So they could move supplies and troops easier.
2007-04-26 11:47:55
·
answer #1
·
answered by TopSpin 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
The Mississippi was the key to the North plan during the civil war. Under the anaconda plan the Union would take over the forts on the Mississippi like Donelson and Vicksburg and control the river. Because if the Union had control of the river they could divide the Confederacy in 2 parts and successfully eloimante the use of Texas and its crops. Also the river was a great source of transportation for troops and supplies. So basically the river was the key to the Union victory.
2007-04-26 11:48:40
·
answer #2
·
answered by Qwerty 1
·
2⤊
0⤋
Think about it for a minute. Where does the Mississippi River flow? How many states are boarded on the Mississippi? Prior to the Civil War, how were trade goods transported? What kind of goods were transported? If the North controlled the Mississippi, what would it REALLY control?
Give it some thought. You can do it!
2007-04-26 11:48:57
·
answer #3
·
answered by Daisy 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
In 1861, the Union Army mustered only 16,000 men. Worse, most of the regular Army troops were scattered in small garrisons throughout the western territories. In light of the North's initially weak position, General Winfield Scott proposed a gigantic siege of the Confederacy. First, the navy would establish a blockade of the Southern coast. Then, in joint operations the army and the navy would seize control of the Mississippi River splitting the Confederacy in two. This strategy would not only weaken the South but also give the North time to mobilize its enormous resources. Northern forces would then utilize the inland waterways and other natural invasion routes in simultaneous and concentric campaigns to further subdivide and eventually crush the South. His goal was to gain time to raise, train and equip overwhelming Union force and to minimize casualties in hope of a more amicable restoration. Much derided in the Northern press, Scott's "Anaconda" plan proved not only sound but also remarkably prescient. The carnage of the various "on to Richmond" campaigns in 1861, 1862 and 1863 awoke the leaders North and South to the impact of the rifled musket on the modern battlefield. After three years of great expectation and repeatedly dashed hopes, President Lincoln finally found a leader in General Grant with the ability and determination to successfully execute Scott's much maligned strategy.
2007-04-26 11:53:30
·
answer #4
·
answered by Mary O 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
the south depended on the river for fast trasprotaion of goods that they needed to survive. if the north gained the river then the souths lifeline would be cut and it would overtime be virtualy impossiable to prosper.
2007-04-26 11:48:00
·
answer #5
·
answered by autumn_aka_slick 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
During that period travel and trade were highly dependent on the country's waterways as the railroads had not yet been established.
2007-04-26 11:48:35
·
answer #6
·
answered by David M 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
soo that the trade route wouldnt be cut off
2007-04-26 11:46:42
·
answer #7
·
answered by im kory fool! 14 f usa 1
·
0⤊
1⤋
yeah the first one is right
2007-04-26 11:47:23
·
answer #8
·
answered by not telling you!!! 3
·
0⤊
1⤋