Wednesday, May 7, 2008
Rebuttal Pro
There isn't a lot i can really argue with here, because the first 4 paragraphs were in support of the "pro view." Ill start with the 6th paragraph though. It is true that the south had a much better trained armies and better generals. That really helps a lot, and is usually a crucial factor in deciding a war. But it can only do so much. As Luke said, the south were down by a 4:1 man ratio. You cannot win a war against those odds. Yes, it seemed like the Confederate States of America could pull of a victory in the first two years of the war, but this was probably going to happen no matter what. The Civil War was a battle of time for the south. In the begging of the war they could survive and even win, but this is at the time when they have enough ammo, men, support, and probably luck to fight. At the same time, the North had mostly unexperienced soldiers and couldn't find a general who could win. They would also have to adjust fighting in the South. But around the time of Gettysburg, the tides would turn. The Union had found a general that could win a war in Ulysses S. Grant. The Confederates were loosing the same amount of men as the North, but their population was diminishing and the North's was thriving. The southern farms and few factories became war tarnished and could not support the effort, making southern resources even smaller. It seemed like Lee wasn't magic anymore, and he actually could loose. While Northern soldiers became more experienced, the Southern soldiers just became tired of fighting. As you can see, the Civil War was a battle of time, and it was inevitable for the Confederates to loose.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
I agree because the South was up against such overwwhelming odds. They had done well in the past, but were to outmatched by the Union. Good generals will only get you so far when you don't have enough supplies or support. The Confederates were starving and that was a major reason they surrendered. They could not get neccessary supplies when it was vital. Along with little supplies when you are down men as well, it is next to impossible to win a war under these circumstances. The South lost this war before it even started.
I would have to agree with everything Jordi has said because the Union Army had such a big population that the Confederates had a very slim chance of winning. The South did win some battles, but in the end the Union really had it, they had a big population, many factories that could send them supplies quicker than the South could get it. Lee's soldiers may have been well trained, but they did not have enough supplies for them. Especially food!
I agree with Jordi, although the CSA had better soliders and were more familar with the land they, but they did not have some of the advantages the Union did.
Fay Ansary
Even though the confederates troops were better trained, the union greatly outnumbered the confederates. You see in movies like the 300, small armies greatly crippling large armies but even in these movies the larger army most of the time prevails.Also you said that the confederates had the advantage of horses, but in the end of the war the confederates were the ones who needed horses for their calvary.
I agree with you Jordi. Even though the CSA did have more and better soldiers, they didnt have as many farms, factories, or other important things that you need a war.
The North (Union) destroyed the railroads of the South as well.(Confederacy)
I don't know if Mr. T. said this but if I were in the war...i would just burn the tracks (the wood and melt the steel tracks)
The North and South both had ways to sabatage each others plans.
-Billy
Post a Comment