Response

I think that a modern soldier's motivation to fight is similar, but not necessarily as strong, as a Civil War soldier's motivation. Both cases may join the army for money, fame, honor, bragging rights, and/or loyalty to country. They may want to join the army to protect their loved ones or merely to seek adventure. True, any motivation to join the army would have to be strong to overcome the constant fear of dying and the sadness of being away from loved ones. But the people living in the time of the Civil War had a lot more to consider when they thought of joining the army. There were multiple extra problems like bad sanitation, poor living conditions, disease, and crude surgeries. Therefore, the desire to become a soldier would have to be stronger in Civil War times than in modern times.

Re: Soldier's Motivation

Men and women today join the military for just about the same reasons back then. Peer pressure, money, honor, and their country influences many today as well during the civil war. The only difference is seeking adventure and escaping boredom. As of now, we know or have some of knowledge of the many hardships soldiers would have to intervene. Military service is not to be taken lightly; in fact it involves rigorous physical and mental training. Therefore, it is a big decision.

In my opinion, military service is not worth the risk involved. War is unnecessary as it is the sacrificing of many brave citizens’ lives for the “satisfaction of either side”. With that, the experience causes too much negative effects as it  puts many lives on stake and causes psychological problems to both soldiers and family members. The near death experience and the sight of warfare creates horrific realizations of the killings. The loss of a friend by gunshot and the killing of fellow brothers all contributing. Not only would it cause pain for the soldiers but family too as the loss of a loved one would surely bring mental breakdowns.Those effects are also what would be most hard for me if i were a soldier. The separation from my family and friends along with the killing of others and perhaps myself, in addition to persistence to go through with such physical and mental training as I am not too strong mentally and physically to join the military.

Re: a soldier's motivation

I think the most common reasons would be money related in case their financial situation isn't very good and education benefits, so it's easier to go through college, but I think that many people also join because of their loyalty for their country. I'm sure that just like in the civil war, people have even joined for adventure or because they're bored. It may even be a family tradition for some people. I think the reasons that motivate people to go to war are always about the same. I don't believe that the military is worth the risk because war is a really scary and it's not something easy to deal with. There's also the fact none of the reasons above have much effect in my life, but I would join the military during a war if the opposing side had hurt someone in my family or killed them. I doubt I would have joined during the civil war because, first of all, i'm a girl, and as i said before, war isn't something easy. Then or now. If did become a soldier I think the hardest thing for me would be killing another person, knowing that probably someone is hoping they come back safe and then there is also the physical training....

I think people today still join the army because they want to fight and protect their home country. The reasons today are mostly the  same reasons as back then in the Civil War period. The risks of the military were hard, but if the people had thier hearts into it, then they could do anything they wanted to. For people to become motivated to join the army would take people a lot of courage. they need to dedicate and see the fact of death. Being a soldier, I would most likely  be afraid of being separated from my family. Death is a big issue,  but death happens to everybody. You never know when death is coming your way so you have to expect it anytime. Being apart from my family means a lot to me. I don't want to do everything alone and not be able to see my family. I need them and they need me. Military is hard for everybody, but people need to know that it is for the good of the whole nation. Basically, the soldiers are representing the U.S. It is hard and tough, but good things will always come out of it ant the end.

Motivation for Soldiers

Today, many men and women join the army because of the patriotism in the US. There are also other reasons as well. Like, in the Civil War many people wanted adventure so they joined the army. Sometimes, (in the Civil War) they joined because of they wanted their side Union or Confederacy to win which shows the patriotism for their side.   The soldiers also wanted the money for joining the army to help their families back home. Today, men and women join because they are patriotic and loyal to the US.  

A Soldier's Motivation

Back in the days of the Civil War, many people joined the military because of simple reasons like a desire for adventure, a need for the money that was given, an escape from the boredom of daily life, out of loyalty to their country or state, or just because their friends or neighbors were also enrolling in the military. Nowadays, some of the reasons are the same. People are still motivated by the payment given, or by the fact that their friends are also joining. Many people still feel a sense of duty to their country and enroll because of that. However, no one enrolls to find adventure in war or to escape boredom. These days, joining the military and fighting in battles don't give the same sense of adventure as before in the times of the Civil War. Many people would prefer to stay in their safe homes rather than face constant danger on the battlefields.
To some people, the risk that comes with joining the military is worth it. To others, it's not. It all depends on their own opinions. Many think that it is worth it because they feel a strong sense of duty to serve the country. They take pride by fighting for their country and also find a way to prove their loyalty. Others who think different would feel that the chances of death are too high and that there are too many dangers along the way.
If I was a soldier, the hardest thing for me would probably be the fact that I would be separated from my family and loved ones. Not seeing them for several months would prove to be emotionally difficult. Any second during a battle may be my last, and that would mean that I could never see them again. I would be constantly worried about my family and wishing that nothing tragic occurred. In addition, the chances of death and the physical training involved would also scare me, so I probably would not have joined the military.

Response to "A Soldier's Motivation"

     Men and women join the military today because they want to of their loyalty to their country or they feel like they should give back to their country and serve. Also, people might join the military because they are in need of money. The reasons are very similar to the ones back then, but there are some differences. People today wouldn't join the military just to escape the boredom from their everyday lives, from the peer pressure, or for adventure. Fighting in a war is very dangerous and life-threatening, so the decision of whether or not one should join the military would be taken much more seriously. People normally wouldn't risk their life just because of boredom or wanting an adventure. It takes more than that for making people want to join the military.
     I wouldn't have joined during the Civil War because the possibility of dying on the battlefield frightens me. I wouldn't have the courage to put my life on the line for my country. My fear would get the best of me. Also, I wouldn't be able to endure the long periods of time being away from my family. I'm not very fit, so the physical training will also be difficult for me. Many aspects of being in the military would be very difficult for me to handle. It would take a lot for me to get motivated enough to serve in the military. Because of all of the hardships and risks of being a soldier, I would rather not be involved in the military. All in all, this would be a decision that everyone would struggle with.

Soldier's Motivation response

In my opinion, I think what motivates one to become a soldier is different based on the person, and their situation. Some men and women might join the army because they cannot find work, and are in need of money to support their families. While others may have the urge to join the army because they want to protect their land due to the loyalty they have with it. I think that the reasons that motivate one to join the army now is similar to those back in the civil war. I feel that military service is not worth the risk, because the benefits that come from joining the military is not worth risking my life. During the civil war, I don't think that i would have joined the military, because I don't feel that I would benefit from it in any way. If in the case that I was to join the army, I think that my hardest struggles would be killing another person, that I know nothing about and it is questionable if they deserve to die.

A soldier's motivation

People join the army for different reasons, some that still remain today. For example, some people today join the army to show their loyalty to their country, or for the meager, yet satisfying pay. Still others join to find glory on the battlefield. However, people now usually don't join the military because of peer pressure or to seek adventure or excitement. These reasons why Americans joined the Civil War, or would join the military. I, personally, wouldn't join military to fight in the Civil War because I think being away from my family and friends would be really hard. People living in that time period couldn't communicate as easily as we can today. In addition, I don't think I have the physical or emotional strength to be involved in a war, nor the drive and ambition. Also, when weighing the pros and cons to join the army, the risk of being killed for glory or money is too high to ignore. But I still feel a loyalty to my country so I would find some way to help, like sending food and supplies or housing troops.

Re: "A Soldier's Motivation"

      The reasons people join the military today are as varied as the people. Some join out of patriotism or sense of duty to their country. Some join for once-in-a-lifetime opportunities such as riding in submarines or jumping out of planes. Others may even join to travel the world. Some join simply to escape a certain lifestyle they may have been leading back home. Oftentimes individuals will join for beneficial reasons such as education and healthcare. Some join in pursuit of the disciplined and structured environment where competency proves more important than social statuses and how financially equipped you may be. Overall, I think the reasons one chooses to enroll in the military today are not so different from the reasons back then.
       I would not have joined the Civil War because I lack the courage and mental stamina to do so. Being so far from everyone I know and only being able to contact home occasionally would be distressing as well. Although technology has helped weaponry to advance greatly, the risks of death still exist. The potential of receiving a serious injury is also very high. In addition, joining the military could result in psychological harm. Very few people, if not none, join for the opportunity to kill. In fact, many join in hopes of never seeing actual cases of combat. It would be most difficult for me to cope with such deaths. On the other hand, I feel that it would not be as hard to deal with the physical training. It would be a nice experience to escape from an everyday routine and focus on professional and athletic abilities alone. In conclusion, because the disadvantages of joining outnumber the pros for me, I would not have felt the urge to enroll.

Joining the Military Response

      Nowadays, men and women join the army to usually to serve their country, or to the pay off student loans, or to travel and see the world a bit out of their boring normal day life. These reasons were pretty much alike the reasons as back then. People were bored of their normal everyday life and wanted to seek adventure by joining the army and to serve their country. In my opinion, it is worth it to join the military. Even though your life is on the line, you are serving for your country's cause. You are also protecting the people of your country which is a great honor to have. It is always better to think about others rather than yourself. However, that is only if you have what it takes to survive the harsh training and face the difficult challenges.
      During the civil war, I would not have joined the army. I lack the strength and courage to put my life on the line even for my country. Life there is harsh and dangerous and you could even die before even going to the battlefield! Something hard for me would be separating from my family and physical training. Training in the army is harsh to prepare you for the battlefield. I can hardly do one correct push-up so there would be no way that I would be able to survive military training. The hardest thing to know for me is that I may die on the battlefield. And knowing me, I was never built for the life of a military. However, I would try to help the military in any way I can. Like supplying them with food, clothes, and any other supplies they would need. Because I am scared of risking my life on the battlefield, I would try to help the soldiers by supplying them so their life on the training ground isn't so dangerous that you might die even before the real fight begins.

Joining the Military

Today in the United States, I think that men and women join the military today mostly because they think that it is their duty and obligation to help the country, and that they want to give back to their homeland. To join the military today is a big commitment, even more so than back in the Civil War, and I don’t think that anyone would join for just any reason, especially with the hardships of being away from family, and the risk of dying. Some reasons for joining the military in the 1860s still exist today, such as loyalty to the country and the respect you get. However, I think that joining the military today is much more complex, because of the way war is fought today, with new technology. That takes away a lot of the adventure that soldiers felt in the Civil War. The adventure still exists for some people, just not all of them, like in the Civil War.

Comparing military service to the risks involved is really a personal question. Some people would feel that it is not worth it, and that it is too high of a risk of dying, while others say that it is for the country, and if giving your life is what it takes to help, so be it. I personally would not have joined in the Civil War, because there would be too many hardships for me, and I don’t feel the strong affection towards America that people in the military do. Pretty much everything would be hard for me if I was a soldier, but being separated from everyone I know, both family and friends, would be most difficult to me. 

Set Phasers to Fun!

There are many reasons people join the army, but it boils down to whether they joined in their free will or not. People join the army today because they are drafted or because they want to serve their country or prove themselves. During the Civil War, men also joined due to their loyalty, but it was either for their country or their state. Honor and conformity were big reasons for many to join, and they still are today. 

War is a necessary evil in that it must be done to protect those that you care for. I would join the army so that others won't have to, so that they would not leave their families and die away from home. It would hard for me to leave my family behind and overcome my fear of dying but its all worth it if it means I could protect those that I care for.

Re: A Soldier's Motivation

     I think men and women join the military for different reasons in these times as they did back during the Civil War.  Many of the resaons might be the same, such as fighting for what the soldiers beleived in and their loyalty to their country, but there are also other motivations for soldiers today.       Some of the motivations that still exist today for joining the military are the loyalties of the citizens to their country, the glory the soldiers gain when they win a battle, and the payment of enrolling in the military.  The motivations that don't exist anymore are the motivations of adventure, to escape boredom, because people lead much more interesting lives nowadays.  A new motivation is one of gaining benefits from joining the army. 
     I think I would have joined the army during the Civil War because I would get paid, I would get glory and adventure, and I would get to serve my country.  The biggest hardship, however, would be being away from my loved ones for long periods of time.  At least in the current time period, facetiming and skype and other softwares can be used to see your family members anytime you wish.  Back then, letters would take a long time to get back to family, and I wouldn't be able to see the faces of my family for a long time.  If not for family, the biggest hardship would be the risk of death, knowing I might die any second during a battle.

Response to "A Soldier's Motivation"

There are numerous amounts of reasons why men and women enroll in the military to this day.  Some join to seek adventure, to fight for their country, to earn money, to live a seemingly pleasing life in the army.  This can be related back to the Civil War, when many people joined the military for similar purposes.

Back in the Civil War, many soldiers faced much hardship in the army.  Some physical problems include incurable (at that time) diseases, lack of supplies, unsanitary equipment, and malnutrition.  Life was not a luxury for these soldiers, as they faced emotional conflicts as well, such as death of a fellow soldier, separation from family, and forfeit from being a soldier.

Now if I were a soldier in the Civil War, the main hardship I would face would be separation from my family.  Considering that family is something special to each individual, I would worry often of how my parents and sister are holding in their life as we keep in touch only by the method of letter transferring.

Serving in the Army

My question for you...why do men and women join the military today? Same reasons as back then? Different ones? In your opinion, is military service worth the risk involved? What would it take for you to be motivated enough to join the military in the middle of a war? Would you have joined during the Civil War? What would be hard for you if you were a soldier...Risk of death? Being separated from family for long periods of time? Physical training? Something else?

   Men and women join the military today for many different reasons, but some motives to become part of the army are the same as back then. Today, people who graduate from high school join the military so they get a free college education. Others affiliate with the army for the minimal, but satisfactory pay. The ability to gain recruitment money for joining the military was also a reason to become part of the army in the 1860s. Moreover, people want to join the army because of their loyalty to their country and the glory they look forward to earning. Those factors have not changed. Military service is for people who are brave and not afraid of putting in some hard work. In some cases, the risk is worth it, but it all depends on the situation the country is in. Legally, I couldn't have joined the military during the Civil War because women were not allowed. If I could have, I wouldn't have done it until a friend of mine or a relative was killed on the battlefield, fighting for the Union. Being away from home and the physical toll caused by serving in the army would be hard for me, but the worst thing would be if I had to face death. Personally, I don't think that I would have the drive to serve in the military.

Soldier's Motivation

Men and Women join the military today because they want to actually help serve the country. I think some similarities from back then may include helping to serve the country. However, nowadays, people do not want to join the military to have fun and to adventure. In my opinion, I think that it was not worth serving the military in the middle of the war. The risks of death is simply to high! You could die from simple things like food or bugs! I wouldn't have joined the civil war because first of all, I do not want to die. Secondly, adventure is not worth it since it was not a big difference. Also, as a soldier,  some difficulties maybe the training, being able to have perspiration , risks of death, and being away from a love one for a long time with a chance to not being able to see he or she again. So, I think that it was not worth it when people joined the Civil war because of reasons such as going on an adventure since it was not much of an adventure. They were just doing to same thing over and over again but with a higher chance to die. So, staying to the place you were at the first place was definitely the best choice.

Re. A soldiers motivation

I think the people back than and nowdays join the armies for the same reason in America. It's not like Korea which is required by law for men to join th army. U.S. citizens join the army because of peer pressure, money, adventure, fame, loyalty, and all the things like the men back in the civil war. What's more is that nowdays they give so much benefits such as discounts for the soldiers, citizenship and green cards, and other benefits. And now they house you, feed you, and get you in shape. Only bad things are that you'll be separated from the people you were close to. But if there was a war, I'll join so that I protect the people that I'm close to.

A Soldier's Motivation

      We spent this week looking at what the life of a Civil War soldier was like. The dangers they faced, a typical day, and also what motivated them to join in the first place.

   My question for you...why do men and women join the military today? Same reasons as back then? Different ones? In your opinion, is military service worth the risk involved? What would it take for you to be motivated enough to join the military in the middle of a war? Would you have joined during the Civil War? What would be hard for you if you were a soldier...Risk of death? Being separated from family for long periods of time? Physical training? Something else?

   You can answer all of these questions or focus on just a few...doesn't matter. I'm really just looking for your opinions on the topic. Remember to create your own post and then comment on at least one other person's post!

Thank You From the Bottom of my Heart...

I wanted to take a moment and say thank you to all of you who have expressed symapthy to me this week for the passing of my sister. I was touched by the sympathy poster that many of you signed and it reminds me of how grateful I am to be your teacher. You are a truly amazing and compassionate class...thank you!

The next assigned blog post should be up tonight..if not, then for sure tomorrow.

Re: Did the South Have a Chance?

Often the Confederate States of America are viewed as the colonists of the American Revolutionary War. Albeit small, the nation will fight for its independence and eventually defeat the seemingly indestructible nation. However, the proponents of the Southern states fail to keep in mind that the Union had advantages other than a strong military, including its vast transportation system and many factories.

The Southern States had more experienced soldiers. They were able to hunt and knew the terrain. However, the population of the Union would be a more dominant factor than the ability to use a gun. At most, the Confederate States army would amount to five million soldiers. The Union tripled that amount, adding up to a whopping twenty-two million. This would mean that a Confederate soldier would have to do three times the amount of work a Union soldier would have to do.

The Union almost tripled the amount of railroad tracks the Confederacy had. What took three days to ship a months supply of food would take an eight hour trip with the train. The Union were also available to many factories and many more resources. These factories would be used to create many guns and ammunition to the Northern army.

The Confederacy depended on King Cotton to provide all their money and foreign support. However, in 1861, European nations had a large surplus from the year before and had another trading partner, India. In addition, European countries did not want to be seen as a war partner to the Confederacy and become an enemy to the Union. As the Confederacy started to stop gaining money, it became weaker. With all these advantages for the Union and disadvantages to the Confederacy, it looks pretty obvious that the Confederate States of America would not be able to win the war.

Did The South Have A Chance Response

Although the chances were small, the South did have an opportunity to win the war and successfully secede. First, the quality of the South's military was superior. They had better generals than the North. This meant that there was better leadership, which can lead to well-planned tactics and less errors in the battlefield. On the other hand, the North had generals that made many fatal mistakes. This caused problems for the North and overall weakened their troops. In addition, the South had more experienced soldiers. Even though the North had more people in the army, that doesn't make the North's army stronger. If the soldiers are incapable of fighting well, they are useless. Overall, the South's army was more advanced than the North's.
The South also had the home field advantage. Knowing the geography of the land is an important factor to winning battles. Since, the South's army is more familiar to the terrain than to North, they can use it to their advantage by setting traps and knowing which grounds are more useful to them. The South knows the best places to hide, and the best places to deliver attacks. Also, the North had to transport more troops to the South. Since the South did not have as many railroads, the North's troops did have to make the long journey to the South. This can tire soldiers and weaken the troops before the fighting actually begins.
The South had a clear motivation to win. Their economy depended on slavery and cotton exports. They know what they are fighting for, and they do all in their power to reach their goal. The North, on the other hand, had a constant question of their purpose for fighting. With this, the South's soldiers had a more inspirational cause to win. This drove the South to fight harder, which could ultimately bring down the North.
Part of the South's strategy was to gain foreign support. They planned to accomplish this by using their cotton-export power. However, it was clear from the start that foreign nations like Britain and France weren't planning to depend on the South for cotton anymore. They found other sources like their own colonies. The South might've overestimated themselves, thinking that they could've gained more help. However, as this was not the case, it became a flaw in their strategy. The North had a strategy by the name of the Anaconda Plan. The plan would slowly start to squeeze the South starting from the outsides and gradually move in. However, it would take time. The South also planned to drag the war on so that the North would grow tired of the fighting. Although the South did have flaws to their strategies, they proved that they had a slim chance of winning the war.

RESPONSE: Did the South have a chance to win?

Even though the Union had better strengths and a larger population, that did not mean that South had no chance at winning.

Yes, I do think that the South had a chance at winning the Civil War, considering that their strengths out weighed their weaknesses. First of all, they had more motivation than the Union did. At times the Union even questioned what they were fighting for in the first place. The Confederacy was fighting for their independence from the Union and to keep slavery.

Secondly, the Confederacy had the home field home field advantage. This meant that the Confederacy knew the best hiding spots and other vital areas to help defeat the Union Army. On the other hand, the Union soldiers were not familiar with the area they were fighting in. They did not know the areas to avoid or even stay out of to be easily trapped or pursued.

And last but not least, the Confederacy had better generals/leadership. After all the Union tried to get General Robert E. Lee to be their general, but after Virginia joined the Confederacy he could not betray his home state. He ended up going to the Confederate side, and the Union would hire mistake-prone generals to command their forces. Also, the Confederates soldiers were more experienced and had better skills than the Unions' fighters. In their free time they would go hunting, so from that experience from hunting they became familiar with guns. There was also more Confederate soldiers enrolled in military academies than Union soldiers. With these factors combined, the South could have won the Civil War.

Did the South Have a Chance? Response

          Obviously, the Union had a lot more advantages than the Confederacy did, such as a much bigger population.  However, just because an army has more people does not generally mean more wins.
A crucial thing that is needed in order to win is great generals.  The Confederacy had arguably the greatest general of the war, Robert E. Lee, as well as other experienced leaders, unlike the Union's mistake-prone generals.  The Confederacy's soldiers knew how to handle a gun and also how to fight.  In my opinion, it is just as important to have a few experienced soldiers rather than a lot of non-experinced soldiers.
          Another factor that could help the Confederate soldiers was more motivation and home field advantage.  Knowledge of the territory is very useful for knowing shortcuts, locations, and how to employ guerilla warfare to their advantage.  Also, being more determined than a Union army who really did not know what they were fighting for was another slight advantage they had.  The South was basically fighting for their economy, unlike the North who really had nothing to lose.  This was essentially the same scenario with the Revelutionary War, in which U.S. with more motivation won.
          Finally, the Confederates still had the economy to trade with foreign countries.  Their cotton production would help them gain money and potentially allies with countries such as Britain and France.  No matter how bad it looks for one side, it is impossible to count them out because anything could happen that could change the tide of the war.   
 

Did the South Have a Chance Response

 In my opinion, no I do not think that the south had a chance at winning the Civil War.  First of all the Union had many more advantages than the Confederacy had.  If you take a look in the textbook on pg. 484 of the history textbook, there are multiple pie charts showing the relative strength of the Union and the Confederacy in terms of population and industry.  With just a glance, you can see that the Union obviously had better resources/advantages.

The Union had many advantages unlike the confederacy.  The North had a whopping amount of about 22 million people at this time, while the South had only 9 million people even with the 3.5 million slaves added to their population.  Also, the North had about 85% of the nation's factories and more than double the amount of railroad mileage when compared to the South.  To further prove my point, the North had all of the naval power and shipyards too.  Although these advantages I have stated were great and extremely helped the North, the North's greatest advantage was Lincoln.  Lincoln was definitely a key factor that led the Union to be superior to the Confederacy.

Although the Union clearly had more advantages than the Confederacy, the confederacy wasn't totally hopeless. They had some advantages over the Union just not as much as the Union had over them.  The South had better generals/leaders (e.g.:Robert E. Lee), and the advantage of a defensive war.  The South also had the advantage of fighting on their own land, better-trained military in terms of weapon use, and a reason for actually fighting. (motivation)  Even though both had useful advantages, when it comes down to who I think had a better a better chance in winning the Civil War, the Union would certainly be my answer.

Without a doubt, I think the Civil War was not necessary.  Both sides could have have easily talked it out further and made compromises where everyone got some of what the wanted.  If the North let the confederacy to exist any longer, other nations throughout the world would look at the U.S. as weak.  And if the U.S. fought with each other in this early of a stage in America's development, they would also be viewed as weak and full of conflict in the eye's of other nations.  So, as you can see, the Union and confederacy should have avoided war and just talked it out with each other.  In this way, they could have spared many lives also.                      

Did the South Have a Chance?- Response

I think that the South had a chance in the USA civil war for a lot of reasons. First of all, they had home field advantage. Knowing the battle field a lot better than your opponent is a huge plus in war. You know places with cover, places with a good view of the surrounding area, and the fastest way through a place. Home field advantage is what allowed the American colonists to win their revolution from the British. Second, Southerners had great military leaders, like Robert E. Lee. The Southern army was much more organized and tactical thanks to these leaders. They made much fewer bad decisions compared to the mistake-prone Northern leaders. Third, people from the South were much more suited for war. They were used to a more countryside style of living, with daily life including hunting and shooting. These people had guns and knew how to use them. They wouldn't be too bad shots either, considering hunting was a big part of their life. Finally, Southerners had motivation. They not only had a clear-cut reason for why they were fighting the war, they had all their heart and belief behind it as well. One example is John Wilkes Booth, who even though would not personally gain from it, believed in his cause strong enough to assassinate President Lincoln, even at the cost of his own life.

"Did the South Have a Chance?" Response

            In my opinion, both the Union and Confederacy had a fighting chance in winning the Civil. Their weaknesses and strengths were important factors to the results of the violence. Analyzing the strengths of the North, it seems that they had more advantages than the South. Although the fact of the matter may have been true. The Union was still lacking in certain aspects that the South was able to hold to their advantage. The Confederacy had key strengths that would carry them throughout this war. Despite their minimal chances, the South definetly had potential to win the Civil War.
            One of the biggest aids to those of the South was their the home-field advantage. The Confederacy used the location of the war as a stepping stone to victory. They were keen with their moves across the land and planned out strategies that worked with the natural resources such as rivers, valleys, and hills. Navigating the land effectively came much easier to the South. Soldiers and supporters appreciated the comfort of their own home aside from the stresses at war.
             Some of the most crucial parts of the war revolved around the decisions of the generals. Luckily for the South, they had smart, experienced generals fighting in their favor. They possessed great qualities of a leader and knew how to conduct a large number of men while putting them in the position to win the war. One of the most important decisions of the war was the type of strategy the South was to use agaisnt the North. Cleverly, they decided to fight a defensive war and hold out for as long as possible until the Union became tired of fighting. General Robert E. Lee was a prime example of powerful leadership that made a big impact in the fighting force of the South. Overall, the men of the Confederacy were more experienced soldiers who were familiar with the battle field. This increased the success in the execution of plans because team work between generals and soldiers came more naturally.
             Last but certainly not least, the Confederacy of the North had overpowering motivation. They had a clear reason as to why they wanted to win this war. There efforts in the war was completely voluntary and not forced unlike the Union's soldiers. They were unquestionably inspired by their Southern history of the Revolutionary War and wished to fight for their freedom just as before. They believed that if it could be done once successfully, perhaps it could happen a second time for them.

Re: Did the South Have a Chance at Winning?

          I believe that the South had some chance at winning. Considering the situation they are in, it was similar to the Revolutionary War. Our generals were more cautious than the British generals and we had home-field advantage. However, Great Britian is a continent apart; us being separated by the Atlantic Ocean. The U.S's strategy in the Revolutionary War was to hold out as long as possible to tire out the British. During the Civil War, the North and the South were not physically divided much. Therefore, the fight can go on longer without the transportation being a few months at sea. This can be a factor of why the South lost.
           The South tried to win foreign support to help them win the war. The problem was that the South had slavery. This made the USA one of the last countries to outlaw slavery. This disgusted many European countries from helping the South. Even though the South was one of the biggest exporters of cotton, the European countries had a surplus, thus being able to deny the South their support.

Response: "Did the South have a chance at winning?"

I think the South did have at least a chance at winning. They had advantages, that the Union didn't have, to help them win. First of all, the South had better motivation to win while the Union questioned why they were fighting in the first place. They also had more experienced soldiers because they hunted, and also students at military academies. I think the motivation that the South had to win, also pushed for more soldiers to join they're military. The Union wasn't as motivated and I think that if they're not motivated, then why would people be motivated to join their military? General Lee, was a big part because Lincoln wanted to have him as their general, but instead stayed with the South. The south had a "home-field" advantage because all they had to do was defend themselves, but the Union had territory in the South and to conquer the south which was more difficult. Also, they had foerign support and export powere through cotton. The South did have a chance at winning, but their weaknesses caught up to them and their strengths weren't enough. But just because the Union seemed to have more advantages didn't neccessarily mean that the South had zero chances at winning at all, of course they're strengths would help them.

Did south ever really have a chance to win? response

            Even thought it did seem more likely that the Union would win, I don't think that it was foolish for the Confederacy to consider winning because the South was fighting a defensive battle, so they only needed to get the north to want to stop fighting. When you think of the fact that they also had the motivation to continue on longer than any soldiers in the north, it doesn't seem too unlikely for the south to believe they could get what they wanted: the North to let them secede. The confederacy would compare themselves to the colonist, fighting to free themselves from Britain's tyranny. That was their motivation and it made them stronger. The south also had advantages such as more experienced soldiers and if you add that to their motivation, their soldiers would be more useful because they would be more willing to fight and would fight better. The soldiers would then be led by a better generals such as Robert E. Lee compared to the Union's generals that weren't aggressive enough. And as they went deeper into the enemy field, the south would have the homefield advantage and could use different ways of warfare such as guerrilla warfare. They would be more familiar with the land and use that to their advantage.
            The north didn't have much of an option , but to fight the south because if they didn't, they would seem weak to everyone: all states and to other countries. They needed to prove their power and strength. If the Union didn't do anything and let the southern states secede, it would prove to other states that they could secede from the union if they were unhappy with it's rulings. In the end, all the states might become separate countries, proving that a democracy government wouldn't succeed.

Did the South Have a Chance- Response

I think that the South had somewhat of a chance of winning.They were in a very similar position to that of the colonists when fighting the British. The Confederates were just trying to prolong the war to the point that the Union would no longer think the fight was worth the reward and let them be a free country. With this mentality, they would not necessarily have to gamble and win big battle, but take small victories and keep themselves from having to surrender. The main thing that the Confederates had going for them was the fact that they had the better generals and more experienced soldiers. The general of their army, Robert E. Lee was, at the time, the most famous and respected general in the Union and Confederacy. Though they may not have had more soldiers, they had civilians that knew how to handle a gun which made training a lot easier for them when it came time to raise a militia. They were also drastically undermanned. They had less than half the population of the Union, and 3.5 of their 9 million people were slaves. Many plantation owners would not give up their slaves to go fight in the battle leaving General Lee to work with a small army in comparison to that of the Union.  Another thing that the South had going for them was that they were not fighting to win, but just the defend their territory. This meant that they would not have to move as many troops and knew the terrain better than the Northern soldiers that know little about the grounds that they are going to be fighting on. The final, and probably most important thing that the South had going for them was their motivation. Slavery is what they thrived on and would do anything to keep that for themselves. The North was just fighting because that was they had been told to do. Even though the South had all of this going for them, the North still had more advantages such as public systems, factories, and better leadership in Abraham Lincoln. With all this information coming into play, one can see that the South had a chance, but never would have been selected as the favorite to win that war.

"Did The South Have A Chance" Response

I think the South did have a chance at winning. Although the chances are extremely though, the South still had some good qualities that could've lead them to victory. The Confederacy had better generals and more experienced soldiers, which is an important quality needed in battle. Although the Union had tons more soldiers, a lot of them were unexperienced and didn't know much. The Confederacy had cotton-export power, which could easily gain foreign support, which was part of their strategy. The Confederacy also had home-field advantage and great motivation. Motivation would inspire the Confederacy to fight and stay in the battle longer than the Union. The Confederacy's strategy also seemed better than the Union's. All these qualities seem enough for at least some chance for the Confederacy to win.

Did The South Have a Chance Response

I think that the Confederacy did have a chance because although the Union had many advantages, there were still some very big flaws in the Union army and the South also had some pretty important advantages too. They had better generals, better soldiers, and a home-field advantage. The South also had motivation to fight because they were fighting to create their own nation. These advantages coupled with the Union's crippling disadvantages gave the confederacy a chance at winning.
             The Confederacy had far superior generals than the North did. Most Union commanders had never led a large group of soldiers into combat before and made a lot of mistakes that prolonged the war. The Southern generals like Lee, however, were more experienced and could use their knowledge of the terrain to create strategies.  They knew all the hills, valleys, and choke points that could give them an advantage in battles.
             The entire Southern army was also more experienced than the Northern one and could actually aim and shoot due to their hunting experience which the Northerners lacked. This was a huge advantage because even though the Union army was large, for each southern soldier they took down the North probably would have lost 2 or 3 because of the Confederate's superior accuracy. They also had motivation to fight and this drove them to continue battling even if the odds were against them.

"Did the South Have a Chance?" Response

     Even though the Union had many advantages over the Confederacy, the South still had a chance to win the war. The South possessed some advantages were very useful in this war. First of all, the South had way more motivation than the North. They were fighting for their independence, which they wanted to keep. The Union were only fighting because they wanted to bring the Confederacy back into the Union. Other than that, they don't really care.
     Along with that, the Union didn't have a strong army. They had mistake-prone generals and many soldiers that didn't know much about fighting. The South had better generals and more experienced soldiers. Although the Confederacy was outnumbered, the experience level in their army was much higher than the Union's army. It's much more useful to have a small, skilled army rather than a large army that doesn't know much about warfare.
     The Confederacy had home-field advantage, which is extremely beneficial in war. The South knew the territory and geography of the battlefield much better than the North did, so they could come up with different strategies using that to their advantage. The North would be going into enemy territory, so they wouldn't know what to expect. The South were able to use strategies such as surprise tactics to attack the North when they least expect it thanks to this advantage.
     The South did have some advantages that were helpful to them and could have helped them win the war, so it wasn't completely foolish for the South to think that they could win the war. If the South used their advantages wisely, they probably could have won the war. Just because the South's advantages were outnumbered by the North doesn't mean that they had zero percent chance of winning. The South had strong generals and soldiers that were trained well, home-field advantage, and a strong motivation. These factors are what made the South have a chance at winning this war.

Did the South Have a Chance? -Response

In my opinion, I think that the South had a chance at winning the Civil War. They had the motivation, and the leadership needed to defeat the North. The South had a home-field advantage, so they the terrain inside-out. The South knew all the best places to shoot from, and all the places where they could ambush or trap the North. 

They had Robert E. Lee, who was possibly the best general during the war. Also, they had motivation. The reason that they seceded was because they wanted to start there own country. It takes guts to go into war knowing that you have less people on your side. Also, the South didn't know that they weren't going to get foreign help, so from the prospective of time during the war, the South seemed to have a chance at winning the war.

If the Civil War had turned out like the Revolutionary War, (Britain-Union, Colonists-Confederate) then the South also would have a chance at winning. If they were able to get the help of foreign countries, it would have been very likely that they would have won.

The Civil War was necessary for the South to show that they had their minds set on becoming an independent nation. It could have been avoided, but the Union probably wanted to show that they would do anything to keep the US together. So, the Civil War was necessary.

Did The South Have A Chance Response

              Even though the Union definitely had more advantages and more people, that didn't necessarily mean that the Confederacy couldn't have won.  The Confederacy had some advantages that would beat any of the North's.

              First off South had more experienced soldiers.  Their soldiers hunted in their free time and knew how to use a gun.  The North had more soldiers but what use is an army that doesn't know how to use a gun properly.  In addition to those soldiers, the South had great generals like Robert E. Lee who outmatched all of the mistake-prone Northern generals.  Lee devised strategies that could have won the war.
             The South also had the home-field advantage.  The North had to reconquer the South in their own territory while the South only had to last long enough and win enough major battles to discourage the North from winning.  If there were any locations in the South that could give them the advantage they knew about it.  If there were any hidden spots for an ambush they knew about it.  The South knew of almost every geographical point in the land  that could help them win the war.
            Finally, the South had motivation.  Motivation is what caused the colonists to win the Revolutionary War.  It gave them something to fight for.  The Revolutionary War inspired them to continue the war and win their independence.  This was something that the Union lacked.  The North couldn't explain why they were fighting.  They had no reason that would urge the North to fight as hard as they could to defeat the South.  There was nothing that would drive Northerners to continue fighting like the South had.  
            Even though the North did win in the end I think the South definitely had a chance to win the war and gain Independence.
            


 

Did the South Have a Chance? - Response

     After our discussion in class about the strengths and weaknesses of both the Union and Confederacy, it was obvious that the Union had more strengths and less weaknesses than the Confederacy. But that did not necessarily mean that the Confederacy had absolutely no chance for victory. Although the Union most definitely had a greater chance of winning, the Confederacy did have a slim chance to be the victors of the Civil War.
     First of all, the Confederacy did have an advantage over the Union because of their generals and soldiers. Many Southerners had experience with guns since most had been hunting before. Their familiarity with weapons made them better candidates to be soldiers and therefore strengthened their army. On the other hand, the Union had a greater population; 22 million (Union) and 9 million (Confederacy) with 3.5 million as slaves. The Confederacy's generals, especially Robert E. Lee, were experienced and skilled in war and leadership. These generals made better decisions than the mistake-prone generals of the Union.
     Secondly, the Confederacy had slaves and cotton. Their slaves provided free labor producing "King Cotton" which was a major export. Cotton was a cash crop, bringing in money and also was thought to be a method to win foreign support. Unfortunately for the South, Britain and France began to rely on other sources of cotton. But cotton was still an advantage because in order for the North to continue producing textiles at their factories, they depended on the South's cotton.
     Third of all, the Confederacy had motivation and a home field advantage. The Confederate soldiers had a reason for why they were fighting, they were determined to win the war to protect their way of life and their new country. They looked to the Revolutionary War for inspiration; like their forefathers, they were now the underdogs fighting in a war against an enemy with more advantages. The Union soldiers had a constant question in their mind, they did not have an explanation for why they were fighting. These soldiers would not want to volunteer in the army for any more than the 3-months that was asked of them because they did not have a driving force behind them. Also, the Confederate soldiers were closer to home than the Union soldiers were. They felt more comfortable and knew the terrain better than the Union did. This allowed them to navigate the land more efficiently and also use guerrilla warfare as a tactic.
     Lastly, the South was fighting a defensive war. This meant that they only needed to fight until the North got tired, while the North had to win the war AND conquer the Confederacy. The Confederacy only asked for independence while the Union wanted to Southern states back.
    The North fought the war in order to maintain the United States and to show the world that it does have strength and power. The Union needed to fight and win the war to set an example that secession is not always the answer because it believed that if the Confederate States of America seceded, then the various states might start seceding from either the Union or Confederacy and leave America with all the states as countries.

Did the South Have a Chance? Response

I believe the South had a slim, but possible chance of winning the Civil War. The South's strengths outweighed their weaknesses. One of these strengths was the South's ability to trade cotton.Being able to trade cotton meant being able to gain foreign support. This is an example of the colonists in the Revolutionary War. They could receive supplies or maybe even receive soldiers. Another strength the South had was better generals and more experienced soldiers. This means they would have a better chance at winning major battles. Having the home field advantage is also another vital strength for the South. This would mean the North would have to fight in unfamiliar territory. The final strength the South had was motivation. Motivation means they had a reason to fight and to continue with the war. Again this is also similar to the the colonists in the Revolutionary War. The colonists were able to hold out as a long as possible, which is similar to the South's plan to wait out the North. Overall I believe the South had a reasonable chance of winning this war.

           I think the South had a chance to win the war because of their advantages. First of all, South had experienced soldiers and better generals. Even though the North had a bigger population, they didn't have good generals and soldiers compared to the South. South just had an advantage with leadership over an army.
          Second of all, South had a better motivation. I think motivation is important to the soldiers. If they have a purpose to fight for, then I believe they will fight better.
          I think that the war shoudn't have been fought at all. The Civil War just damaged America, not any other countries around them. America was just hurting itself when people were fighting the war. Also, staying one big nation would be the right way to go. There is no reason to secede just because Lincoln took the president position. The South didn't know what he was going to do. It could have been good to the South. Breaking America into two sections weakened America as a whole nation. America was supposed to be the strongest nation in the world. This war proved that America could be weakened by itself. I could see the reason why the Confederacy broke away, but they could have just waited a little longer to see what Lincoln would do. This way the Civil War may have not even happened.

Did the South Have a Chance? Response

The South had a chance at winning the Civil War even if all the odds weren't in their favor. They were in the same place as the colonists in the Revolutionary War.

When we look back at the Revolutionary War, we see that motivation played a huge part. Only a soldier's ambition can make him or her want to break through obstacles and challenges blocking a path. Many Union soldiers didn't know what they were fighting for. Since states' rights and slavery played a huge part in the Confederate government, the soldiers were determined to protect that part of their Constitution with all their life. The lack of motivation in the Union army may have caused soldiers to stop fighting after the first three months Lincoln had asked for passed.

The South had the home-field advantage since many battles were fought in Confederate territory. They now have more knowledge about the terrain and geographical barriers whereas the Union doesn't know the land. This is an ideal place where the South can use the tactic of Guerilla warfare just like in the Revolutionary War to take out their enemies quickly and efficiently.

Lastly, the South had experienced soldiers. Unlike the Union, the South's soldiers knew how to shoot a gun and handle arms since they went hunting from time to time. Even if more people are in an army, you don't get any leverage unless those people are good at being soldiers. This put the South in a good spot since they didn't have to train their soldiers much.

So in conclusion, it is valid for someone to say the South had a chance at winning the Civil War.

"Did the South Have a Chance?" Response

Judging from what we have discussed in class, it is quite obvious that the North's advantages outweigh the South's. However, I think the Confederacy had a chance of winning the war, although that chance may have been slim.

Even though the Confederacy’s population was greatly outnumbered, what use is an army that does not know how to fight? The South was equipped with trained soldiers and generals that would be helpful in devising strategies to win the war. Using such assets to their advantage would be more useful than 22 million people with little or no experience on the topic of war.

Looking back on the Revolutionary War, motivation proved to be an important factor to winning. Their ambition alone would help soldiers overcome many challenges and persevere through difficulties. The Union lacked motivation. Because the debate over slavery/states’ rights and the goal to become an independent nation was a big issue for the Southerners, their determination to come out with the victory was strong. On the other hand, a lack of passion in the North could cause the men to leave the army after the 3 months Lincoln requested had passed.

There are some advantages that are just better than others when it comes to war. The Confederate States had the home-field advantage, which put them in a similar position to that of the American soldiers from the American Revolution. Because they have much more knowledge on the geography of battle terrains, using guerilla warfare would have been an efficient way to even out the size of the two armies. Using such tactics to ambush and raid the enemy, Southern soldiers could have taken out their opponents with various surprise attacks.

In conclusion, it is reasonable to say that the Confederate states of America had a chance at winning the civil war.

I think the South did have a chance to win even if it was a small chance. They knew in the beginning that the odds were against them and they found ways to circumvent this. They knew that they could not win a war head on with the North. A war of attrition had to be fought for the South to have a chance. Who ever could hit the hardest, and most importantly survive the longest could win by wearing down their opponent. The South used this to try to hit Northern morale. They would make the North sick of war to ensure their existence. The South also had the advantage of cotton.

The South could have used cotton to get some European powers into the conflict. Like the Colonists in the Revolution, foreign support would have helped the rebels considerably. Their allies would be able to bring in supplies and soldiers as well. These countries can also recognize the South which could force the Union to recognize it as a separate country.

I don't really think that the South had a good chance because the Union had many more advantages. The Union had more railroads which could transport soldiers quickly and they could send supplies, maybe even ammunition. he Union had more factories which could produce materials that could be used in war. And, most of the population in America lived in the North. The North had 22 million people and the South only had 9 million and 3.5 million of them were slaves. Also, when the Confederacy tried to gain foreign support from Britain and France, (both countries who had banned slavery) because of the cotton trade, but Britain had conquered India which was full of cotton so the Confederacy's cotton or King Cotton was pretty much useless. And even if the South had better generals, motivation, or a home field advantage it still doesn't mean hat they'll win because overall the Union had more advantages overall.

Did the South Have a Chance Response

      Even though it seemed that the North had the greater advantage of the war, the South still had a chance to win the war. The Union had a bigger population which meant that they would have a larger army than the South. However, the Confederacy had much better generals than the Union. The Confederacy's generals could devise plans to use their strengths against the North. If you have a bunch of people that have no skills in fighting what so ever, they are not as useful, it would take a long time to train soldiers. On the other hand, the South had soldiers that knew how to use a gun and win battles. They wouldn't have to spend their time on training soldiers but on devising strategies. All they had to do was keep on killing the North's soldiers until they ran out.
      They had a home-field advantage and experienced soldiers unlike what the North had. It is exactly like the Revolutionary war. By using their knowledge of their land like the Americans did against the British, they could set up traps and find hiding spots to catch the Northern soldiers unexpectedly and take them down. With the Southern's land as the target, the North had to march down to them, meaning they would need to use their strength and supplies to go around and conquer the South. But the South only had to wait for the North to come and fight them, giving them another advantage.
      The other thing that would help the South is their main goal. They seceded from the Union, so their goal is to not let the Union win. However, the Union had to conquer the South to win and show who's boss. The North had to strategize how to conquer the South and all the South had to do was prevent that from happening. They just had to survive until the North got tired of fighting. The South had a strong reason to fight for, for their independence, and the North didn't have such a strong reason to fight for.
      Even though the United States had seceded from Britain, that does not mean it gives an excuse for the Confederacy to do so too. The only reason the US succeeded in seceding was because they won the war. If the Confederacy wins the war, then they can secede in pride. But for now, they still have to fight the war. So, the Union has to fight to keep the South. If they just let them go, that will show other foreign countries how weak they are and that they are already breaking into pieces. Not only that but the North needs the South for their plantation farms. The North does have industries but most of their materials come from the South.
      The North did seem to have a stronger advantage over the South but that doesn't mean the South didn't have a chance. Just like in the Revolutionary War, Britain had more experience and power, and the US did not. But even so, US won the war. The South had better trained soldiers and generals and a home-field advantage which they could use against the Union. It may not seem much but with a home-field, they could easy place surprises there to use against the North. Lastly, the South's motive gave them a stronger will to fight than the North. That is why the South still had a chance of winning.

"Did the South Have a Chance?" Response

I think the Confederacy could've won the war if they'd used some of the tactics used during the Revolutionary War.  They could've waited out the war and discouraged the Union into quitting and letting the Confederacy stay as an independent nation. It wasn't foolish for the Confederacy to think they could win the war because of their motivation to keep their new country alive and running.  Another reason they could've won the ar if they used their advantages right was their home-field advantage.  They knew their own terrain and geography better than the Union and could use this advantage to lure the army into ambushes and traps.  So, in all, if the Confederacy had used their advantages, they could have won the war by making the Union eventually quit. 

I think there should be a civil war because it determined the outcme of millions of people in the near future when it came to slavery and the course of the United States.  This war determined the fate of the United States and slavery in the whole world.  If it hadn't occured, slavery might still exist today in the United States.  So, it was very imperative that the civil war occured and that the Union won.

Did the South have a chance? Response

I think that the South had a chance of winning the Civil War, and could have won, had several events happened differently. 

The South did have many advantages that the Union didn't have, such as the fact that they had cotton. The Confederacy also didn't really have to win the war completely, all they needed was for the Union to give up, whereas the Union had to thoroughly be the victor of the war, and recapture the South. This has all been repeated over and over in class and on the blog, and the Union had many advantages too, which is why we should look back to the Revolutionary War.

The South can be compared to the colonists in the Revolutionary War. Most of the numerous advantages that the Union had, Britain had too. The Union, like Great Britain in the American Revolution, had more people, a better developed country, and much more factories, and yet, against all odds, Britain lost. If you think back to that lesson, the reasons for America's unlikely victory were: better leadership, the "home-field advantage", and motivation. The Confederacy has all of these factors on their side as well. Furthermore, the South had well-trained soldiers, which America didn't have back then, therefore giving the Confederates an even better possibility for victory than the American colonists in the Revolutionary War.

 

Now, the only factor that hasn't been mentioned is Lincoln. I think that the fact that the Union had President Lincoln, with his amazing leadership, was probably the tipping point of why the Union actually won the war. Even so, the Confederacy still had a chance, like the American colonists, just not a very good chance. 

Wow this is a huge post, I should stop now.

Did the south have a chance reply

I personally think that the south had a chance. They might have had some disadvantages but they had enough strengths and if they played by their strengths they might have won. The south had the home field advantage. That is a major advantage in war because it requires more forces to try to go into enemy territory and take over their fort. The enemy usually makes more sacrifices. And if the south set traps along the way, it would have increased the casualties done to the north. With the home field, they had better leadership. South would have lost some major battles but the leadership of the north helped the south. They could have used that and fought back with strategies like dividing up the Union forces to make he soldiers confused and so much other strageties. The south could have just defend their forts and cities and drag this battle on so that the north would give up. This stragety would have had great impact if they just set bunch of traps near the forts so that the Union would have casualties before the actual fought began. Even though the north had most advantages, the south still could have won. I agree with jimmy's post and that the south had a fairly good chance of successfully seceeding.

Response to "Did the South Have a Chance?"

We all know that, ultimately, the South lost the civil war. But this didn't necessarily mean that the South couldn't win it.

When the South seceded from the Union, the South had significant advantages. One was that the South's primary goal was to start as a new country. However, the North's objective was to force the South to reunite. This meant that the North had no intention to annihilate the South while the South was ready to fight back when necessary. This provided much more motivation to the Southerners than the worried Northerners.

Also, the South had a home field advantage. This brings back to the idea of the Revolutionary War, in which the South can be compared to colonial America, and the North, Great Britain. The South was able to station its troops within its perimeters and wait for the Northerners to travel all the way down and strike. And if the North decided to trap the South from trade, the South was still the home of slavery, which meant they had more access to crops. Without the South, it also harmed the North, since it did not get as many raw materials from internal trade.

Although the South lost the war, I believe that it was very possible for them to win. Other advantages they had were better generals and cotton, and by utilizing all these effectively, the South could have been able to hold out long enough for the North to finally stop and accept the South as its neighboring nation.

Did South Have A Chance? response

I think that the South didn't have chance to win the Civil War. the South had motivation, but the North had factories. With power of factories, the North is backed up with unlimited ammunition, clothing, shoes,etc. The South wasn't as industrial as the North was. Also, the North had more people in their side because the immigrants usually settled in North, not South. The immigrants needed jobs so they wanted to be soldiers. During that time, the ratio comparing north's population to South's was 22 million to 9 million. More people means more soldiers. Even though the South had slaves to fight for them, the southerners didn't trust the slaves because they might rebel against their masters. Also, the North had more railroad than the South so the North could convey the supplies faster than the South.

Answer to: Did the south have a chance?

No. The south had no chance at all. Just because having a more of a military and motivational advantage does not necessarily mean that they will win. Although their situation may look like the beginning when colonist fought, they have more weaknesses. The union has much more advantages than weaknesses, overall having the advantages outweigh the weaknesses. Please also note that the Union had approximately 22 million soldiers versus the South only having 9 million! This is a significant difference and 3.5 million of the South's soldiers were slaves! So, they only had 5.5 million people fighting. Using this statistic I can assume that they probably was not as "motivational" as we thought. Also, the Union had president Lincoln! Lincoln is a mastermind and this is proven by the way he let Jefferson Davis start the war. Also, the military general that had helped the South also came from the original America. So, he must have been taught there as well. Therefore, his strategies were mostly taught by someone else. In conclusion, the Union has more advantages and had a better plan than the Confederate States ultimately causing the Union to win.

Did the south have a chance response

In my opinion using the information that we discussed in class, I don't think that the south had many advantages, for instance being outnumbered by the Union 22 million to 9 million men, and also the lack of railroads that prove to be of much importance when it comes to deploying troops, and re supplying forts with necessities. There was also the problems of slaves living in the south because the confederacy were cautious when it came to arming their slaves and letting them fight in the war, but without the slaves their numbers of men would be cut almost in half. Although the odds were against them they did have advantages that lead the south and also I to believe that they had a chance of winning the war. They had the better generals that could lead them to victory, and the men in the armies were also much more experienced when it came to shooting a gun. Also a big factor that the south thought would help them win the war was cotton. They thought that with cotton, they would have foreign support. The biggest thing that played a part in convincing the confederacy that they had a choice, I think, was their motivation to fight. They looked at the revolutionary war, and saw that they were in a very similar position. the revolutionary war proved to the confederacy that they had a chance in this war. I do not support the idea of slavery, but in the eyes of the south I think that it was a significant factor in their lives that they should battle and fight for. Also for the Union they made the right choice of pursuing war, because they were a new nation, and it would have shown the other world powers that the United states of America was weak, and couldn't even handle one dispute.

Did the South Have a Chance Response

In my opinion, I think the South doesn't really have a chance at winning. According to their stats, the Union has more advantages and fewer weaknesses than the Confederacy. This includes having the population, supplies and the relations advantage. Even if the Confederacy's stats were similar to when the colonists were fighting in the Revolutionary War, the Union's plan was far more elaborate than of the British. The Anaconda plan had organization of campaigning rather than to only quickly stop a rebellion at once. With that, motivation, foreign support, and holding out the war would do no good for the South.

Furthermore, the wagering of war would've been inevitable; there are two neighboring countries divided by Border States. Of course, there shouldn't be war in a sense of sacrificing men from both sides, but it was for what the South believed in, being liberated from such unconstitutional federal government rules and the issue on slavery. The secession cannot be tolerated by the Union. The first attempt of democracy will be thwarted by the free will of one's state, in other words, sectionalism. There is a need for a union to become the United States of America, a country ran by democracy. Thus, there is a need for civil war, a need for the Union not letting the Confederacy exist separately.

Did the South Have a Chance?

     Today we looked at what strengths, weaknesses, and strategies both the Confederacy and the Union had and used. So when the war began, did the South ever really have a chance to win? Forget for a moment that you know how the war will end (spoiler alert, the Union does). As the war started out, was it foolish for the South to think they could win? Support your argument with some details from today's discussion. You can also discuss whether or not the war should be fought at all...in other words, should the North simply have allowed the Confederacy to exist separately?

P.S. Remember that you must answer this by making your own post (do not just comment this one). Then comment at least one other person's post either agreeing or disagreeing with them and why. This needs to be done by Sunday night midnight