Sunday, April 22, 2012
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
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Gonna have to disagree there. The South had just as much of a chance of winning than the North. The South won many battles, whose to say they couldn't have won more? Ulysses S. Grant was no more human than Robert E. Lee. Putting all advantages aside, its up to the battles that really decide. The South made some pretty crucial mistakes, and if avoided, could have made the South win.
ReplyDeletemmk :D. LOL the truth of it is that the only reason the south had a chance WAS BECAUSE of Robert E. Lee. The south won some battles, true, but the only ones with strategic significance were the First and Second Bull Run, Fredericksburg, Chancellorsville, and Chicamauga. Other than that, the Union won tied or won every other one. The Union army won practically every naval battle, and except for Chicamauga and a some smaller encounters, won/tied every battle in the west. In that particular year in the west, the Confederates displayed the most stupid generalship seen in any war, throwing out many small mistakes.
ReplyDelete