How did the South, with fewer supplies and resources, manage to stall a northern victory for four years?

Answer 1

The main reason is, the South were fighting on their own soil, travel back then was difficult to say the least and it was alot easier to stand your ground then to be the invading force.

Answer 2

It took time for the north to develop the appropriate mix of attitude and management. additionally the weaponry back then favored a protecting conflict, the rifle gave the defender extra accuracy at longer tiers which made advancing on entrenched positions particularly impractical. The South became into further on via their conflict for independence which made them combat extra stable. some have stated that southerners had extra experience with firearms because of the fact they have been much less city than northerners,and that that they had extra experience on horseback. i'm uncertain if those theories have been disproved or no longer.the 1st 2 years of the conflict became into characterised via poor northern management up till Gettysburg Mclellan represents this era of warning and unwillingness to deliver troops against enemy fortifications.the 2nd 2 became into characterised via grant(supposedly) who became into keen to place self belief in attrition, and became into much less involved by physique count variety. factors techniques have been sluggish and bloody ,and if Thomas were given command rather perhaps his determination for maneuver might have led to a quicker victory.

Answer 3

From what I understand the Northern generals had no stones. (except for Grant who was winning in the West) Each and every general that was appointed, when they got an advantage erred on the side of caution. That very same caution that handed thousands of extra lives that could have been avoided

Answer 4

Superior military leaders.

Answer 5

Do your own homework.