• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Civil War Poll

Is this poll painful to you?

  • Yes, it is painful.

    Votes: 2 28.6%

  • No, it is not painful.

    Votes: 5 71.4%
  • Total voters
    7
  • Poll closed .
Redress said:
This still left paths to victory for the south. Most simply, they could continue to demoralize the North until the will to fight was gone. The largest army does not always win, nor does the bigger country, and there are reasons for that. This does not mean that the facts listed in point 2 where not incredibly key, but to say the south had no chance is false.
Click to expand...

I agree, it was a matter of Northern willpower against how bloodied the South could make them. In other words it was "the North's war to lose," luckily their willpower outlasted the South's manpower and capacity for war, but unlike the North I think there was no chance the South could have forced defeat on their enemy, they simply had to outlast them.
 
Richmond was the capital and gravitas of the Confederacy. The turning point was Lee's decision to abandon the city. The Army of Northern Virginia lost all vestige of momentum and never recovered from this event.
 
Wiseone said:
I think number two is actually the best point on the list, the demographics and industrial imbalance really show the South was just about beat from the start. You'll notice its total number of Soldiers is about 20% of its total free population, while the North only seemed to have mobilized about 10% of its population. Not to mention arms production etc that was listed.
Click to expand...

The war was a very close in power. The difference was management. Lee was a horrible general, that looked for fights other than victory. Great example of that is Gettysburg.
 
This is weird. I was creating a poll on Civil War allegiance, when my computer shut down. Now I see this. Wow.
 
ElCid said:
This is weird. I was creating a poll on Civil War allegiance, when my computer shut down. Now I see this. Wow.
Click to expand...

This is what happens when the animals in a zoo get control for a few hours. I would make a new poll, though this one has had some interesting discussion as well.
 
StillBallin75 said:
Does anyone besides me not get what this poll is about...
Click to expand...


It is remotely possible that the OP failed to add a poll, and that some mischievious imp added one based purely on the words in the OP....

But that, of course, is mere speculation.
 
Redress said:
Actually it is. The single quickest, strongest, best path to victory for the North was to stop dicking around and go to an all out war of attrition, and say what you want about Grant(such as he was a terrible tactician, not entirely false), but strategically he was exceptional, and he showed the will to continue with his strategy, which was not easy. The south had what was probably the best tactical leader of the era in Lee, and previous to Grant, the North mostly fought Lee in ways that accentuated Lee's strength. Grant, for all the **** he is given, was the one general who managed to take Lee's strength away from him.
Click to expand...
I know it is rare. I completely agree. His goal was to make the South bleed to death on the battlefield. He succeeded.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom