why wasn't the south able to win the civil war?

Answer 1

1 - greater population in the North. Lincoln suggested to "do the math", even if the North suffered far greater casualties, they would still prevail.

2 - Greater industrial strength in the North. A greater Navy able to conduct a blockade of Southern ports, better weapons, better equipment.

3 - A superior strategy. The strategy of Lincoln was to suppress the rebellion and re-unite the Union. The strategy of Davis was that the North "leave us alone", and somehow get the North to sue for peace. Lincoln's strategy required a great will to continue the fight, which he had in spite of great losses. Davis strategy could not succeed except that Lincoln lose his will. Davis strategy manifested itself in two defeats in Northern territory (Antietam and Gettysburg), in which the South inflicted greater casualties, but did not have the ability to sustain the fight.

4 - Lack of support from anywhere else in the world. The South made many attempts to be recognized by other nations, particularly in Europe, but was not successful.

5 - The evil of slavery. The world opinion was turning against this evil, and the South simply could not sustain a culture based upon it. It had festered in the US for eighty years, and could only be decided by war.

Answer 2

The south won the first part of the civil war with motivated troops and strong leadership.

Basically, the south lost because it was poor. Soldiers weren't making any money, some had to return home to raise crops so their families wouldn't starve. The southern soldiers were a dedicated but rag tag militia, short on food, ammunition, even shoes.

The north was rich in comparison, and was fully industrialized. Sure, they were lead by idiots for a while, but they wore uniforms, were properly shod, and had new military innovations like the Springfield rifle, repeating rifle, and Gatling gun. They could pay and replace missing soldiers. They could afford a long, drawn out war and knew that the south could not.

Industry, organization and money will beat out a poor, determined enemy nearly any time. The only exception would be for occupying forces wherein guerrilla tactics are king. IE the American Revolution or the current struggle in Iraq.

For a fun alternate history of the Civil War - wherein the injection of the AK-47 rifle allows the south to win - try Harry Turtledoves "The Guns of the South." Awesome novel.

Answer 3

Too many turning points and pure luck in certain instances. For example, what if T Jackson still led the 2nd Corps at Gettysburg, would he have taken the high ground on the first day as many historians believe? What if Govenor Warren didn't spot an unguarded Little Round Top on the 2nd day, what if Chamberlain didn't order a bayonet charge also at Little Round Top. What if Lee ordered an attack around the Union left into the supply wagons and artillery park, like Longstreet had wanted, instead of sending 12,000 Virginians up Cemetery Hill.

And these 'what ifs' were only at Gettysburg, what about some of the other more pivitol battles. In the long run, the north's industrial might was bound to carry the day (or the war), but the South did have chances to win the war.

Answer 4

No i do no longer think of so. The South replaced into an agricultural economic gadget powered via slave hard paintings. Even in the process the time of the Civil war, the North had an excellent larger inhabitants and production base. The North replaced into already attracting immigrants from Europe. The South could no longer have "gained" the war lots... through fact the North usual peace words and known the South as a separate united states of america. The North might grow to be an commercial potential; its inhabitants increasing through immigration. With tensions interior the disputed Western territories, i might think of war might have had erupted back. the end result could have been not on time yet nonetheless the comparable.

Answer 5

America's industrial centers (both then and now) lie in the northern regions of the country. While the southern states had a wealth of cotton and tobacco, it had no factories to render those raw materials into sale-able items. They had to ship the cotton up north, or to England to make money.

War, in any time period, is an expensive endeavor. Troops must be clothed, fed, trained, and armed. The north blockaded the southern ports and did not allow goods to leave (if they could help it.) The money dried up, the men in the Confederate States army nearly ran out of ammo, clothing, and starved before the South finally made peace.

What would the world be like if the area that we know as the United States had been successfully split in two? I don't know that it would have lasted.

Answer 6

the reason the south lost the war was a number of things.

1.it was because the north had all the industry to make guns and cannons the south was agulter
2. the south couldn't replace the troops it lost in the Major battles like Gettysburg and battles like that

3.they abbaned their objectives by going north they had been winning the war by making the Union army come to them and they got to choose the ground they fought on when lee went north he let the north choose where he would fight take Gettysburg example they controlled the high ground lee knew he couldn't win

and to all those saying that the confederates were poorly trained are false. they were very well trained in fact look at the battles that were won. they won most of the battles that they fought.but just lost the war plus the fact that the south had most of the west point grads on their side and knew the importance of having a well trained army. and the Calvary struck fear in hearts of the most battle harden Union solder. so they were not poorly trained heck they were winning the war up until Gettysburg.

Answer 7

The North had much greater resources and manpower. Most of the money, railroads, and industry was in the North. The South was almost all agricultural. As Rhett Butler says in Gone With The Wind "all we have is cotton and slaves". The Northern Navy blockaded 200 Southern ports. This made it harder and harder to acquire arms and supplies. The North recruited in Europe. They had an advantage in technology with better rifles. As the war wore on the men were away at war and this created a farming shortage. So food became scarce and very expensive. Its amazing that the South lasted as long as it did. This was due to better generals and the advantage of fighting mostly on their own soil.

Answer 8

Most of the above are true except the part about the poorly trained troops: Think about it, given the Union had a larger population and a much larger industial base, had Confederate troops really been poorly trained the war would have been over in weeks. The skill and quality of Confederate troops and leaders was excellent and probably the only reason the war lasted anywhere near as long as it did.

Answer 9

The Confederate Army was largely made up of conscripts. Poorly trained and equipped men whose main occupaiont was farming. There were not enough men to sustain an army of the same size as the Union Army. By the end of the war, boys as young as 12 were taking the field, and the Confederacy had begun an all black regiment, offering freedom to any slave who fought. Also, with little or no industry except for cotton production and farming, the Confederacy did not have the money to feed, clothe or arm their men properly. The Confederate soldiers were tired, hungry, and angry at their leaders. They didn't have the heart to fight. There are tales of whole companies simply laying down their arms and either leaving or waiting to be caught so they could eat and be warm.

Answer 10

They expected the english to protect the eastern sea-border. Why? Because the south supplied the majority of England's cotton. Turns out that England had a huge boom in cotton that year thus had no need for the Confederation anymore. Hence, no naval support.