akuma587 said:
Are you kidding me? The South simply had to not lose. The North had to win. The South had the advantage that they weren't trying to advance on the North per se. The North had to retake the entirety of the South to actually have won the war. It was like the British fighting the American colonies. We didn't win because we legitimately "won", we won because it became far too burdensome for the British to wage a war on us while they had so much to worry about at home while fighting with France. We just happened to get lucky. While the South did have some disadvantages in terms of their supplies and industry, you aren't painting an accurate picture of what was at stake and how much the North had to accomplish to defeat the South. The North had to win. The South simply had to not lose.
|
You know, since that sounds like it was taken straight from a school textbook, you should also consider reading some of the statistics too. The north fighting the south is vastly different from the United Kingdom fighting the colonies. The UK had to cross the entire Atlantic ocean to get to the colonies, not to mention that they were fighting two wars at once and taxes were already ridiculously high in Britain. During the Revolutionary War, the colonies actually had a pretty decent troop advantage, along with fighting on their home turf.
http://www.phil.muni.cz/~vndrzl/amstudies/civilwar_stats.htm
By 1865, the Union had more than 3 times as many troops as the Confederacy. Objectives don't change a war in the way you mentioned. Just because the South didn't have to lose didn't mean they someone waged their war differently. They held a defensive line just like in any other war. The South had tons of disadvantages and the war was really not that hard to win. It was won by attrition and nothing else.
