Sunday, April 22, 2012
Response: "Did the South have a chance at winning?"
I think the South did have at least a chance at winning. They had advantages, that the Union didn't have, to help them win. First of all, the South had better motivation to win while the Union questioned why they were fighting in the first place. They also had more experienced soldiers because they hunted, and also students at military academies. I think the motivation that the South had to win, also pushed for more soldiers to join they're military. The Union wasn't as motivated and I think that if they're not motivated, then why would people be motivated to join their military? General Lee, was a big part because Lincoln wanted to have him as their general, but instead stayed with the South. The south had a "home-field" advantage because all they had to do was defend themselves, but the Union had territory in the South and to conquer the south which was more difficult. Also, they had foerign support and export powere through cotton. The South did have a chance at winning, but their weaknesses caught up to them and their strengths weren't enough. But just because the Union seemed to have more advantages didn't neccessarily mean that the South had zero chances at winning at all, of course they're strengths would help them.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I agree with you in that they had a chance, even if that chance was very slim. But we also learned about how the North had immigrants who actually were motivated to join the military because they wanted to fit in with Americans. Also, the South did not really achieve a lot of foreign support because of the cotton surplus in Europe at the time. I like how you remembered about the soldiers at the military academies located in the South.
ReplyDeleteyour comments have a good point but if the south used different tactics from the beginning, it would have been a different story. All the South had to do was wear out the North. So instead of having a full-scale battles every time, they just had to sneak attack the North and set traps along the way to get the North to get tired. And the South could have just abandoned some of the unnecessary forts and cities while the North had to capture every single forts so that the soldiers wouldn't be able to regroup and fight back. Time is everything in battle. If you miss your timing once, that can change the course of a battle or even a war. If the North tried to take over everything every time, they would have missed some opportunities while the South would have more possibilities as they abandoned some of the forts for the greater cause.
Delete