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.
Thursday, April 19, 2012
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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This is just my opinion, and and i also agree with you , but i think you could look at it from a different point of view. I think although the Union had the advantages and all the odds were with them, the motivation of the confederacy alone would give them the chance to win the war. The will to protect and keep what they thought was a part of them could help the confederate armies continue to persevere through the hard times, and overcome difficulties. Unlike the confederate states of america, the union had no passion for the war, and it could cause the men to question their sacrifices, and wish to leave the army.
ReplyDelete