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.
Although I agree that the South may have some advantages that helped them a lot, the Union's advantages outweigh the Confederacy's advantages. First of all, Union had 22 million people compared to the 9 million in which 3.5 million people were slaves. Also, the home-field advantage shouldn't be that much of a deal because within the 22 million people fighting for the Union, I doubt that none of them know the landscape. So, the home-field is not really that big of a deal. Lastly, within any circumstances, I believe the Confederacy has little to no chance of winning in the Civil War
ReplyDeleteThere was not 22 million people fighting for the Union, most of these people were women, children, and people with no experience in war. More people doesn't matter if they can't fight.
DeleteAlso, though very little of the Union's army might have known the landscape, almost all of the Confederacy's army would know the land, plus they would know it better. If this was not true, then the home-field advantage wouldn't exactly be called an "advantage".
22,000,000 - (women, children, people without experience)
Delete=
At least three times the amount of the Confederate States army.
This would mean that one Confederate soldier would have to disable three Union Soldiers. Muskets would be shot twice a minute and are inaccurate.
In addition, what makes fighting on the Southern land so difficult?
Sure the muskets only fired two times a minute, but the Union's muskets were just as slow. The muskets may be inaccurate, but the Confederate soldiers would still fire with more accuracy than the Union soldiers.
DeleteFighting on any land would be of the same difficulty for both sides, but the knowledge of the land helped Confederate generals devise better strategies. It is called the home-field "advantage" for a reason.
@Leo
Deletei agree that the north has much more population but the number doesn't win wars. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yi_Sun-sin this link shows one of the korea's most admired general who defeated 120 japanese naval ship with only 12 able korean fleet
Even if the Civil War is like the Revolutionary War it still doesn't mean that the Confederacy will win. First of all, the Revolutionary War happened against Britain and America and they're a thousand miles apart so, fighting a defensive war then was a good idea because Britain would have to constantly send troop overseas.. But the Civil War happens in the same country. So trying to do fight a defensive war would be useless because the Union and Confederacy are right next to each other so it would take much effort to send troop and the Union had a lot of railroads some even in the Confederacy. You also have to consider the fact that the Union is much bigger than the Confederacy and had a bigger army which was double the amount of the Confederacy. And the Confederacy's greatest weapon against the Union was their cotton, and they were planning on using this to convince Britain to join the Civil War on their side. But, Britain had gotten a colony which was India so they didn't need cotton form America. So the Confederacy's greatest weapon is useless.
ReplyDeleteI think that is a good response, but the South was not in exactly the same position as the colonists had been. Sure they were similar, but the British had a lot more traveling to do than the North. The cost of transporting the British across the Atlantic was more then having them move down South, especially with the railroads that North had to transport people around. Also, the Colonist had foreign aid which the South did not have.
ReplyDelete