Could the south have won the civil war If so how, if not then why not Essay

Could the south founder won the civil war If so how, if not then why not - Essay ExampleThe trades union had a largely urbanised background with flourishing industrial capabilities. Rapid technological developments were shaping how things had been d unmatchable for centuries. The railroad was expanding westwards and liberty was in the air. Large manufacturing concerns were existence established. Management was evolving to promote efficiency and innovation. Furthermore, a class of individuals was emerging that were to become the modern American ticker class. These groups were ardent political financingers of anti sla genuinely drives though their numbers were as yet not very significant. On the some other hand, the south was predominantly agricultural. Farm labour consisted of slaves whose ancestors had been imported from Africa. Conservatism was rampant and sporty supremacy was considered as an ultimate truth. Capital was abundant too as the large farmers had no one to share p rofits with. Cotton was the mainstay of the southern economy. It was exported to cotton plant mills in Europe and in the north. Military tradition was more rampant in the south than in the north. Boys were taught how to ride and shoot at an early age given the agrarian societys feuds. The war began as the south self-collected its army and invaded Fort Sumter in South Carolina. Then President Abraham Lincoln urged Union states to assemble a volunteer army to deal with the situation. This caused another four states to drift over into the southern camp. The souths position was strengthened at this point in the war. If the south had wanted to make major strides in the war, it ought to have been better planned and organised than it was. The try of the Confederate army on Fort Sumter caught the north off guard. The south could have compassd major victories if it invaded with a larger army that engaged more targets simultaneously. This would have helped the south in causing panic and confusion in the ranks of the north. The overwhelming display of power may even have led to more accessions by Union states. Furthermore, the organised all out attack would have sent the Union running and figuring out what to do next. However, what happened on ground was in all different. The Confederacys attack on Fort Sumter served as a rallying point for the northern states. It alerted them to the danger posed by the South. The Union was both proactive and swift in its reaction. An army of volunteers was assembled on ground while a naval jam was imposed. The Unions land armies could not achieve victories in the beginning. The level of organisation and the equipment used were not up to the mark. However, the naval blockade served as a double edged sword. On the one hand, the export of cotton virtually ended and on the other hand imports could not be brought in to reinforce the Confederate armys stock. As mentioned earlier, cotton was the mainstay of the southern economy. Loss o f cotton exports meant that revenue generation suffered gravely in the south. The naval blockade also had another profound effect. Foreign intervention was discouraged from taking any real instigate given the naval blockade. Foreign intervention could only be possible if the naval blockade was take and foreign troops and supplies could flow into the south. No external power was ready or willing to support the Souths cause by direct military involvement. Another notable issue is the expressive style in which this war was conducted on either side. Initially the south was very aggressive. It