At first the South relied on imported arms and munitions but soon was able to produce its own. It had more trouble with clothing and food throughout the duration of the war.…
During the 1850's, the vast differences between the North and the South brought about the impending notion of war between the two. The South knew that the North had them beat on every level. The North had manufacturing capabilities with factories that could produce supplies necessary for outfitting an army. Also, the North's population of 22 million was nearly three times the population of the South. The South only had nine million people, four million of whom were black slaves. This larger population provided a steady source of military and civilian manpower, and was important in a war of attrition. Lastly, the North grew most of the country's food, and a fighting army can get very hungry. The South had the plantations, but mostly cash crops were grown there.…
Because slaves fought for the South, many slaves were not fighting for what they believe in, while the North had more and passionate soldiers fighting for the North’s stance. Furthermore, the North’s expansion…
The loss of the South in the Civil War was the result of various contributions. First of all, they were underequipped in artillery and production factories. The South’s population was about one fourth of the North’s excluding slaves. They were not united and lost because their own philosophical beliefs that destroyed them. Further, the South was underequipped and outclassed in everything industrially. They’re only hope of taking a military advantage was support from European countries. However, those connections were cut when the North blockaded the South and when the North incited the European public to support the North’s effort preventing European interference. Although there was a high morale to serving the Confederacy and to destroying the Union cause, they didn’t have the materials to do so. Many would just fight with stones or any primitive makeshift weapon they could use when they were depleted of bullets because of their low artillery production. The South also had much less supply lines. Their railroads were half that of the North’s and became less as the North decimated the South’s rail lines. The North figured that it would be wiser to destroy their supply lines and weaken the troops. However destroying food lines wouldn’t be a problem because the South couldn’t even supply food because as men were drafted into the army, the agricultural farms withered away due to lack of maintenance. Another disadvantage would be the size of the South. The ratio of people of South to North was about 3 to 7. However 3.5 million of those Southern people were slaves, so the actual ratio would be about 1 to 4. Considering the North’s territorial advantage over the South, it is impressive to see that the South could sustain such a defense over the four years of the war. The reason could be that the South had better trained generals such as…
The South's economy was based off of slavery unlike the North. The South's economy was based off of slavery unlike the North. Compromises was made to keep the amount of slave states and free states equal, but many of them have been overridden to keep slavery going in new territories (Doc 1). This could start a war because the North did not want slavery so if the South is breaking rules to keep slavery it is not going to be okay. The South did many things to make slavery happen in the new territory because they depended on it and that could start something and make them want to secede.…
In 1862 many people truly believed that the Confederacy was winning the Civil War. The Union believed it and the other countries believed it. The Union struggled with their military leaders and they weren’t familiar with the South's land. The struggles that the North had before Gettysburg led to everyone believing that the South was going to win the Civil War.…
South Carolina view the United states not as a unified nation. I think if they saw the United States as a unified nation, they would not have thought of seceding in the first place. They were scared of what the federal government was going to do to slavery, especially after Lincoln became president. After they left and other southern states began to follow, they declared themselves as the confederacy. South Carolina tore apart what was once a unified nation into two separate ones.…
<br>Another reason the South well fell short of a victory was the obvious difference in population between the South and the North. The North at the time had twenty-two million men while the South had a meager nine-and-a-half million, of whom three-and-a-half million were slaves. While the slaves could be used to support the war effort through work on the plantations, in industries and as teamsters and pioneers with the army, they were not used as a combat arm in the war to any extent. This cuts the South's manpower by a third, leaving a fifteen-and-a-half million difference in the population of the two areas. Give the South fifteen-and-a-half million more possible soldiers, and the outcome would have been different.…
The Civil War left a great impact on the nation. President Lincoln stated that he had no intention of interfering with slavery but the south had no actual right to secede from the Union. When South Carolina was the first state to secede and other states quickly followed, Lincoln felt that he had to take matters into his own hands and enacted his power as both the Commander in Chief and the Chief Executive. We see in Document A that South Carolina felt differently about this issue. They felt that there isn't anything…
In American culture, the South has more or less been stereotyped and degraded in various ways, which naturally brings about a sense of defensiveness. The southerners stick together to defend their culture and to honor their ancestors, and for many, their passion for the Civil War is more than just nostalgia. It is family pride, a fight for the underdogs, heroism and perhaps a love of imagination.…
This is also supported by the U.S. Supreme Court which said, “The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.” This quote shows how altering the laws would be the opposite of what the Second Amendment states. Also according to the Declaration of Independence, our unalienable rights are, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and, “that whenever any form of Government becomes destructive of these ends it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it... it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.” This means that whenever we are in perilous situation we can defend ourselves to secure our right of life. Also, “banning guns will take away yet another piece of our liberty,” according to balancedpolitics.org. Eventually this will lead to having more of our rights taken away and result in tyranny. This is why we must not alter the gun laws we have…
It is quite clear that by looking at criminals intentions and the overall protection of our country's people gun control should not be administered. Since the establishment of our great nation guns have played a central role and have been of great importance. Though some may think that guns are weapons of war, crime, and violence our Founding Fathers realized they were an essential right that needed to be preserved for the citizens. In the Bill of Rights the Second Amendment of the Constitution reads "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." Gun control proponents have…
Many Americans believe that Gun-Control Laws should be enforced, because “Individuals do not need guns for protection; it is the role of local and federal government to protect the people through law enforcement agencies and the military.” (http://www.StudentNewsDaily.com) All Individuals deserve the right to carry a gun with them at all times, to use for protection. According to the Second Amendment in the Constitution, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” (https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/second_amendment) Obtaining a gun, gives one the sense of feeling safe and protected given any situation. No one knows when they may be “attacked” or in danger, and the protection they need from the government may not always be there to protect them. Every American must learn self-defense and use it when needed, they shouldn’t have to rely and anyone but themselves.…
The role guns play in our society has long been a controversial topic for the past few years in the united states. There are those who believe that guns do not belong in the hands of citizens and there are those who believe that guns are the foundation that protects our rights and liberties stated in the Constitution. There are too many leading factors as to why there should not be any stricter gun control laws. Some of these factors are that they go against our fundamental rights of self defense, give too much power to the government, and could potentially increase crime rates in the united states.…
Should the National Government take away gun rights? One, should it be the States rights? If the National Government took away everyone's guns no one could protect themselves. But if citizens are armed they could protect their family, friends and themselves. If everyone is armed they would be safe but also dangerous. It's a right to bear arms but it's the common good that's not everyone is armed, that's where background checks come in. When someone buys a gun they have to be checked for any criminal history.…