Military

Sorry, this is totally late, but I want to at least do it.
I think that men and women join the military nowadays because they want adventure in their lives or possibly, they really do love America so much that they're willing to die for it. To be honest, it's probably more of the adventure that motivates men and women to abandon their lifestyles which would probably involve working as a secretary. Something not as spontaneous and risk-taking. I'm not all too sure that money motivates people to join the army, but that might also be the case.
If I were a soldier, the hardest part of the experience would probably be having to wake up at like 4:45 in the morning. I'm not really a morning person, so that's tough.

Just Curious...

So....how did that history test go today?

Can't Back Down From War

A Civil War is raging on and they need people. Should you join the army? Your life away from the battlefield is as boring as life can be. Your family needs provisions and money. Everyone thinks our scum, you want to make a name of yourself. I would join. I think it is my civil duty as a citizen to join. If you don't like a war, maybe you should leave.

I'd Rather Not Join

A person's motivation to join the army could stem from a multitude of things: pride, money, adventure, etc. Depending on what drives a person into joining the army, it is either a blessing or a curse to participate in defending our country. Would I join? As of now, I find no reason to risk my life for a vast amount of people I don't know. Perhaps an event in the future may influence me into joining, but no amount of money or thirst for adventure would ever persuade me into getting myself tangled in the country's affairs. For now.

Forget Marching, Go Commando

There's many reasons people join the military today. I'd like to say that they join mainly because they want to help the country out, but unfortunately, that's not the case. A lot of people who join the military join because they're forced to. A lot of people join the military because they've committed a crime and are forced to or they don't have any other way to feed themselves. However, during wars, people do tend to want to join the military more despite the dangers they might face. If a major war did break out, I would probably end up joining the military. The reason I'd want to join is because I feel that I've lived in the country with rights given to me like a gift, and I want to do something in return. If it was during the Civil War, however, it might be different. I've always thought that the early wars in the U.S. were dumb, because people just marched head on towards each other or stood in groups a couple dozen yards from each other frantically reloading their slow rifles and muskets. A bottle of alcohol with an piece of burning cloth died around it would've been much more effective than a rifle, especially if the opposing side's standing in a group. Even if you didn't have alcohol, a bale of flaming hay rolling down a hill would be more effective in combat. Improvised weapons are sometimes more effective than people think. In the Civil War, a  I would fight against the South, but I'd be on my own side. In other words, I'd unofficially help out the Union army by using whatever improvised weapons I have. I wouldn't officially join the army because, it's almost suicide the way they fought. That's about the only reason I wouldn't have joined. I'm already used to physical labor and nauseous  and disease isn't much of a risk if you know how to handle it. Family.. I'd be okay without them and I'll leave it at that.

i've read up on some thing about why in any case someone would want to join the army and came up with some unexpected things. Some people join the army today because they want to be away from their parents, haha (weird right?). Another trending topic a few years ago was the reason of fighting Al Qaeda (Osama Bin Laden) and that could sum up to the reason of fighting for a cause, kind of like the what the southerners did and their will to fight for slavery and state power. I don't know why people would lose countless lives for owning slaves ... well kind of (I know it's their life and culture and everything)... but state power is something I understand a lot more. Some other reasons that pop up now a days are Family traditions, pride, and getting ones college tuition payed off. (that and family traditions are probably minor reasons, but worth mentioning.) A few people back in the day joined because of family (friends and siblings signed up together) and also, obedience to their goals. The last thing i want to mention, that was probably already mentioned in class but w/e, was the fact that people joined in on the civil war because they thought it would be over by Christmas (like it would be over really soon). I personally wouldn't join the army today after i graduate highschool because "I" don't really have that much of an important reason to do so... it's not like my parents died in 9/11, or I love adventure out in a battlefield (LOL) or it will dull my pride to the point where i will be diagnoses with MDD heheh. I think that that choice could be for someone else... yeah. But .you know. if it was back in the civil war, SURE cause. you know. I would know everything about the battles and become a historical person for saving countless lives in battle and ending the civil war pretty quick. (LOLJK I PROBABLY WOULDN'T EVEN BE ABLE TO REMEMBER EVERYTHING ANYWAYS.) yeah i still wouldn't. I don't think that fighting in battle and obedience to physical training is a problem... i just wouldn't want to do it. I mean if I already was a soldier, I would be feeling like any other average soldier (bad environment, risks, that kind of stuff). To sum it up, joining the army back in the civil war had it's differences, and I probably wouldn't want to deal with any of it. hahaha. yeah long post :P .

Motivation

During the Civil War, most people were motivated to join the army just because they were bored of farming, influenced by friends and neighbors, and some joined for the money.  Motivation for joining the army today, isn't exactly the same as back then.  Reasons why people would join the army is to serve and protect their country along with it's people including their very own families.  I doubt that I'll ever be joining the army.  The only reason for me to actually join is if my family members were to be in danger.  Other than that, there's absolutely no way I'm joining the army.  I can't bare the thought of dying in the midst of a battle.  Also, if I don't die in a battle, I'm pretty sure my parents will end up killing me for actually joining the army.

Reason for army/ im not going.

                People nowadays go to military for their own benefits, such as free education they can be provided, as job opportunity, for citizenship, because they can't find their major, or for serving the country. People from back in Civil War time went to military for escape from their current job, peer pressure, free meal, or for serving the country. These information tells me that in every time period, there are people who only think about their benefits and people who really want to serve the country. The reason haven't changed from back in Civil War time and now. Some people for their benefit, and some people for their country.
                The military service, however, was not worth it. People from different states can have different life styles and it would be interesting to see all different life styles they have. There will be also lot of friendship and stuff like that where you can enjoy yourself with people who you don't know. There will be free food provided, according to them. These reasons are only reason that I might go to army, but they don't worth the chance of getting myself killed at war. Besides, war is very violent thing. I would not kill people just because it's what general tells me to do, and if I'm not willing to kill, I shouldn't go to army. There are also many hardships. Sleeping and waking up early, difference in temperature, disease, lack of resources I should get, separated from all my loved ones, and many other things can be hardship that I wouldn't take just for fun advanture and food.

joining army

back in the civil war people had reasons to go join the army like boredom,showing patriotism, going with friends, and they had a motivation to fight, but now people join the army because they are either loyal to their country, or maybe they've been playing CoD a little to much. In my opinion i wouldn't join because i like living..

Why Would People Join Military? Because....

I think men and women joined the military for adventure and new experiences. Many soldiers were farmers who followed the same routine everyday. They probably go sick and tired of there life and joined the army for a new, exciting experience. Women probably joined to help support there husband off at war. They could help by making clothes for the soldiers, cook for the soldiers, and tend wounds on the soldiers.

It would take lots of money and food to motivate me to join the military in the middle of the war. I wouldn't join an army simply because it was a different experience. I would join it for a profit. If I wanted to know what it was like to sleep in a tent outside, I would just go outside, make a tent, and sleep in it. If I wanted to know what it was like to do a drill, I would make one up and do my own drill.

It wouldn't be hard for me to be a soldier, because I already know what it's like. I've hiked for many miles with a 30 -50lb backpack. I've slept in the rain outside. I've hiked through a icy blizzard in shorts and a t-shirt. I also do not get home sick very easily. The only difficulty for me is how much food I could get. If there's little or no food, I would suffer greatly. I would become boney by the end of the Civil War. To me, no food = death.

joining the army

Then and now, people joined the army for pretty much the same reasons. all the benefits that are given, the honor you will receive, or just that you really love your country and would fight to protect it. i guess it is worth the risk if it will make a difference to your country, and i mean your gonna die anyways might as well give up your life for your country. i doubt i will end up joining the army, i just wouldn't be able to handle being away from family and all of the physical training.

Mythoughts

Honestly i wouldn't join the army, because i don't wanna die of some infection and do nothing to my nation. Thats what i say

joining? probably not..

Many of the reasons to join the military is still very much the same. Although, joining the army isn't simply an escape from boredom anymore. It is really an honorable act to join the military showing great loyalty to one's country and great bravery to one's self. Military service is definitley worth the risk, but only for the people who are willing to take it. It is not for me however, whether it may be from the past, to the present, or in the futue. I, personally, wouldn't join because I don't think it's my calling in life. I wouldn't be able to cope with the training especially. I can't imagine myself handling a gun either. I'm very much against wars, I don't like them and I don't understand how something should be solved through violence; which is my biggest reason for not wanting to join. Nothing could change my mind nor motivate me enough to even consider doing so. However, I still very much respect those who are in the armed forces.

Men and women today may join the military because they feel a sense of patriotism, and feel they should help defend the nation. I believe it was the same reason as those that joined the military back then because they both want to help the nation and protect the citizens in our country. I think military service is not worth the risk because even though it is an honor to die in battle, it is a very sad way to die, and it would leave those that cared for the soldiers very devastated. During the civil war, if I lived in the North, I would have joined the military because I agree with Lincoln that the nation should stick together. If I lived in the South, I would have thought succession was a bit extreme and not have joined the military. If I were to be a soldier, I think I would have the most difficult time because you have to train very hard, and wake up very early. I also wouldn't be able to watch other people get amputations or hear screams of pain from the dying soldiers.

The Military Morals

I feel that the reason why people join the military is because they want to protect the people they love. The reasons of why people join the military in the past is almost the same, but some had different reason like wanting adventure, or a job of sort. People would join a military even if it was in the middle of a war since this mean a more exciting life of a soldier and also they will start to realize just how close the war is to their home. I would have join the Civil War in the beliefs that I had and for the reasons above as well. The greatest risk of a soldier is not only the lost of his life, but the exposes to war and it darkness which could haunt you throughout your life. War has many risk, but having to be tortured for the rest of your life is horrific. 

YOLO!!!

For the sake of showing my pride in the side agree with, I would jump at any opportunity to defend my beliefs. If I was a farmer, I would want to do something else with my boring life. (you only live once, right?) I know that it may not be that fun to be in the army. But the everyday routine of training hard in necessary to insure that you will not take a bullet in the chest the second you step on the battlefield. The training is supposed to make you uncomfortable because that is how you will feel when your fighting. Though my family may be worried for my life while I'm gone, they will know that I am fighting for them so that eases the worrying a bit. For me, to die fighting for something you believe in is something to be proud of. I know that even if I die on the battlefield I would have gained glory for my family by my act of valor.

Mio myo opinioso/responsio to the questiono!

   The men and women join the military to fight for their pride in our country. They want to serve because they feel a strong sense of patriotism and love our country, respect our country, want to defend our country, like they mean it. Some reasons are same like patriotism, defending our country, etc. However, I think that instead of fighting for freedom, we are fighting for defence/countering. Instead of fighting so we can gain freedom, we fight for response to 9/11, response to pearl harbor, even like maybe in the future the issue with nuclear bombs and nuclear weapons. I think that the risk is a little too great just to fight for our country. Even though I would never do it, I greatly respect the soldiers that do fight for our country. I don't wanna die. I may sound cowardly, but that's the truth! I don't wanna die. I would never have joined because I don't wanna die! I don't feel a lot of homesickness, but I do miss my family when I am on a trip or something like that. I like physical training because it makes me fit! And also, physical training develops what people today call "guns." And "I work out!" Phrases like these come out. Anyways, back to the point, soldier's life isn't easy and fun, but I think people greatly respect you and soldier's are welcomed by the society and receive many benefits because they do protect us.

Why I Wouldn't Join

    Soldiers from today still fight for the same reasons as back then. For the money, or to be loyal to there country. Today not that many people go to the army to seek adventure or to have something to do. Back then the main reason to go to war were so they could represent there side (Union or Confederates) and prove which side was superior.  I wouldn't have joined the war because the possibility of dying in the war is frightening, especially at a young age where you still have a family that cares about you. Also being gone for a long period of time upsets family and friends. Physical training wasn't a bad thing when in the army, it helped to keep you in shape, but then going to battle was terrifying so you wouldn't want to join even if it would keep you in shape. The main reason I wouldn't want to join the army is a fear of death.  

At the time of the Civil War there were many people who joined the war for a variety of reasons. One reason was to get away from farm life. Now, there are people in need of the money (this was a reason back then too possibly) so they join the war for benefits and money. Also, the homeless are allowed to join with a certain process so they would have a place to sleep along with food. I think the most common reason for joining the military today is to serve your country and many have a strong patriotic feeling. Some who had family members, such as their father who they look up to, join the army so they could follow in their footsteps. In my opinion, I think it would be worth it to join the army because if there was a war threatening our nation would you want to put the entire country in danger with no one to defend or put an experienced army to fight? Although, even with my opinion I still wouldn't join the army because I know I would miss my family and home too much and I know I wouldn't come back the same if I was in the war. I would also be too afraid of losing my life and I know that back at home my family would mourn over the loss of my life. There is a lot of vigorous physical training and I don't think I could withstand that. All in all, I wouldn't join the army.

I don't know....... Is it worth it?

Some people would have gone to war to die for their country. A few people would have just wanted something to do. I probably would not want to join the military unless I was dumb enough to addicted to shooters (since I would think I would respawn after dying). However, in real life there are no extra lives and once someone is dead, that person stays dead. There is also the fact that war can be very  gruesome and bloody. I think that it may or may not be worth it. If I was at the time when the Civil War was happening, it would not be worth the risk.

During the Civil War, people had much more motivation to join the military. They could get rid of boredom, get paid, or just go with friends. Today, however, there are fewer reasons to go to war. The only reason a person would join the military is because they are super loyal to their country and would sacrifice their own life to do that. The only motivation strong enough to bring me to the military is if my family or friends are in danger. Nothing else would be powerful enough to join the military. The fear of death and seeing others die would be to scary.

Depends...

It's a hard question, there are many reasons people go to war. Some go for glory or fame, some for something to do or some food and shelter, some are honest people who believe in the specific cause, and most others are pulled into it because of drafting. I feel that war is not worth it if it is for substantial things (remember George W. Bush?) but if it is for the lives of others as in World War II, it is definitely worth everything you must endure. During the Civil War I would have joined on the Union side because the concealed thing that the war was really about, slavery, was inhumane and had to stop. There are many hardships, most of all leaving family, but you must remember you are fighting for your family to be safe, and press on.

Join the army? Stay home?

Back then, people joined the army to represent America, to fight for Americans, and to have new adventures, which is kind of the same as it is today.  I think if a person wants to join the military, the risk of losing their life should not hinder them, since they want to.  However, for me, personally I would like the promise of living, which is obviously not promise-able, especially during the middle of a war.  In order to join the Civil War, for me, I think all I would need is a strong motivational idea inscribed in my mind, since I like to stick up for my beliefs.  If I was a soldier, I think the hardest part might be struggling to survive everyday, whether it's walking a great distance or fighting for hours, OR it could also be the risk of death every waking moment.  Being separated from my family for long periods of time; I think I would be able to handle that, as long as I have friends in the army and I am able to keep in touch with my family, at least by mail.  Also, as the time goes on, I think I would appreciate the physical training, and it will also help me keep in shape :)  So basically, I think joining the army is a difficult decision, however the choice will be chosen depending on the person and his/her view points.

I probably wouldn't want to join the military

Today, people join the military because they think they're fighting for their country or helping other people in other countries. During the civil war, people may have joined because they strongly believed the Union must be kept together, or because they wanted to escape their boring life. I don't think being in the military is a good thing because you are either killing others or helping someone kill other people. Humans think of themselves as if they are a superior race of creatures or something, but they're really not. Only ants wage wars and use armies like humans do, but humans are in a way even more barbaric than ants because they use their intelligence and their complex technologies to develop more efficient ways of killing each other. Unfortunately, it is necessary for countries today to have armed forces because if one stops having an army, another country will come and conquer it. Wars are caused by disagreements. The north and the south disagreed on many issues, such as secession, and fought over it. I think war is unnecessary because there are other ways to solve an argument besides brutally slaughtering your opponent. The only thing that would get me to have even a thought about joining the military would be if their was another holocaust - like situation going on somewhere in the world where the only solution would be to kill whoever was responsible for the deaths of so many innocent people. Even then, I would be very hesitant because being in the fighting would require me to kill people who are fighting to defend what they think is right. The only thing that would definitely get me to join the military is if I was drafted and didn't have a choice. During the civil war, I would not have joined the military for the same reasons I would not today. I don't think it's right for people to be in a military because they are killing other people who are fighting to defend what they believe is right, even if it's not. The people that are killed by American soldiers probably view Americans as the bad guys, and they have good reason to.

Motivation

The reasons for the soldiers to join in the army back then was because they wanted to get paid, seeked adventure, everyone else was going, or loyalty to the country. People today, who also join the army, are mostly because they want to serve for their country or for the money that they need. There is a similarity and difference between the motivations to join back then and to join now. Back then it to fight for something that's important to you or just because you were bored, but today rarely that happens. They're similar because people back then and now still join to serve their country and for the money.  I wouldn't join the army because I don't think I'll be able to survive in the army, but I look up to those who do join the army. If I had to choose whether to join the army back then for the Civil War, I probably wouldn't because I'm not brave enough to fight on a battlefield where weapons can kill you and I don't really have a motivation that can get me to risk my life.

The Army

A lot of people think that men and women join the army these days for the money or from what they get out of it but I don't think that is the reason. I believe that men and women join the army to represent their country. They are very patriotic and they want to do whatever they can to fight for us and to show the world what we can do. Back then, some people joined the army for the same reasons and some did it for different reasons. Personally, I would not want to join the army but I admire the people who would want to risk their lives for their country. If you feel strongly enough about wanting to fight for your country and you want to go out their in the warpath, then you should do it. Joining the army is a big decision to make because you are putting your life on the line and it is a huge responsibility. Everyone is watching you and they are counting on you not to mess up. I wouldn't join during the Civil War and I don't think i would want to join in the future. If I was a soldier, I think I would be so frightened and I wouldn't want to even pick up a gun. Being separated from your family for a long period of time is really difficult and soldiers probably think about their families everyday and they're going to miss their families, but they chose to do this. The physical training that soldiers go through is very intense but I think going back home to the people they love motivates them to keep going.

War back then and now

Back then during the Civil War, the nation was divided into the North and the South. Each side had soldiers who joined the army because they sought adventure and wanted to escape boredom. Today, joining the military is not a past-time, it is an honor to serve the country. I would not have joined the war because had I known of the Union's struggle to finish the war and how long the war was of course I wouldn't have. Too many lives were lost during that war and the concept of war is too extreme: why must lives be lost over an idea? As MLK Jr. said "darkness cannot drive out darkness, only light can. In a similar way, hate cannot drive out hate, only love can do that."

No chance I would join

The reason that I think men and women join the military today is for money and benefits. What I mean is that you get a decent amount of pay in the military and after some time when you quit you get housing for the rest of your life. You also get increased government benefits, tax reliefs and more Healthcare. I think the reasons today  for joining the military are different from the ones back then. Back then it was a sense of patriotism and pride toward your nation and now it is about greed and money. In my opinion the service is not the risk involved because no amount of money or honor is worth your life. I don't think i would ever be motivated enough to fight a war because of my religion which says to practice nonviolence. I don't think i would have joined during the civil war because to me it just seemed like senseless fighting and to much bloodshed. I think it would have been very hard for me because i would fear for my life and i am very close to my family. Since i am only 13 I don't think that i would be able to endure the long sleepless nights and the hot boring days.

A Soldier's Motivation

      We spent this week looking at what the life of a Civil War soldier was like. The dangers they faced, a typical day, and also what motivated them to join in the first place.

   My question for you...why do men and women join the military today? Same reasons as back then? Different ones? In your opinion, is military service worth the risk involved? What would it take for you to be motivated enough to join the military in the middle of a war? Would you have joined during the Civil War? What would be hard for you if you were a soldier...Risk of death? Being separated from family for long periods of time? Physical training? Something else?

   You can answer all of these questions or focus on just a few...doesn't matter. I'm really just looking for your opinions on the topic. Remember to create your own post and then comment on at least one other person's post!

obviously the south had no chance at all!

The south's army would have never held up against the powerhouse army of the north. The north's advantages like way more manpower, better guns, more supplies, and more railroads far outweigh the south's. The south may come out hard, but the north will surely win later down the road. So maybe the south has the home field advantage. That's a bunch of baloney. It's like saying a heavyweight boxer can't win against a 6 year old. Also, facts say that the south may have better generals for war, but the south has THE Abraham Lincoln (man of leadership that is godlike). Oh man! Honest Abe here is totally honest about the result of this war. The south will fall.

Thank You from the Bottom of my Heart...

I wanted to take a moment and say thank you to all of you who have expressed symapthy to me this week for the passing of my sister. I was touched by the sympathy poster that many of you signed and it reminds me of how grateful I am to be your teacher. You are a truly amazing and compassionate class...thank you!

The next assigned blog post should be up tonight..if not, then for sure tomorrow.

The south did have a chance...

I believe that the south had a very good chance of winning. Their generals were smarter, and that could have gotten them the victory. How the north won, everyone will probably give Abraham Lincoln all of the credit, however, the south had a good chance also. Even with the population,supplies, and support disadvantage, they managed to keep up with the north for a while which proves their strength. The civil war was not a mistake for slavery was a big part of the issue. As for keeping te union together, I think the xonfederacyvwould have come back in the future due to their economy and France and Britain finding other cotton resources. I'm sorry this is late mister harp! I'm currently in Reno for a volleyball tournament and I never had the chance to do my homework...

The South's Chance

I believe that it was possible the South could have won. Although there were many weaknesses on the South's side, there was still a chance. Despite the lack of manpower and the North's leader (Lincoln), the South, to me, seems like the side that would win. In my opinion, motivation to win a war is key. Because of the South's desire to protect and keep their separate country, they have more to fight for, and winning the battle is very important. However, if the North loses, they technically do not really lose anything.

On a different note, the North allowing the CSA to exist would have been very dangerous, and eventual war would be inevitable - two countries with very different views so geographically close does not bode well for either side.

Disadvantages

While it is true that the North had the upper hand in terms of travel efficiency, manpower, presidential leadership, and supplies, the South still had a decent chance of winning. The Confederacy doesn't need to invade the Union; all the Confederates needed to do is win enough major battles to persuade the Union to let them be. Because of this, the Union is the one that's going to have to go into Southern territory. The Confederates, with their better knowledge of the land, would've been able to overcome the advantages the Union even with horrible weapons. Another factor that helped the Confederates was that the Confederates knew what they were fighting for. Though some where fighting to keep the Union away and others were fighting for slavery, they South had clear reasons to fight. The Union, on the other hand, sometimes questioned why they were fighting. If Union soldiers didn't even know what they were fighting for, they might have deserted or lowered their performance in battle. So while the South was at a disadvantage, it was still possible for them to win. With smart tactics and strategies, the Confederates might've been able to pull through.

YESSS

I think that even though the South had it's own disadvantages like being less populated, having less recourses compared to the North, and such, it was still possible for them to win. The South  had their own advantages just like the North. First off, they had smart generals and experienced soldiers which gave them the chance of coming up with good strategies. Secondly, the South was fighting on their homeland. From that, they could come up with ideas of where & when to get recourses when needed. They were capable of planning attacks & it became simpler for them. The South also had a motivation to fight. This meant, they knew they couldn't give up and they didn't want to either. Unlike the North who where still wondering why they were fighting and why they didn't just make peace with the South. The South also had foreign help. The North had plenty of strengths but yet their weaknesses balanced out with the South. The South could have been weak at first but in reality they were the same as the North. The South had a reason to fight and were determined to win. History pretty much repeated itself  since the same situation happened during the Revolutionary War. During the Battle of Saratoga, the British had great advantages but America had motivation. And that was a great key that helped them out and gave them the strength they needed to win.  (:

The South had a slim chance of winning the Civil war. When the South won the First Battle of Bull Run, it was a huge news, because this caused South to have more will and decreased North's will. The will is very important in wars, and this can cause the South to have advantage. The advantages of South are more will, better general, and they are in defensive position, so they know the land better. The advantages of North are more people, easier transportation, more supplies, and strong leader. The strong will and defensive position is what America had in Revolutionary war, but America had opponent on further side and had other countries helping them. In Civil War, there are no any other countries that are willing to help South. Help from foreign countries was big help, and South didn't had a chance to get help. By all these factors, there is slim chance for South to win the Civil War.

yes.. the South could have won

             To begin with, the Civil War was completely inevitable- it was bound to happen. Disregarding the outcome of the war, as we looked through each sides' strengths and weaknesses, the South had a good chance at winning. Although the Union had more manpower, the South had more of a will to fight which makes up for their lack of men in their military. Yes the Union had more men, specifically immigrants wanting to fight for their new-found country. However, how many of them could actually handle a musket or know how to follow strategies on the actual battlefield? The South already had their own militias along with experienced soldiers. Many military schools were built in the South which of course resulted in well-trained and disciplined men. In addition, the South had a huge labor force- slaves- to match. Generally speaking, the South had better generals from the North. Northern generals were too cautious and too timid. Unlike the South, in which their generals were decisive and determined. During the war, Southerners had a home-field advantage. They knew the land, therefore knew what to do and where to go on wherever terrain they were fighting. Unlike the Union, the Confederacy were not trying to conquer the North. They only wanted to fight a defensive war, it would not have been as hard for them as it was for the North. The Civil War is déjà vu from the Revolutionary War. And like the colonists, the South only wanted to seperate from the Union and be recognized as an independent nation.

There was a chance...

On paper, the South was a bucket of disadvantages. The Union seemed fully loaded with railroads, people, and industrial advantages. Looked like the South had nothing but cotton to throw. BUT... the South had a good amount of advantages. They had trade power, home- field advantage, and the will to fight.
So how come the South didn't win the war? Mistakes. A lot of battlefield mistakes. Battles such as Gettysburg and Antietam could have been a major upside to the south, changing the war's direction.If pursued, the South would had a strength, moving towards the victory of the Confederacy.

The South.
The south was in a very interesting predicament that was not a face plant lost from the start. The south have created a situation that re-states the idea of leaving the mainland to create a new nation, But the south were not as far away from there enemies as the colonies were from Britain. South had many beneficial strengths but had many weakness. The most important one being, not being unified under one leader. The north had Mr. Abe which help the Union together. The south wasn't able to keep the barricades against the norths army. Even though the south tried there hardest. There hardest was not good enough

Possibly.

It was possible the South could have won the war. One reason was because of their home-field advantage, with this the South would have knowledge ranging from knowing where to plan attacks like small surprise attacks to finding the nearest river for resources. Another important key aspect the South had was their better generals. The Confederacy's generals would have better battle strategies and have the battle go more according to plan. Unlike the Union's generals who made too many mistakes where it led to Lincoln firing many of them. Since most of the military schools were located in the South, most of the students joined the army against the Union so the Confederacy had more experienced soldiers than the Union. Also, even if the South had lost a battle they would jump back to their feet with their determination to win. While the North's army would always think to themselves what the reason was for fighting. The soldiers fighting against the South would often write in their journals wondering if it was about slavery or another reason. Throughout the war, the South had better strategies in the war that would take less time like they thought would.  May I remind you, the North's Anaconda Plan would have taken far too long and would prolong the war. In my opinion, if the South was able to gain the support of France or Britain they would have won the war. It would be just like a replay of the 13 colonies against Britain. It was the same dilemma. Riddle me this, if a similar event happened before, couldn't history repeat itself?

I think that the south did have a chance in the Civil war because of their advantages. The souths advantages were great. For starters they had more motivation to hold out than the North since some people in the North didn't understand why they were fighting. Another great advantage the south had was the homeland advantage. The south knew their homeland better so battling there was so much easier. Another advantage they had were foreign help. Foreigners were expected to help since south had high production of cotton.
So even since the North had many more advantages the south still had a chance in winning the civil war so i think they still had a chance.

blog post. hurhur

imo the south didn't really have much of a chance in winning the civil war. Yes, they had some advantages, but tbh I don't think that they could have won the war all together with what they had. The north just had much more of an advantage when it came to manpower and resources from industry (guns, ammo, food, etc.). Other things they had was better transportation, war funds, and warships (in the beginning they were the only ones who had warships). Also, after Ulysses S. Grant became the Union's general, it was gg.. hehe.  I'll leave it at that. :D

souths chances

the south did have a chance at winning the civil war, just like america did at winning the revolutionary war. yea they had less resources, states, manpower, connectd transportation, and a weak government, well so did the 13 colonies, but that didn't stop them from winning. besides they did have some advantages like their trade power, and they also had the home-field advantage.
anyways. yes, the war did have to be fought. if it hadnt then other states would leave the union, everytime they didn't agree with something & that would be bad.

The South had a Chance

The South did have a chance to win the Civil War. Although the South didn't have much transportation and people, they still knew their land better and had experienced generals to lead them unlike the Union. They knew how to survive in the land that they fought in and they had soldiers that were well trained to fight with generals that lead them. The South also fought in a defenseive war strategy, so the north had to spread out very far. Not only did they have better knowledge of their land and better generals, but they also had a reason to fight. They had something that kept them going and to fight on and protect their homes.

The South's Chance of Winning were very Slim

The South had a very low chance of winning. Even though the South had better generals and soldiers, they had less supplies and people. The South also had a home field advantage and greater motivation, but the states' rights prevented their president, Jefferson Davis from doing anything. Meanwhile, the North had better leadership under Abraham Lincoln. Additionally, the South's export power and chances of winning foreign support decreased when the North created a blockade, which was part of their Anaconda Plan, and foreign countries found different ways of getting cotton. The South's strategy was just unable to work.

Probably....not.

The North had better resources (more railroads, factories) and more people. A lot of the South's population consisted of slaves, and of course people were too afraid to give them a gun or it might start a rebellion. They were also relying on the fact that IF they could win major battles they could get France or Britain's to recognize them as an independent nation and thus gaining their support in the war. Their main cash crop couldn't be used as a threat anymore since the people in Europe found other sources, and there was a Union blockade which would obviously hurt their trade. The idea of states rights were also hurting the South since the states would have a lot of power over the federal government. If the federal government asked for more men, they could refuse or ignore the request and thus maybe lose a major battle that they would have needed to win. True, the Union generals were mistake prone, but you would eventually find a good one after firing one after the other. Even if the America, the underdogs in the Revolutionary War won, underdogs don't always win.

The South did have a chance

Just because the South had a smaller population and less resources compared to the North, doesn't mean that they had absolutely no chance. The South was at a disadvantage, but considering the fact that they had more motivation to fight, the home-field advantage, better generals, and more experienced soldiers meant that they could have used those factors to gain the upper hand in the war. The Confederacy did have strengths of their own so they weren't completely hopeless.

South Had a Better Chance

The South had the better chance of winning the Civil War because they had the home field advantage, the better generals, and the motivation. Because the war took place in the South, the southeners had the advantage because they were already used to the area, and knew how to survive in the weather. They also had the better generals and the more well trained soldiers in their army. The South's motivation to win was a major advantage because unlike the North, the South had a reason to want to win the war.

The south had a small chance of winning

The south had no chance of winning the north because the north had more people to fight for them. They also had factories and railroads for transportation, this would help them obtain weapons and other equipment faster than the south. The south did have better generals, but when you have to fight against an army two times yours their really isn't much you can do.  If the south was able to get Britain or France on their side they would have had a chance of winning the war, but they were unable to do so. The leader of the south Jefferson Davis was unable to show how great of a leader he was because of states' rights. He was unable to draft an army, which made it impossible for the north to win the was. That is why the north had a large of winning than the south because they had many resources that the south didn't have which gave them an advantage in the war.

The South Could've Won

The biggest reason that people believe hindered the South's chance of winning was because of its meager population in comparison to the North. However, as proven in the Revolutionary War, number did not determine the outcome of the war. So, putting aside the fact that the South had less people, the South still could have won, due to other factors in their favor during the war. Like the colonists, the South had this unwavering drive to continue fighting even with the odds set against them. Their motivation prolonged the war, and the longer the war got, the North's drive to keep fighting decreased, as they didn't have as much motivation. Like the Revolutionary War, the large mass of people on the North's side had been led by incompetent generals that further lowered their chances of ending the war. Their mistake-prone generals against the South's strong generals made the war even less likely to be in favor of the North. The South also had their home-advantage  and experienced soldiers that gave them a chance of winning. Although the war had ultimately been won by the North, it is still fair to say that the South had a chance and could've won the entire war if they also had the luck the colonists had during their war for independence.

South had a chance - response

The South had a little chance because even though they had more weaknesses than strengths, they still had export power which gave them foreign support like money or soldiers, more experienced soldiers which means they would win more battles, home field advantage ; they could use the environment to their advantage like for example gorilla warfare, and they had more motivation because the union is trying to force them back by war just like the Revolutionary War.

Oh the South had a chance.....

Well...first things first at the beginning of the war the nation had pretty much been divided into halves. Halves are always equal and in this case the North and the South had almost equal advantages. The North's advantages summed up into one sentence were more money, more supplies, more blockading power more stable economy and a bigger army. All of these advantages were ones that helped in war, but at that time the South hadn't known that. The south had equal advantages such as better morale, better generals, maybe foreign support, knowledge of the land and tactics from the Revolutionary War. The reason I think that the North one though was because they had a higher intensity of advantages. What I mean by that is that for example: The didn't just have a bigger army they easily outnumbered the south 3 to 1. The south couldn't calculate what we can now and so to them it seemed like equal advantages and disadvantages. Everything aside i think that the South was not foolish for going to war against the North.

North vs. South

The north may have seem like they would have had complete victory over the south, but I think that the south did have a chance against them. The generals leading the armies were a major thing that you could judge the army by. If the generals were bad, you could have assumed that his soldiers were too. The north had mistake-prone generals. They weren't necessarily bad but they were bound to make mistakes. The south had more experienced and generals and soldiers which led to better decisions. The north did have more resources, more man power and about double the mileage that the south had but the south had a reason to keep going and to keep fighting. The north was constantly questioning the reason for fighting. The strategy of the south was more than just that one battle with the north. The north just focused on how to win that particular battle but the south wanted to come up with ways to win all the major battles and they thought to get help from France and Britain. The south also did have a home field advantage. They weren't afraid to take the step to fight even if it meant failure.

Maybe.

The South could have won. It was definitely possible. After all, the South had better generals, home field advantage, motivation, and their strategy was way better. I don't mean to hate on the Anaconda Plan, but that plan takes way too much time and there isn't a lot of room for mess-ups. The South was playing a defensive war, like the colonies had when trying to claim independence from Britain. And it worked for the colonies. If it worked for the colonies, it could have also worked for the South. 

I believe that the North had the right idea when it tried to get the South to join the Union once again. There's more strength in numbers and if the South had successfully seceded from the Union, then the nation's size and power would have been reduced greatly. 

The North and the South

I believe that the South did had a higher chance of winning the war with more experience armies and more foreign contact, maybe except immigration. The reason why the south lost was because of the timing of when the Civil war began. If the war had started earlier then they would have had a much larger advantage over the North. The North would still depend on the South's cotton and the same would go for England and France given the South allies and maybe causing the North to allow the South to be independent because over time the demand for cotton that would accumulate could have ended the war much faster. Another advantage that the South would have gained if the war started earlier would be that there would be less immigrants and thus less soldiers fighting in the North's armies and thus lowering the amount of odds against the South.

I believe the South had the odd in their favor, but the one thing that caused them defeat the timing of the civil war.

South vs. North =/= Colony vs. Britain

The South did have a chance at winning the Civil War because, they had many experienced soldiers. Even though the North had more men, they had only a small amount of soldiers who were experienced. After all, it's quality over quantity.

The South also had the advantage of foreign trade. They could get foreign support to help them, just like the colonies did during the Revolutionary War.

I personally think that the South had about a 35% chance of winning the Civil War.

The south had a small chance

Although they were far outnumbered by the Union, the southern states had more motivation to fight. They were fighting to protect their independence, just as the colonists had done in the American Relolution. The colonists during the American revolution were outnumbered and still managed to win. In the Texas revolution, at the Battle of the Alamo, less than two hundred texans killed over six hundred Mexican soldiers. These examples prove that just because an army is outnumbered does not mean it will definitely lose the war. In addition, they had good generals like Robert E. Lee. The Union, on the other hand, had to switch generals multiple times during the war. Because the war was fought in southern territory,the southern soldiers knew the land and could use guerilla warfare to defeat the North. Just like in the American Revoution, the south did not need to capture land, they only needed to exist long enough for the union to give up fighting.

The South made a mistake from the moment they entered the war. The North had too many advantages in too many fields. The Union had more factories, which led to the making of more weapons and other essential supplies the South wasn't able to produce in such huge numbers.  Another advantage the North had was that the government of the South was just created and wasn't able to accomplish much during the war, mainly because of the heavy states' rights and the inexperience that it had. Probably the greatest asset the North had was president Abraham Lincoln. He could keep the citizens of the Union calm and persuade them to continue with the war to preserve the Union. With all these advantages, the North should have crushed the South, but as we know, it turns out very differently.

South? Pfffff. No chance! Go Blue!

South had 100% No Chance!

     Think about it. North, abundant factories, people, land.....list goes on and on. Basically abundant resources. From our class discussion, the only weakness the Union had was that their commanders weren't as good because they made mistakes and also that south had more will. South had better Commanders? Who cares! Union has Abe Lincoln! South have more will to fight? I do understand that the South did have Texans who fought like bosses, but they have 9 million! Can they fight against 22 million? Also, that's not even including slaves reducing it to 4.5 million. Not only that, at the time, the ratio from men to women was 6:1. So, that means that you can make 4.5 million go down to 3.75 million. There were children too! The ratio of children was let's say 4:1 that makes 3.75 go down to 2.8 million. After all this, only 2.8 million people are capable actually "maybe willing" to fight. States rights stops you too! Almost 2/3 of the people at the time wanted to have states rights making the 2.8 million? Now less than a million. Okay, less than a million vs 22 million? It's not 22 million I know, but lets say you cut it by half even by 90% or more, Northerners will always out number the South. It's inevitable! North in general had way more advantages and less disadvantages than the South had. Almost all the Southern advantages were backed up by the North because of something. In the comments below, you can say something and there has to be something that North has that contradicts that making the advantage useless. I did already contradict some in this and comment! I'll answer ASAP. Yeah you are probably  wondering why I wrote this much and I'm bored and (partially fun bloggin'). North! Bam! Victory was here before it started! Also, I think the North shouldn't give up becuase that the North has so much advantage why stop! (It's not like you're gonna lose anyways.)

Sure, I think they had a chance. It was like Deja Vu from the war with Britain, and the colonists won then, so why can't the Confederates win now? They had pretty good generals, especially Thomas J. Jackson (I did my report on him), so I think they actually might have had a bit of an upper hand with the home field advantage. As for whether the war should have been fought, I think both the issue of slavery and keeping the Union together were worth fighting for, and the South had to prove they were independent, so it would have happened eventually.

Nope the South didn't have a chance

Had the South set aside the belief of state rights and focus on winning the war, the South could have gained more manpower to fight the North.  However, I believe that the North was going to win the war.  True, the Civil war somehow kind of resembled the Revolutionary war in which the North was Great Britain and the South was the colonists.  However, unlike Great Britain, the North doesn't have many flaws or drawbacks that the South can take advantage of.  In class, Mr. Harp said the South has some advantages but they are not weaknesses to the North.

Did the South Have a Chance?

     Today we looked at what strengths, weaknesses, and strategies both the Confederacy and the Union had and used. So when the war began, did the South ever really have a chance to win? Forget for a moment that you know how the war will end (spoiler alert, the Union does). As the war started out, was it foolish for the South to think they could win? Support your argument with some details from today's discussion. You can also discuss whether or not the war should be fought at all...in other words, should the North simply have allowed the Confederacy to exist separately?

P.S. Remember that you must answer this by making your own post (do not just comment this one). Then comment at least one other person's post either agreeing or disagreeing with them and why. This needs to be done by Sunday night midnight

Good or Bad Lincoln?

Usually Abraham Lincoln is thought of as a wonderful president with mostly good qualities attched to his memory...but after our discussion today in class, should Lincoln be blamed for starting the Civil War? Should this be a negative mark on his record? What are your thoughts?

Class Discussion

What Should We Title Our Blog? What Should The Background Be?

Since this is our new blog lets, make it to our liking. 

Now that everyone should be registered lets take a vote on what the new title and background should be. 

If you have any ideas post a comment below linking to the image or posting it.

I will hold this post active as long as necessary to obtain the perfect blog for Mr. Harps best period :D.

Edit: Right now we are using Saumitras Idea on the template he liked. Comment and say you if you like it
Dont forget we still need Ideas So that its the best for all of us! keep it comming :o
Ps. Eric Go draw us a custom one to make it epic :D *only if you have time*

So, how do we change the background template?

Welcome!

      Hey everyone!...welcome to your class blog! This will be an experiment for the rest of the year and I hope you enjoy the chance to share your thoughts and opinions about what we will be discussing in class. Before we begin, here are a couple of simple rules to follow:

     First, please keep your posts about relevant stuff. This is not a personal diary, journal, or class facebook page. Secondly, please respect each others' posts. You are allowed to disagree with each other when you comment, but do so in a respectful, not hurtful, manner. Finally, I want you to take ownership of this blog. I will post questions or assigned entries from time to time, but I have made all of you administrators so that you too can create your own posts.

     So enough talk...let's begin!...first blog question to you: what do you think of this? Crazy idea? Lame? Intriguing? Please let me know, I'd love to hear some feedback!