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

It has to be exact

2007-01-31 05:48:50 · 7 answers · asked by justin g 1 in Arts & Humanities History

7 answers

The Civil War was very devastating and people did starve. Generally societies fare better as a whole in times of peace.

2007-01-31 05:57:11 · answer #1 · answered by mrsdrucie 2 · 0 1

Which Civil War?

In the American Civil War, there was a dire situation in the South. Crops were destroyed, the men were engaged in fighting and were not home to plow, sow and harvest, Armies foraged for food, confiscating animals. The prices of flour, butter and other commodities in the cities became so dear that most people could not buy food. During the siege of Vicksburg people were starving and were reduced to eating mules and dogs. Hunger was a severe problem, especially toward the end of the conflict. For many years following the war, people suffered from malnutrition.

2007-01-31 14:02:25 · answer #2 · answered by Suzianne 7 · 0 1

Exactly Did Who have enough food in the Civil War?

2007-01-31 13:55:57 · answer #3 · answered by redgriffin728 6 · 0 1

It all depends. If the men were close to a supply line being efficiently run; yes. However, if there were logistical problems such as transportation, theft; there could be no guarantee of a sufficient supply of food. Periodically, the soldiers of both sides would have to go without eating for two or three days.

Two examples: Union troops being close to starvation in the seige of Chattanooga by Bragg. This siege was broken by the creation of the "Cracker Line". Another is the capture of food and supplies by Sheridan's cavalry at Danville in the closing days of the Appomattox Campaign.

2007-01-31 14:16:54 · answer #4 · answered by cwguy1 2 · 0 1

There is no "exact" answer. The South was devastated, the plantations and farm lands used for army and prision camps, or trampled by the passage of armys and the many battles that were fought there. The people and armies had to forage for everything they had.

While in the North, since there was no fighting, nor armies tramping around, they did have the means to grow food, and tend to animals, but they also had the pressures of feeding many more mouths than they would normally have to feed. And once they moved south to fight, the troops has to rely on the trains, and supply wagons to find them.

2007-01-31 15:45:44 · answer #5 · answered by Wanda K 4 · 0 1

Practicly no. Because at times they would attack their food caravans or they would burn or steal their food by raiding houses.

2007-01-31 13:56:24 · answer #6 · answered by E-Prime 1 · 0 1

exactly no

2007-01-31 13:52:58 · answer #7 · answered by newheartin03 4 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers