Thursday, April 19, 2012
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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
It is true that the Union had a much more number of soldiers than the Confederacy. However, the Union's soldiers' were not trained for warfare and their generals were not as good as the South's. Training soldiers would take time, especially with all those people. While in the South, many were already trained. What is the use of an army that is not trained well enough? They would be just sent to die. Even as the Northern soldiers are trying to shoot the Southerners, their aim and their skills with guns won't be as good as the Southerners'. The South will be able to shoot them down quicker than the North. Also, the South had a home-field advantage. Just like in the Revolutionary War, Britain had much more soldiers and America had the home-field advantage. Like America in the Revolutionary War, the South can use their home against the North.
ReplyDeleteSo, there may be more "trained soldiers" in the Confederacy but that doesn't mean that 22 million "Untrained" vs 9 million "Trained" Soldiers. Without doubt that there will be some untrained in the Confederacy along with the 3.5 million slaves that were forced to join. So, what i am saying is that it is impossible that in 22 million people none of them are trained. Also, guns back then were not as advanced as now so aim shouldn't be really counted in this situation. Also, you are saying that their home field advantage means everything. However, it is highly unlikely that none of there 22 million people have not been to the south, proving your statements false
ReplyDeleteEdison, I am pretty sure the Union did not have 22 million soldiers and the South did not have 9 million. It is impossible to mobilize and supply millions of soldiers. I think you are talking about the populations of the North and the South which would include women, children, and the old, not all of them could have been soldiers. Motivational advantages should not be underestimated as well. Morale could turn the tide of many battles.
ReplyDeleteJust because the Union had more advantages than the Confederacy, that does not mean that the Confederacy has no chance in winning the war. There are some advantages that are just better than others when talking about war, such as the fact that the Confederacy had better generals and more efficient soldiers. A higher population in the Union means nothing if they can't get any volunteers that can shoot a gun.
ReplyDeleteAgain, I refer to the Revolutionary War, where Britain's advantages also outnumbered the American colonists'. Motivation can be a very strong factor. As Diego said in his post, the South had a chance to win even if it was a small chance, and as Amar said, they could have even won the war if they used their advantages right. To say that "the South had no chance at all" (emphasizing "at all") is an incorrect statement.
Diego: Im pretty sure thats what Mr.Harp said. Also, it is possible to control 22 million soldiers, because all it takes are some military generals. Also, about your argument on women and children, there is no doubt that both sides have women and children so that argument is invalid. Also, moral and motavation advantages are really working because if there are only 5.5 million people that are fighting for the south, they are not motivational enough.
ReplyDeleteJonathan: Yes, there are some advantages that the Confederacy as i have stated in the post, but the Union's advantages outweigh them. Also, a gun back them is most likely very self explanatory since they were not as advanced as it is today, proving your argument wrong. Also, as i have stated before in Diego's reply to mine, they were not as "motivational" as we thought (refer back to what i said). Also, the reason why i said that they had no chance at all was because they the Union's advantages alone has outweigh the Union's disadvantages which is also the Confederacy's advantages proving my statement if the south had no chance at all correct.
ReplyDeletePlease read what I said about Britain's advantages also outnumbering America's in the Revolutionary war. (2nd paragraph of my comment)
DeleteThe gun was not as advanced as it is today, but the Confederacy still shot them more accurately and used them better.
If they had no chance at all, how did they stretch the war out so long? Their "motivation" kept them fighting for years longer than most people thought the war would be, therefore proving your statement incorrect.
Actually, as I have said, The Union;s advantages outnumber the Confederacy. Also, it is not too hard to shoot a gun, thereby proving your statement false. Also, when i was talking about the motivation, i was talking about the entire south compared to just the army, proving your refutation false
DeleteBritain's advantages outnumbered America's, America won.
DeleteThe gun wasn't as advanced, it wasn't that easy. Think of all the things they had to go through if they only shot twice a minute. Confederacy shoots faster and more accurately.
Are you saying that they didn't have enough motivation???
The Confederacy obviously had some chance of winning considering they nearly won during the first half of the war. Just because the Union had more advantages doesn't mean the Confederacy had no chance. They had more skilled soldiers and even a few soldiers make a difference. Almost everyone in the South knew how to use a gun while most of the North didn't. Your comment about the guns back then being self-explanatory isn't true. You had to load the gun manually and if you even made one mistake, it could malfunction. Therefore the South had advantages over the North with their "weapon's training" and had some chance of winning.
ReplyDeleteif you know basic military strategies, one of the reason why people didn't invade much was that invading needs much more supplies and manpower. it is easier to defend a fort than to take over a fort. the south could have used so many more effective tactics in the battle. they key battle thing works sometimes but usually it is to get the enemy's moral down and that's about it. instead of that, the south could have just dodged unnecessary battles and drag it on long enough for the north to give up
ReplyDelete