In contradiction to Luke's statements, there were plenty of chances for the Confederacy to crush the Union. Luke's thoughts are full of statements that are contradictory to historical happenings in the Civil War.
Population-
Luke says that the Union had larger quantities of soldiers in the Union army, which I am not arguing, but the south had much more experienced soldiers and officers who could easily decimate larger forces with more experienced tactics. An example of an officer who did this was Stonewall Jackson, who routed the Union army in the first engagement of the war at Manassas. His forces were outnumbered, but his successful strategy hurt the Union's morale, and drove their forces back, effectively winning the battle for the Confederacy.
Transportation and Production-
Luke's statements of the north producing more equipment per day are true, as well as the fact that the north was in control of most of the railroads. However, the south had a multitude of horses, which in opposition to the north's "iron horses," were not bound to railroads and could travel in more efficient routes. The south also didn't have as much of a need for weapons that the north did, because many of the men in the south were accomplished soldiers, and already had weapons of their own. The Confederacy also created ironclad warships, which could decimate Union naval barricades, and provide transport to other nations, where they could gain allies. These allies, such as Britain and France, however, were pressured by the north, and could only watch the Confederacy fight.
Financial-
In opposition to Luke, I believe that the Confederacy struggled, because they did not have the time to establish necessary materials that a country needs, such as a federal government and a financial establishment. Because of this, the south had little money to spare against the north's massive coffers. However, if not for the naval barricades that hemmed in the Confederacy, the south would have established alliances and loans from other countries so that they would be able to finance their war effort.
A blog to express your right to free speech on topics related to American Cultures class.
Were the Confederate States of America doomed to fail in the Civil War?
DEBATE THIS! Info
The inspiration and model for DEBATE THIS! is The Economist online debate series. For our purposes we will debate issues related to what we are learning in American Cultures class. Each debate will run for about a week. The format for the debates will be fairly structured and will work like this:
1-Opening statement posts will begin the debate. For each side of the issue a student will post positive arguments supporting their position. These posts will include an opening statement or paragraph, three supporting arguments, and a closing statement or paragraph.
2-Rebuttal. After two or three days different students will challenge the supporting arguments made in the opening statement posts of the opposing argument. The rebuttal must only be focused on opposing the arguments made in the opening statement.
3-Closing Statement posts will close the debate. After another two or three days different students will close the debate by posting their final closing arguments. The closing arguments should be based on information already used in either the opening statement or rebuttal portion of the debate. No new information should be used. A good closing statement will end with a thought provoking statement or question.
If you are not one of the debaters you can still take part in the process by doing two things. First, you can express your opinion by leaving a thoughtful comment to any of the posts. Second, you may vote in the poll that accompanies each debate.
A couple of ground rules are important:
1-Stay positive. No personal attacks will be tolerated. If you disagree with a positiion someone takes, then attack the idea not the person!
2-Support your opinions. Everyone has opinions. Prove why your opinion is valid by providing supporting details.
3-Keep posts and comments short, sweet and to the point. Be focused in your posts and comments by staying on topic.
1-Opening statement posts will begin the debate. For each side of the issue a student will post positive arguments supporting their position. These posts will include an opening statement or paragraph, three supporting arguments, and a closing statement or paragraph.
2-Rebuttal. After two or three days different students will challenge the supporting arguments made in the opening statement posts of the opposing argument. The rebuttal must only be focused on opposing the arguments made in the opening statement.
3-Closing Statement posts will close the debate. After another two or three days different students will close the debate by posting their final closing arguments. The closing arguments should be based on information already used in either the opening statement or rebuttal portion of the debate. No new information should be used. A good closing statement will end with a thought provoking statement or question.
If you are not one of the debaters you can still take part in the process by doing two things. First, you can express your opinion by leaving a thoughtful comment to any of the posts. Second, you may vote in the poll that accompanies each debate.
A couple of ground rules are important:
1-Stay positive. No personal attacks will be tolerated. If you disagree with a positiion someone takes, then attack the idea not the person!
2-Support your opinions. Everyone has opinions. Prove why your opinion is valid by providing supporting details.
3-Keep posts and comments short, sweet and to the point. Be focused in your posts and comments by staying on topic.
13 comments:
although i do agree with your statement on how the south has better generals, i do not agree that these generals can wipe out an army twice the size of there own army.
jeremy c
I also aggree with Jeremy, because just because you have one important general for battle doesnt mean he'll be able to wipe out entire army. Its great to have a good leader, but if this leader doesnt have that many soldiers than against a huge army then whats there to lead.
Taylor Luchansky user name is Dino king56
CSA was just not prepared to start anything or split away from the U.S. They didnt have the main components for independents or war. Sure they knew the land and great generals, but if they were to acutually to be separte and live off of what resources they had which is only really slavery and cotton then they wouldnt make it. They didnt have the finaces and not a possible stabble government to with stand there separation. They would start from complete scratch with already problems in place. There is no way the CSA would of made it.
Taylor. L
Like Taylor and Jeremy said, you cannot win a war without people. And although the officers and soldiers were really good, they still needed help battling a war against people that had twice the amount of soldiers that they had.
-Scott Edwards
lzI think that the confederacy was doomed to fail because when you look at all of the things that the Union had and the Confederacy didn't there is a huge diffrence. The Union had more people, more supplies, more factoires, and they already had a Navy. Pretty much all the Confederates had was knowledge of the land and more skilled generals. But no matter how skilled a general is, you need supplies to fight a war, something the confederates had little of.
I agree with jeremy when saying that the south can't win over a larger army with more experience.since in the long run it will be hard for the south because they will lose their soliders, and the soliders will become weak.A leader can only do so much, its the whole army that counts the most in a war.you can't just look at the generals and leaders.
In this war the South had very few advantages to start with. They were so desperate for supplies that they had to steal from captured soldiers. They had virually no allies or finacial support either. Lastly, there population was significantly less than the North. Even if they could win several battles it was only a matter of time before they ran out of steam. They were doomed from the day one without a doubt.
i agree with jeremy because if you had 500 well trained soldiers against 10000 you would still lose its almost impoossible to win against a larger more populated country.
Okay, nearly everybody on this page agrees with each other. They all say that just because you have a very militarily intelligent general does not mean you will overcome the population disadvantage. That is untrue. Especially using tactics from the Civil War with Civil War technology, almost any number disadvantage can be overcome. If a Southern general's tactical ability is so great that any Union general cannot best him, it is possible, if unlikely, to eat away slowly at the massed forces of the Union and win the war. While Lee could not do this, other people could have. In numerous other historic occasions, tactically advanced generals have valiantly overcome advantaged and inept generals. Just like Napolean. He prevailed throughout the chaos of the French Revolution to command an army that would extend its reach throughout Europe. Or like Saladin, the great Arabic warlord who used his military greatness to capture land from the Christians occupying Jerusalem. If a revolutionary war system was created in which to crush the North, southern plantation owners may have marveled at their country's bravery for many years to come. Just as Hitler (unfortunately) used his great strategic and tactical aptitude to overcome masses of backwards Europeans (though he was eventually defeated through overextension of arms and governence), General Lee could have been able to manuever his army in ways that would astound the North and lead to a great lasting victory. If only Lee was the man for such an astronomical task. After the war ended, the South could repair their economy. And in response to Taylor's argument, slaves are probably the most usefull economic component the South possesed. Their indignant need to allow slaves would have lead the South to expand their exports the all corners of the industrial world, and they would prosper greatly. Slaves and cotton are actually a great way to make some money, Taylor. Even if it is morally terrible, slavery would help the south even up to the modern age ( though I do believe slavery would eventually be abolished in the CSA, even though their past actions were made to preserve slavery. If the CSA existed, they would probably be in the stage of Black Panther emergence and anti-racism non-violent protests. Their would be a different Martin Luther King figure. And rap music would not exist. Police bludgeons would hurt more. And the bloods and crips may never have been created. America would also lose some of its technological advantage due to the lack of any African American imput. Yeah, things would be very different. Decisions made in the past drastically alter the future.). Imagine having toys made in America destroy the industry in China, simply because while what China pays its communist citizens is very little, the Confederate States of America would not need to pay anything. So, society would be meaner and less open-minded. Economy would boom. The Confederate States of America would take similar steps America did, just abolishing slavery further down its lifespan. Despite the heavy population disadvantage, the CSA could prevail. Overall, the Confederate States of America had a very real chance at defeating the Union.
I believe that the CSA had many chances to win the war. At Gettysburg they would have won if they were aggressive enough
Along with what steven said, the CSA, they were not aggressive enough. Not just at the Battle of Gettysburg, but throughout the whole war. They decided to take a defensive war, instead of being aggressive, which cost them the whole war.
Post a Comment