Saturday, April 21, 2012
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.
I agree with you Saumitra. The South may have had less people, but they sure had many more experienced soldiers to use. The North had less experienced soldiers and many new immigrants who barely knew anything about war, and on top of that, there generals sucked. They were replaced many times until General Grant came to the rescue.
ReplyDeleteI agree as well the south had a much larger chance of winning the war, but as I have posted I believe it was because of the time the war had began that the South lost. Also I want to point out that during the Battle of the Alamo all the Texans died and even though the Texans saw this as a reason to fight it could have also brought a lot of pride and moral down with it. I also want to point out that during the American Revolution, the British had to send troop over seas causing in deaths even before landing on American soil while in the situation of the Civil War it was the exact opposite since the North had more railroads to send troops to specific locations than the South so the North could transport more men to a battle if needed to.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the South had a small chance of winning the Civil War. Because they had the home field advantage, they were used to the climate and landscapes in the area. They also had better generals and better experienced soldiers. The biggest reason they had a chance is that they had the motivation to win, which has helped the Americans win many wars such as the War with Mexico and the Revolutionary War.
ReplyDeleteI agree. I believe that the quality of the soldiers is much more important than the quantity. I'd rather have a group of the best soldiers than a hundred of the worst.
ReplyDeletelol I love how Saumitra has most comment and they all agree. I'll be first one to disagree >:D
ReplyDeleteI disagree with your opinion. The South may have more advantages of knowing land, generals, and motivation. The North, however, had great experienced generals as well, like Ulysses S. Grant and William Tecumseh Sherman. The Confederate was part of the Union, so the Union has the map of their geographical features. Some of the generals, like Grant, have been on South, so they know the features of land as well. Even though South knows better, the North is not as blind as British were back in Revolutionary war. The motivation is very important in battles, but one side cannot win just because of strong motivation. What it takes to win a war is consistant motivation with enough forces to back up the motivation, and South was lacking of resources, roads, and the number of soldiers.