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

2007-06-04 16:11:40 · 11 answers · asked by Pyromaniac 4 in Politics & Government Military

srry i messed up on the question, it's the other way around xD i mean the confederate and the union.

2007-06-04 16:18:14 · update #1

11 answers

You got it backwards. The South were the Confederates.

2007-06-04 16:14:23 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2 0

No, since the North was the Union and the South was the Confederates.

2007-06-04 23:15:57 · answer #2 · answered by jhartmann21 4 · 1 0

Loads of Irish immigrants could have made the difference in the war. That, and larger population, as well an industrialized economy unlike the south's agricultural one.

Moral high ground had nothing to do with it. Neither side had any moral superiority contrary to what Mr. fantasy-land will tell you. Other countries only cared about themselved and would have joined the South's side to protect their cotton trade had the South won Gettysburg.

2007-06-04 23:27:42 · answer #3 · answered by Matt 1 · 0 0

at the start of the war...well

1. population - more potential personnel to draw on for army.

2. resources - the north had more potential and developed raw resources for war materials (iron ore, coal, etc) than the south.

3. Industrial capacity - the north had more factory's to produce materials for war (munitions, weapons, uniforms etc) than the south.

4. food production - north retained a larger total food production base than the south, even after the levy for personnel. the south couldn't.

5. hard capital and credit resources - the north had more tangible capital (gold, silver) and lines of commerce with other nations than the south.

no, the union navy wasn't very strong at the start of the war. the navy had almost been allowed to rot away after the war of 1812. defense monies were put into coastal forts and batteries for protection of the US. it took time to build the navy up to enforce the blockade Lincoln wanted on the south. this was why the south could carry on during the first years of the war as effectively as it could.

no, the union army and southern armies were almost evenly matched at the wars start. it took time and conscription on the unions part to raise the armies needed to pin down the southern forces.

2007-06-05 02:20:58 · answer #4 · answered by centurion613 3 · 0 0

Yep some people dont know a damn thing. I have been handed down a sotry of Shermans swath of death through the south. After the yankees killed off all the husbands of southern familys they raped their wifes and killed children. That is why the yankees won the war, they are demons from hell......seriously. They have no manners and act like @ss holes all the time

2007-06-07 07:05:13 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

The North (Union actually) was stronger because
-More population
-Larger navy that was able to blockade the south
-Much larger industry able to do far more wartime production then the south

Hope that helps with your homework ;)

2007-06-04 23:16:06 · answer #6 · answered by Kenneth C 6 · 0 0

industry.
population.
control of the navy - the north had one, the south didn't.
better transportation grid.
better communication grid.

oh, and they were on the morally high ground, which made it all but impossible for any foreign nation to help the south.

check out the insane person below me - makes you really wonder...

2007-06-04 23:16:54 · answer #7 · answered by nostradamus02012 7 · 0 0

what bizzare parallel reality are you from? in mine, the fascist lincoln sent his horde of death legions and war factories to burn the fertile lands of virginia and all south of there. most hated were the orc generals grant and sherman. grant was a drunkard who enjoyed enflicting death. he would gladly sacrifce his entire horde to gain a small victory. as long as there was maximum death, he was happy. the general sherman was an a coward, rsonist and rapist, prefering to burn the land and attack women and children.
thus the land south of the mason dixon line was spoiled and the people reduced to poverty and servitude for generations.

2007-06-04 23:23:29 · answer #8 · answered by Stand-up Philosopher 5 · 1 2

You are a liberal trying to revise History.

2007-06-04 23:16:16 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Look it up yourself and do your own homework

2007-06-05 03:18:53 · answer #10 · answered by mar036 3 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers