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.
I agree with your point, and good relation to the Revolutionary War!
ReplyDeleteDoes that count as a comment?
DeleteI think he already wrote another comment
DeleteCotton = This is their only resource. Foreign countries don't want to get involved in the war, so they find new trading partners such as India. Thus, no trade. Ergo, no money.
ReplyDeleteRelation to Colonists = The Union, in this case, is Britain without all the disadvantages. Britain had to wait two-three months before the soldiers arrived (Atlantic Ocean).
The Union already knows somewhat of what the land is going to be like. Great Britain's landscape is completely different from America.
Lincoln = Doesn't this benefit the Union?
Cotton is their only major resource, but it is still better than what the Union has (fishing?). I also think the Union needs cotton for their textile factories. Cotton is still a slight advantage.
Delete"Without ALL the disadvantages" What disadvantages did Britain have besides the three month voyage?
I mentioned Lincoln as an explanation to why the Union won if the Civil war was so similar to the American Revolution. That was kind of off topic though.
King Cotton. Cotton was a major strategy useful for the South. Such things that one would dismiss as unimportant have shaped history multiple times. The world revolves around the money, you'd say. However, it also revolves around petrol. And it revolves around cyberspace. And... it revolves around cotton. Now, for a few seconds, let us pretend that cotton did not exist. To make it even more realistic, why don't you remove everything made of cotton from your sight. Say, I will make this a challenge. Or a bet. But I won: you wouldn't take off your clothes, wouldn't you. And by the way, India did not produce even close to the cotton that the Southern United States (the Confederacy, though unrecognized) did at the time. The South dominated the world market.
DeleteYou also said that the Union already knows somewhat of what the land is going to be like. That is only partly correct. They know exactly what it's going to be like. Remember, the Union claims the South for themselves. Saying that only somewhat knowing is like you saying that you only know somewhat how to get from your fourth to your fifth period class. And interesting use of Latin. It was the first time I saw it online.
And Jonathan, the North did not just manufacture textiles. There were firearms and other such products that did give the North enormous advantages. Also, the British did indeed have more disadvantages than the three month voyage:
1. The Americans knew the terrain much better than the British did and could thus draw out much better strategies and battle plans.
2. The British's reason for fighting was also of diminished importance compared to the revolutionaries. They fought for money, as their duty was to. Many were in fact from impoverished regions fighting for the recruitment money and salary. The colonists had much more reason to fight, as the South also did in the Civil War.
3. The large size of the American colonies also played a strategic advantage for the colonists: the British did not have an adequate amount of troops to hold on to areas that they had captured, nor could they rely on the Loyalists.
4. That was because the Loyalist support was not as dedicated and large in number as the Patriot cause was. In Britain alone, not much support was garnered for suppressing the revolution.
5. A last - and viably significant - British disadvantage was that the colonies had no specific city or area that was extremely important for the Patriots. One might say - Boston, Philadelphia, New York City, Virginia, and the like. However, as stated earlier in number three, the British could not control all of them.
Now, Jonathan, it can be seen that there were other disadvantages.
Now these such disadvantages that the British experienced are to be compared to that of the Union (North).
As stated earlier, the North already knew the terrain and did not have to go so far in order to fight, as the British did (three months). This was also because of the railroad system in the North that allowed for much faster transportation between the North and the South. Lincoln's War Machine, as some call it, did serve as a tactical advantage to the North.
*continuation
ReplyDeleteLet's compare:
As for the reason of why they fought, it was pretty much the same: the South was devoted, and the North was not as much.
The Northern Army was indeed large, and could hold Southern land just as well as they could their own. It was not too difficult to do so, as the land was not too full of expanse, either.
In the South, there were only a small minority of people (not including slaves) who did not support the Confederacy. They had a huge will in fighting for their cause (as the Patriots did), and they also thought that they were fighting for their freedom and independence. The North, also like the British, had no strong reason to fight.
The Southern strategic center was almost wholly based in Richmond, and it was very close to the North, only fifty miles at some points. A defeat of the South here meant a certain victory for the North.
Mentioning Lincoln as a weapon of mass destruction is indeed a bit off topic. Similarly, Stalin was powerful and had good leadership, just that he was a sadist by the definition of many and enjoyed harming his own people. That does not necessarily mean that he could win a war against the United States. Synonymously, the North could have lost. And arguing the way that you would, Jefferson Davis also had good leadership, and even if he did not, he still had support from almost all of the people living within its boundaries.
Now, it can be seen that both sides can be argued for - and against - and that the potential outcomes of the American Civil War is a mystery - even to today.
Knowledge is free.