I think the north had a greater cause to fight; not only because they wanted to keep the union together, but they wanted to end slavery too. They were better equipped for war. Although they started to lose in the beginning, they blocked the ports, so supplies couldn't be shipped in from Europe, and they also had better generals. The south could have won by appealing more to the government, because that was where all the decisions came from. They could have worked out some sort of compromise to suit their needs.The north would drag the war on as long as their willpower would take them. The south, however, sought to get the war over with.
The North won the war because they were more equipped than the South. But not only that, but the North had better strategies than the South had. The North many advantages such as having transportation, population, power, etc. but the South did not have to work as hard as the North did to invade. If the South was more united and if Lee did not invade the North, thinking that they would win South could have won. If they did not take part in the back to back battle of Vicksburg and Gettysburg, they would have probably had a higher chance of winning. They lost land, the Mississippi River, and they lost a lot of men in those battles. If Lee did not take as much risks as he did, the South could have won.
The North won because the confederates had lost some of it's important places. Ex: the Mississippi River played an important role in sea transportation for the Confederacy, once the Union won at Vicksburg, they were able to take over. Also, the North never had to worry about losing supplies like the South because their economy was based off of agriculture. The South could have won if they didn't run out of supplies. Also, Lee had a golden opportunity at Gettysburg, he eventually threw it all away.
The North won the civil war because they outnumbered the South and the North was more industrialized. Although the South had better trained troops and generals, the South had more people and had more industries, manufacturing weapons and supplies for their troops. The South could had won the civil war if they had more troops and supplies. They could had also won if they had received help from Europe.
I agree with everyone because the North was more superior and organized than the South . As we saw on that chart in class on day , the North had a much larger population , more transportation , and basically more "everything" than the South . The South did have a great amount of passion though , which I believe helped them hold on in the war for so long . I agree with Pauline that the South could have won if they got help from Europe . We talke about it in class that the European powers were actually rooting for the South to win the Civil War . But because of the Monroe Doctrine , Britain and other European nations could not help the South .
Why did the North win the Civil War? How might the South have won?
The North won the Civil War because they had more people on their military and the immigrants supported the North. The North also had industry unlike the south so they were able to make their own weapons, better railroad system than the south and had better strategies.
The South could have won because if they they had the ability to capture the Union's capital Washington D.C or maybe work with a foreign country because they were winning at first. So if they asked to be supported by European powers they could have won the war.
One major reason why the North won the Civil War is that the North had approximately 3/4 of the country's total population. Also, the North's economy depends more on Industries whereas the South depends on agriculture. That means that the North was more advanced technologically and could produce quicker and better weapons.
The South had a possible potential of winning of other Nations were willing to aid them with more troops or weapons.
I disagree with people who say the North won because they had more people then the South because at up until the last few battles, the South was kicking the Norths butt and the population and supplies difference didn't matter. The South seemed more fighting efficient compared to the North. The North won by making quick yet smart decisions like taking over Vicksburg and winning at Gettysburg. The South would have won if they defended Vicksburg and kept the Mississippi River, so that European powers would aid them and the South could keep the advantage it had.
Summer's computer isn't working so I'm posting for her:
Based on that chart Mr Jobs showed us in class, the North has more people, money, weapons, food, and other things than the South did. They were also more spontaneous and strategic than the South as well. The South could have won, as Breanne said, if they would have maintained the Miss. River and got help from European powers.
In my opinion, the North won the civil war is mainly due to their regular supply of food, equipment, ammunition and clothing. They also were economically stronger in comparison to the South. The union also seemed to have a better strategy while planning to defeat the Confederates such as cutting the Confederacy in half by seizing control of the Mississippi River, which Grant later performs. Another great strategy the union came up with was to free the slaves to undermine the South's very economic foundations using the Emancipation Proclamation. However, the South might have won if they had more troops and supplies and gained help from a foreign country while they were winning the first few battles.
The north winning the civil war eventually comes down to a simple topic, the north just simply out numbered the south, and also knew how to make quick and smart descisons involing great millitary percision. After fours years of hard fighting, the south stopped receiving reinforcements like the north continued to. Since the north was very indurstized it was easy for them to get supplies when the south needed to transport their supplies to many, and far places. the south had to fight in their own area, so in the end the south got all their supplies stolen, main routes for war supplies captured and territories destroyed with all the north soldiers rushing in 24/7. Another factor that added to the south losing is the lack of involment of international support.
The North won the Civil War because the North outnumbered the South on "everything", such as population, weapons, and etc. The North only won the Civil War by the battles or visual appearance, but the North did not win the heart of everyone, especially the slave owners. Civil War is a war fighting for state's rights. Slaves were bought by the slave owners with actual money out from their own pockets, so the slaves owners claim that it's their property. Winning does not always mean that it's right. It is injustice to disown someone's property by just passing a document, such as the Emancipation Proclamation. Therefore, the North won the Civil War on the surface, but the heart of the people, such as the slave owners because their property was taken away from them without their permissions. The South might have won if other nations supported them with more supplies and soldiers, so they can strengthen their military forces.
The North won the war because they made the smart decisions. They took over Vicksburg, they won at Gettysburg, they drafted men, they controlled the sea, and they tried their best to recruit even the border states. With the large population, the wealth, and with all their supplies the North had the upper hand. Although, the South gave them a run for their money. The South had talented fighters, help from the Native Americans, were breed to fight, and the war was fought on their land. But the South had scarce factories and a bad economy. The South didn't have the resources.
The North won the war because they made the smart decisions. They took over Vicksburg, they won at Gettysburg, they drafted men, they controlled the sea, and they tried their best to recruit even the border states. With the large population, the wealth, and with all their supplies the North had the upper hand. Although, the South gave them a run for their money. The South had talented fighters, help from the Native Americans, were breed to fight, and the war was fought on their land. But the South had scarce factories and a bad economy. The South didn't have the resources.
The north won the war because they strategized and planned out how they would beat the south. They knew that seizing the Mississippi river stop their trade, that taking Maryland would split the south, and that surrounding Lee at Richmond would end the war for good. Lincoln's issue of the emancipation proclaimation also contributed to the war. It ibcreased their troop size as blacks enlisted in huge numbers to fight in the war. The south could have won the war if they were better at strategizing how they would win over the Union. However, they were too overconfident and failed at planning their attacks. They also lost a lot of their men and refused to enlist blacks because of pride. However, when they did, it was a month before the war ended, which served no help. The south, unlike the north, also did not have foreign aid which crippled their supplies.
The north won the world because first they were more equipped, & were able to cut the sou off from each other, isolating them as the Northern troops attacked them all simultaneously. The North strategized smart combat plans, recruitment & knew which forts, river Ports& cities needed to be captured in order to destroy the south. The south could have one by taking the fight to the north, & destroying their lands & resources, instead of taking the defensive , position , instead of allowing their lands to be destroyed & such.
The north won because they were better strategically. The north had generals like Grant who helped make significant attacks on the confederates. Also the north had more materials like ammunition and guns. In the end, what mattered more was the numbers. The south had significantly less soldiers than the north in 1865. Which is the reason why General Lee of the confederates surrendered. To win, the south could have been more strategic in how they planned their attacks on the north. They could have found their own way to recruit more soldiers. I agree with Pauline when she says the south could have asked for some help from Europe.
North won the war because of better resources. They had more people and a better industry. Also, the north blockaded southern ports so the South could not get supplies. Not only that, the capturing of Port Hudson & defeating the South in the Battle of Vicksburg was critical because it was the South's western source of supply. The North also has 6 components to try and win the war and they were able to accomplish all of them : 1. Slowly suffocate the South by blockading its coasts 2. Cut the confederacy in half by seizing control of the Mississippi River 3. Dismember the Confederacy by sending troops through Georgia and the Carolinas 4. Liberate the slaves and undermine the very economic foundation of the South 5. Capture the South's capital at Richmond 6. Try to engage the enemy's main strength and grind it into submission Finally, the Union army greatly outnumbered the Confederates so Grant's strategy of "losing two men and killing one Confederate" worked. The South could have won if it did not let the North seize the Mississippi and win the Battle of Vicksburg and Gettysburg. Losing those two battles through the Confederacy's hope of foreign intervention out the window.
18 comments:
I think the north had a greater cause to fight; not only because they wanted to keep the union together, but they wanted to end slavery too. They were better equipped for war. Although they started to lose in the beginning, they blocked the ports, so supplies couldn't be shipped in from Europe, and they also had better generals. The south could have won by appealing more to the government, because that was where all the decisions came from. They could have worked out some sort of compromise to suit their needs.The north would drag the war on as long as their willpower would take them. The south, however, sought to get the war over with.
The North won the war because they were more equipped than the South. But not only that, but the North had better strategies than the South had. The North many advantages such as having transportation, population, power, etc. but the South did not have to work as hard as the North did to invade. If the South was more united and if Lee did not invade the North, thinking that they would win South could have won. If they did not take part in the back to back battle of Vicksburg and Gettysburg, they would have probably had a higher chance of winning. They lost land, the Mississippi River, and they lost a lot of men in those battles. If Lee did not take as much risks as he did, the South could have won.
The North won because the confederates had lost some of it's important places. Ex: the Mississippi River played an important role in sea transportation for the Confederacy, once the Union won at Vicksburg, they were able to take over. Also, the North never had to worry about losing supplies like the South because their economy was based off of agriculture. The South could have won if they didn't run out of supplies. Also, Lee had a golden opportunity at Gettysburg, he eventually threw it all away.
The North won the civil war because they outnumbered the South and the North was more industrialized. Although the South had better trained troops and generals, the South had more people and had more industries, manufacturing weapons and supplies for their troops. The South could had won the civil war if they had more troops and supplies. They could had also won if they had received help from Europe.
I agree with everyone because the North was more superior and organized than the South . As we saw on that chart in class on day , the North had a much larger population , more transportation , and basically more "everything" than the South . The South did have a great amount of passion though , which I believe helped them hold on in the war for so long . I agree with Pauline that the South could have won if they got help from Europe . We talke about it in class that the European powers were actually rooting for the South to win the Civil War . But because of the Monroe Doctrine , Britain and other European nations could not help the South .
Why did the North win the Civil War? How might the South have won?
The North won the Civil War because they had more people on their military and the immigrants supported the North. The North also had industry unlike the south so they were able to make their own weapons, better railroad system than the south and had better strategies.
The South could have won because if they they had the ability to capture the Union's capital Washington D.C or maybe work with a foreign country because they were winning at first. So if they asked to be supported by European powers they could have won the war.
One major reason why the North won the Civil War is that the North had approximately 3/4 of the country's total population. Also, the North's economy depends more on Industries whereas the South depends on agriculture. That means that the North was more advanced technologically and could produce quicker and better weapons.
The South had a possible potential of winning of other Nations were willing to aid them with more troops or weapons.
I disagree with people who say the North won because they had more people then the South because at up until the last few battles, the South was kicking the Norths butt and the population and supplies difference didn't matter. The South seemed more fighting efficient compared to the North. The North won by making quick yet smart decisions like taking over Vicksburg and winning at Gettysburg. The South would have won if they defended Vicksburg and kept the Mississippi River, so that European powers would aid them and the South could keep the advantage it had.
Summer's computer isn't working so I'm posting for her:
Based on that chart Mr Jobs showed us in class, the North has more people, money, weapons, food, and other things than the South did. They were also more spontaneous and strategic than the South as well. The South could have won, as Breanne said, if they would have maintained the Miss. River and got help from European powers.
In my opinion, the North won the civil war is mainly due to their regular supply of food, equipment, ammunition and clothing. They also were economically stronger in comparison to the South. The union also seemed to have a better strategy while planning to defeat the Confederates such as cutting the Confederacy in half by seizing control of the Mississippi River, which Grant later performs. Another great strategy the union came up with was to free the slaves to undermine the South's very economic foundations using the Emancipation Proclamation.
However, the South might have won if they had more troops and supplies and gained help from a foreign country while they were winning the first few battles.
The north winning the civil war eventually comes down to a simple topic, the north just simply out numbered the south, and also knew how to make quick and smart descisons involing great millitary percision. After fours years of hard fighting, the south stopped receiving reinforcements like the north continued to. Since the north was very indurstized it was easy for them to get supplies when the south needed to transport their supplies to many, and far places. the south had to fight in their own area, so in the end the south got all their supplies stolen, main routes for war supplies captured and territories destroyed with all the north soldiers rushing in 24/7. Another factor that added to the south losing is the lack of involment of international support.
The North won the Civil War because the North outnumbered the South on "everything", such as population, weapons, and etc. The North only won the Civil War by the battles or visual appearance, but the North did not win the heart of everyone, especially the slave owners. Civil War is a war fighting for state's rights. Slaves were bought by the slave owners with actual money out from their own pockets, so the slaves owners claim that it's their property. Winning does not always mean that it's right. It is injustice to disown someone's property by just passing a document, such as the Emancipation Proclamation. Therefore, the North won the Civil War on the surface, but the heart of the people, such as the slave owners because their property was taken away from them without their permissions. The South might have won if other nations supported them with more supplies and soldiers, so they can strengthen their military forces.
The North won the war because they made the smart decisions. They took over Vicksburg, they won at Gettysburg, they drafted men, they controlled the sea, and they tried their best to recruit even the border states. With the large population, the wealth, and with all their supplies the North had the upper hand. Although, the South gave them a run for their money. The South had talented fighters, help from the Native Americans, were breed to fight, and the war was fought on their land. But the South had scarce factories and a bad economy. The South didn't have the resources.
The North won the war because they made the smart decisions. They took over Vicksburg, they won at Gettysburg, they drafted men, they controlled the sea, and they tried their best to recruit even the border states. With the large population, the wealth, and with all their supplies the North had the upper hand. Although, the South gave them a run for their money. The South had talented fighters, help from the Native Americans, were breed to fight, and the war was fought on their land. But the South had scarce factories and a bad economy. The South didn't have the resources.
The north won the war because they strategized and planned out how they would beat the south. They knew that seizing the Mississippi river stop their trade, that taking Maryland would split the south, and that surrounding Lee at Richmond would end the war for good. Lincoln's issue of the emancipation proclaimation also contributed to the war. It ibcreased their troop size as blacks enlisted in huge numbers to fight in the war. The south could have won the war if they were better at strategizing how they would win over the Union. However, they were too overconfident and failed at planning their attacks. They also lost a lot of their men and refused to enlist blacks because of pride. However, when they did, it was a month before the war ended, which served no help. The south, unlike the north, also did not have foreign aid which crippled their supplies.
The north won the world because first they were more equipped, & were able to cut the sou off from each other, isolating them as the Northern troops attacked them all simultaneously. The North strategized smart combat plans, recruitment & knew which forts, river Ports& cities needed to be captured in order to destroy the south. The south could have one by taking the fight to the north, & destroying their lands & resources, instead of taking the defensive , position , instead of allowing their lands to be destroyed & such.
The north won because they were better strategically. The north had generals like Grant who helped make significant attacks on the confederates. Also the north had more materials like ammunition and guns. In the end, what mattered more was the numbers. The south had significantly less soldiers than the north in 1865. Which is the reason why General Lee of the confederates surrendered. To win, the south could have been more strategic in how they planned their attacks on the north. They could have found their own way to recruit more soldiers. I agree with Pauline when she says the south could have asked for some help from Europe.
North won the war because of better resources. They had more people and a better industry. Also, the north blockaded southern ports so the South could not get supplies. Not only that, the capturing of Port Hudson & defeating the South in the Battle of Vicksburg was critical because it was the South's western source of supply. The North also has 6 components to try and win the war and they were able to accomplish all of them :
1. Slowly suffocate the South by blockading its coasts
2. Cut the confederacy in half by seizing control of the Mississippi River
3. Dismember the Confederacy by sending troops through Georgia and the Carolinas
4. Liberate the slaves and undermine the very economic foundation of the South
5. Capture the South's capital at Richmond
6. Try to engage the enemy's main strength and grind it into submission
Finally, the Union army greatly outnumbered the Confederates so Grant's strategy of "losing two men and killing one Confederate" worked. The South could have won if it did not let the North seize the Mississippi and win the Battle of Vicksburg and Gettysburg. Losing those two battles through the Confederacy's hope of foreign intervention out the window.
Post a Comment