they deff. had more people , rail roads , and factories and i the generals they had werent all that great so i think its D
hope it helped =]
2007-05-22 03:04:05
·
answer #1
·
answered by tony c 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
Neither the North nor the South was prepared in 1861 to wage a war. With a population of 22 million, the North had a greater military potential. The South had a population of 9 million, but of that number, nearly 4 million were enslaved blacks whose loyalty to the Confederate cause was always in doubt. Although they initially relied on volunteers, necessity eventually forced both sides to resort to a military draft to raise an army. Before the war ended, the South had enlisted about 900,000 white males, and the Union had enrolled about 2 million men (including 186,000 blacks), nearly half of them toward the end of the war. In addition, the North possessed clear material advantages—in money and credit, factories, food production, mineral resources, and transport—that proved decisive. The South's ability to fight was hampered by chronic shortages of food, clothing, medicine, and heavy artillery, as well as by war weariness and the unpredictability of its black labor force. Even with its superior manpower and resources, however, the North did not achieve the quick victory it had expected. To raise, train, and equip a massive fighting force from inexperienced volunteers and to find efficient military leadership proved a formidable and time-consuming task. The South, with its stronger military tradition, had more men experienced in the use of arms and produced an able corps of officers, including Robert E. Lee. Only through trial and error did Lincoln find comparable military leaders, such as Ulysses S. Grant and William T. Sherman.
Hope this helps!!
2007-05-22 04:33:09
·
answer #2
·
answered by Shez 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
D. The South had many generals and other officers who were well respected. General Lee was (and still is) the only student to make it through West Point with no demerits at all. He was asked by the Union to lead the Union Army, but when Virginia seceded, he felt that his loyalties should lie with Virginia.
2007-05-22 03:26:58
·
answer #3
·
answered by cross-stitch kelly 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
It is certainly D. Lincoln asked Lee to lead the Union, but Lee wouldn't fight against his own statesmen. Lincoln was forced to go to General George McKlellan, who was about as close to a pacifist, or a pansy(since I'm not allowed to use another term according to Yahoo), as you could get. He didn't fight unless it was absaolutely necessary. Lincoln shuffled thru about 4 generals before Ulysses S. Grant proved to be the best for the job.
2007-05-22 04:44:55
·
answer #4
·
answered by themainevent0415 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
D - The South had many veterans of the Mexican War and most of the good U.S. generals went home to their Southern sates to fight for the South. Most historians say Grant was the North's only good general.
2007-05-22 03:28:57
·
answer #5
·
answered by Ron V 1
·
0⤊
0⤋
the south far and away had better and more experienced generals ...Lee, a.s. johnston, jackson, and longstreet to name a few. The north had everything else.
2007-05-22 03:55:16
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
I'm going with E - more gold
2007-05-22 03:01:16
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
d
2007-05-22 03:01:09
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
d.
2007-05-22 05:47:43
·
answer #9
·
answered by Andrew W 2
·
0⤊
0⤋