English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

What are some real reasons the South lost the Civil War? I'm looking for economic, strategic, or logistical reasons.

2007-01-20 17:42:25 · 11 answers · asked by deftonehead778 4 in Arts & Humanities History

11 answers

Who says they won?

Actually, they had more soldiers (and lost more), had more rail and industry (big reason for secession in the first place), and better weaponry, especially towards the end of the war (repeating rifles). Also, the south's advance into Maryland and Pennsylvania was a mistake as the south should have maintained a defensive posture. The north was actually quite lucky to win with less talented generals, less talented soldiers and calvary, and a lack of intervention by France and England.

2007-01-20 18:07:58 · answer #1 · answered by j_mang 3 · 0 0

Before the civil war most of the farms were in the mid-west and south, and the the factories were up north. the south was simply not able to produce the supplies needed like the north could. the north also recieved huge amounts of support from other countries like England and France. The south was outmatched in so many ways, its amazing the war lasted as long as it did. Just shows what good leadership can do. The north really didn't have good generals until Grant, but the south did.

2007-01-20 17:53:30 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Even though the south had great Generals like General Lee and Stonewall Jackson the main problem for the South was manpower the north could replace the soldiers they lost but the South could not replace there soldiers so there numbers dwindled. Also Lincoln placed blockades around the south that cut off trade with foreign nations for the south this hurt the south really bad.

2007-01-20 18:03:37 · answer #3 · answered by Angel_Face 2 · 0 0

it was a matter of the north outlasting the south. the north had more people, money, industry. by the end of the war, the south had little more than a ragged hungry army, nothing to feed or sustain an army, and the good sense to quit before it was completely destroyed.
Both grant and Lee knew that in a war of attrition, the south didn't stand a chance.

2007-01-21 01:33:18 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

well i just finished this chapter, The North was much stronger than the South in almost everything. The North had a clear advantage in manpower and industrial strength. And also because of the use of new technologies such as rifles and railroads.

I hope this will help u.
Good Luck!

2007-01-20 18:01:32 · answer #5 · answered by US Girl 2 · 0 0

There are certainly a number of reasons why the North won, from the extent of superior railroads to a single woman who was able to warn the british of a pending, devastating attack and allow them to defend as necessary. If you actually want to learn about it, you need to visit a library, not a web forum.

2007-01-20 18:05:19 · answer #6 · answered by Ghapy 7 · 0 0

The Union was able to isolate the south and could out produce her in manufactured goods. Primarily because they had a better rail system and better access to water power.

2007-01-20 17:47:52 · answer #7 · answered by Sophist 7 · 0 0

The North had an industrial base, blockaded the south and strangled them.

2007-01-20 17:50:20 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

They had the strength of ten because their hearts were pure.

2007-01-20 20:46:45 · answer #9 · answered by colinchief 3 · 0 0

think yo have answer. they had more of everything and better access to it all.

2007-01-20 17:51:31 · answer #10 · answered by free thinker 3 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers