Friday, April 20, 2012
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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
It is true that the North carried many advantages that the Confederacy lacked, but it is unfair to say that the South had no chance of winning whatsoever because the Confederacy held assets that would be useful in winning as well. For example, the home-field advantage could have been used effectively if they decided to take out the enemy using surprise attacks to even out the sizes of the two armies.
ReplyDeleteThe North had more advantages, but that doesn't mean that that the South was helpless. They could always have used the Mississippi River as a way of transport instead of using railroads. It just may have taken them longer to get where they needed. They didn't have as much men fighting, but the soldiers they had were trained, which means they probably had a better aim at their target. Also, the South had a home field advantage, so they knew all the terrain surrounding them, so they knew where to attack from, and where to trap the North at. It also takes time to make all the supplies, and it didn't mean that the North was able to acquire the materials needed make all the supplies. The South did have a chance.
ReplyDeleteYes, the North did have more soldiers, but those soldiers didn't know much about war, while the soldiers in the South were trained well and had more experience in war. Having more soldiers doesn't matter if those soldiers don't have enough knowledge on warfare.
ReplyDeleteOf course one could argue that the South could not have won, as you had, though the concept of "underdogs" in battle often do play a role in such wars. As also stated in many different posts, these Southern troops were compared to the American colonists. This is prevalent in many occurrences in the course of history, and can be seen very often. Take the relatively recent Vietnam War, for example. In the beginning, it would be no doubt that the Americans would win, with all their powers - better military technology, better weapons, better soldiers, better training, and the like. However, the unusual and different terrain posed a threat for the Americans and a safe haven for the Viet Cong insurgency. Likewise, something similar could have happened for the Confederacy in the South, and, like the Viet Cong, they were in a way deemed an insurgency by the Union. Their unrecognition by almost all also gave almost the entire South a sense of unification and strong passion for their cause, and they fought feverishly for it. Their will, and will alone, could have gave them their independence and freedom from the authoritarian and oppressive Union government that they saw it as. Though I am not saying that this is true, there was a certain military leader in the Confederate Army named Albert Pike, a Freemason, mystic, and prophet. Though one may denounce this as the talk of a conspiracy theorist, the fact that he was a Freemason did have a potential for the South to win. The Freemasons belong to a immensely large organization with an internationally large base of members: a present-day estimate is six million members. These people have and still have the potential to craft history, whether they be good or bad. The Freemasons indeed did have origins in the Knights' Templar, a secretive organization that we (yes I am in your grade and school) learned last year, and who participated in the Crusades. In this alone - they already influenced the way we live - and this was about 883 years before now. To sum this all up, the Freemasons could have helped the South win.
ReplyDeleteHumans all make mistakes, and this is a well-known fact. I do all the time - forgetting things, cursing somebody and regretting it the next moment. I do things that I wish I never would have done. I have lied, cheated, stole, all of that sort. Though doing immoral and bad things may have not hurt so many as to leave a war, the horrors of human nature could lead to corruption within governments and ultimately lead to an indescribable war. With the power that Union commanders had, they could easily abuse it and use it for personal gains - or even crimes against humanity, as the United Nations calls it. Slaughterhouses are not for people, but the power-hungry and the power-rich like to believe they are. The solution to this problem is to keep the power away, but sadly this is not too possible. After all, Ulysses S. Grant did drink many a alcoholic beverage and was not very moral, especially when compared to the "noble" Southern general Robert E. Lee. Therefore, the less-determined Northern could therefore have corrupted the entire Union cause and lose the war for them.
From the above reasons, it can be clearly seen that though your entry does prove a point, but there are many other points that can be used to argue otherwise.
Knowledge is free.