The confederate rebellion later war was predestined to be a failure. The North had by far the most advantages, including some of the most important ones.
- Population and numbers
· The Union had a, about, 4:1 ratio of numbers for the fighting ages. Even if the Confederates much better officers and soldiers, General Grant knew very well that he could just keep fighting, and fighting, and fighting. He knew that every soldier killed or wounded, he could likely replace them. Lee eventually came to the point that each dead soldier was not replaceable. - Production and Transportation of Supplies
· Supplies were very important during war, for a soldier can’t fight very well without any guns, bullets or cannons, let alone without food.The Union factories could produce equipment and supplies much, much quicker than the opposing southern side could. For example, Northern factories could, on average, produce 5,000 rifles in a day. On the other hand the South could produce only 300, the Northern factories could produce 17 times more guns in one day! Yet the North could not only produce the supplies faster, they could also deliver the supplies faster. With a huge navy and 72% of the countries railroads, delivering the supplies was no big problem. For the south, the railroads that weren’t cut off weren’t very extensive, for they only had the other 28% of the remaining length of the railroads. - Finances and Money
· Fighting a was is very costly and if a country can’t afford the war their fighting, they will be forced to surrender the war they are fighting. The North, financially speaking, could fight the South twice and still have money left over. The South didn’t have the strong banking systems and could not get foreign loans to fund their war.
19 comments:
I agree, the confederate states of america was doomed to fail. they were a new territory without factories or weapons. Their population was far less than that of the North which was very important in the end,
by the way BIRD is jeremy Charles
True, the CSA had less of a population and fewer factories, but didn't the 13 colonies have less of a population and fewer factories during the American Revolution? How come we got our independence against such daunting odds? Why not the Confederacy?
i agree, the conferates had no chance in winning the war. They didn't have many advantages, and the union would just over powered them in battle.
Jordan Bowser
The confederate states of america had little to no chance to win the war. In my mind they had disadvantages in population, presidential leadership, and finances. I believed those were the three most important things to win a war.
Jakobi Dewasse
I think the confederate states hade a chance of winning the war but did not utilize the few but very important advantages they had such as better generals they knew the land the chance to get france and britian on there side so if the would have used there advanages better i think they would have beatin the union
The CSA was more than likely doom to fail if not early but later. The North had more advantages that were very important like finances, popluation, and steel production are very important when trying to win a war. If you have no people then you have no one to fight with. No steel equals no tools or weapons to even compete in a war, and if you dont have the money then you cant afford what youre going into.
Taylor L
I also agree with you Luke. Altough the CSA did have better soldiers, and commanders to get better strategies and battle tactics, there is absolutley no way that you can win a war fighting an enemy that has twice the amount of soldiers and commanders that you do. They also had less factories to help them make cannons and guns, which is obviously how you win a war.
-Scott Edwards
And to add onto my other comment above this one, the CSA did have one advantage though. And that was that they knew the land better. Alot of the battles took place in the South, which is good and bad. It is good, because nothing from the north can get destroyed. But the bad thing is that they know the land alot better than the North. But one of the most important wars took place in the North, which means that the North knew the land better. And that battle is the Battle of Gettysburg. It was a HUGE turning point in the war that the North would win. So I am still for the North, but the CSA did have an advantage in the fact that they knew the land alot better than the North.
"United we stand, divided we fall"
Even if the south would have won the war, they would be in such financial debt and in such poor condition to control the larger country that the economy would have failed very quickly and easily under Jefferson Davis. The Confederacy just did not have what it takes to be an independent nation that could support itself.
rsh is Bobby Hummel
Rsh i partly agree with you that the south if they won would be in a financial debt, but they would probably would have grown like the US to learn to support their selves.
i agree that the confederate states of america (CSA) was doomed to fail due to their lack of resources.
I would have to agree with Luke because the Union had a much higher chance of winning because they had a huge population, which they could replace the soldiers that had died, which Lee could not have done. They had a lot of supplies because most of the factories during the war were in the North. I also agree with him because of what he said about the money that the Union had. He is right, that the Union had enough money to fight the war twice and still have money left over!
I do not agree that the CSA was doomed to fail in the Civil War because even though they had many things working against them, they also had some good advantages. They had better-trained soldiers, familiarity with land, and good officers. If they had planned and strategized well, they could have won.I do believe that if they had won the war they would not have lasted long from the enormous debt. Keep in mind, it wouldnt have been the first time the underdogs won and came back from debt (HINT HINT American Revolution).
Well, then Christina, you should post over in the place that agrees that the CSA could have won. But on to my argument, the CSA did have some advantages that Christina said, but those are not enough to win a war. But can you win a war when the enemy has twice the amount of people as you? No, you can't. Or if you can, you have very little possibility at winning the war. But they had very little money to start the war, and had to spend alot of that in the war. This put them into great financial debt. They could not have come out of this debt for a long time if they had won. But they did have some great soldiers and generals, like the well respected Robert E. Lee. But even he could not win this war, with twice the amount of people coming at him, and the soldiers and generals did not win it for the CSA. The CSA, even if they did win the war, I think they would have abolished slavery, if not in the 1800s, the early 1900s. Even though they did have a big debt, they could not have made a very long stand with the debt, and who knows what that could have caused. So even with great soldiers, and great generals, they could not pull off their expert battle tactics and manuevers, and that cost them the war.
I believe that the Confederate States of America were doomed to fail. The most important reason was the population. Without an army it's pretty hard to fight a war. Plus, they run out of soldiers more easily. You can't replace a soldier if all the backups are dead. Another important reason is factories. You need guns and weapons to win a war and without it all you could do is punch, which doesn't happen to be very effective.
Post a Comment