What did the South need to do to win the war? - American History  
 
This is your new blog post. Click here and start typing, or drag in elements from the top bar.
Arjun Rajesh
4/6/2010 07:42:52

I really think that the South should have just used a better strategy if they wanted to win the war. They were gambling on the chance that the Union would give up soon and just let the South secede sucessfully. I think that this was surely a bad plan. If it failed (which it did) the South had no plan to resort to and no way to deal with the Anaconda plan which was nicely executed by the Union army. A better strategy would have to be used because the confederacy was fighting with a smaller army. I think that a small army could beat a larger one if the smaller just used proper strategies. Also the confederates could have done more to recruit soldiers. One main reason that the north was able to defeat the south was because they had the numbers and the south just couldn't match up. The south actually had some excellent commanders such as Robert Lee. Lee is considered to be a much better general than any of the union generals including General Grant. They also really needed to be more attacking. They faced many battles in the south which really damaged the south. They needed to go on the attack sooner and capture Washington. The union ended up taking the southern capital. The war could have ended differently if the South had been more attacking. I think that when the south finally came out and attacked they had much more success in battle.

textbook http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/g/gallagher-confederate.html
http://community.history.com/topic/2737

Reply
Jiayi Diao
4/6/2010 23:15:56

I think if the south really want to win, they need to keep their supply line behind
their troops in the south. And they need to keep the navy forces strong to fight northern navy forces at any time at anywhere. Because the south have a lot of farming and growing business with many country in Europe.The south needed that trading money to buy weapons from the European countries. If the south trading line has been cut also, it will be almost impossible to win the war with empty hands. Or they can use a kind of "super"weapon in that time. Nitroglycerin was discovered by a scientist in 1847, after 10 year of testing and Developing. It was much safer than before,But it was the strongest explosive in the human history. So the southern army had really try to use the Nitroglycerin as a weapon. be their dream did come true,the war ended much earlier than thought.

Reply
Jessica Reed
4/7/2010 10:00:09

In order for the South to have won the war, they would have had to change a few things. First, the South needed to gain more men. They were greatly outnumbered by the North in manpower. Furthermore, the South was not as industrial as the North. Therefore, they could not obtain the more modern and efficient weaponry. For example, the Union introduced ironclads to the Civil War. Consequently, they helped in some of the victories that the North had. On the other hand, the more agricultural South was annihilated when the ironclads were first used. This also ties in with the South needing more men. If the South did have enough weaponry they would still need enough men for all of the weapons they had. Lastly, a third aspect that the South lacked that would have been beneficial was a great leader and war general. Although, the South had Robert E. Lee they did not have a general like Ulysses S. Grant or a wonderful leader, such as Abraham Lincoln. These two men possessed something that that neither Robert E. Lee nor Jefferson Davis, the Confederate President, had. They were naturally great leaders who used their skill in order to win the war. They were intelligent in war tactics, and were brave in executing their plans. In the end, I believe that if the South had more men, better equipment, and better leaders they could have had a larger chance of winning the Civil War. Yet, they would need all of these factors in order to win because just having one or two would not have worked. Nevertheless, since the South lacked all of these essentials they were defeated by the North.

Sources:
Textbook
http://www.ashbrook.org/publicat/oped/owens/07/confederacy.html
http://www.jcs-group.com/military/war1861ahouse/warcivil.html

Reply
Molly Buring
4/8/2010 12:23:39

I think there was several reasons for why the South did not win the war. One reason was their population problems. The South has not even half as many people the North had. The South had about 9 and a half million, with almost 4 million being slaves, while the North had almost 22 million. Since the about a third of the South's population were slaves and could not fight as soldiers, that made their soldier population a lot smaller compared to the North. Also, when immigration hit, most stayed and lived in New York or around their in the North. Since not many came to South, all North, it made the South's population even smaller. Another reason is their terrible war attack strategies. The South's strategy was to stay on their land as a defensive strategy and fight the North from there. If the South took a surprise attack on the North, they might have had a better chance of winning the war. Also, the North was an industrial society, the South was an agrarian society. The North had all of the factories and things that really helped them during the war, since they made all of the right materials and things. The South was better with farming and growing cotton and things of that nature. When it came to war time, the South had to materials to help them. And because of all of these reasons, and more, the South would never have won the war.

sources:
http://www.123helpme.com/view.asp?id=23384
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081011062705AA4jh41

Reply



Leave a Reply.