they were equal nations and the north had horrible generals and bad morale while the south had General Lee who won several brilliant battles against the north. Also while Lee could defend the south he could never gain the momentom while attacking the north.
It could have something to do with greater numbers of troops. Irish immigrants landed in the ports in the North and then were conscripted into the Union Army. The North had a larger industrial inferstructure and were technicaly better off than the more agracultral South.
Bigger population - able to absorb casualties.
Successful blockade - the South could not import or export.
Industrial manufacturing power - able to make all kinds of war supplies.
Better President - Lincoln was far more talented than Davis.
The South took longer to rebuild because a majority of the war was fought on Southern lands and because of the highly destructive march by Sherman through Georgia in which the land was burned completely upsetting the economy of the South.
There were several reasons, but they were all related to the fact that the North had become industrial while the South stayed agricultural.
ghjkl,
The Spanish-American War of 1898 brought the Americans together (re-united them) from the effects of the US Civil War. Operation Desert Storm of January/February 1991 reunited the American people from the effects of the Vietnam War (per President George Bush Sr., "...we've beat the Vietnam syndrome!").
the north had many more articles of war with which to fight and could well beat us in a war
All history books, both European, southern and federal, agree that the American Civil War was fought between the northern union of the United States and the Confederate States of America, between 1861 and 1865. The question is "What is federal history of American civil war?" Unless the federal history has been revised from other histories, the first shot was fired at Ft. Sumter, SC, states of the South began seceding from the Union, the union had factories, mills, munitions, warm clothes, shoes, food, and other necessities of war, whereas the South had none of these requirements. However, the South did have a plethora of superb and extremely experienced military leaders, such as Robert E Lee of Virginia and Stonewall Jackson, whose knowledge of military strategy and maneuvers was impeccable and expertly executed. Their horsemanship was learned from birth, and there were no better shots with rifles used since childhood. It was the outstanding leadership, guidance and superior logistics planning that kept the South on its feet as long as it did. That is precisely why it took the north four years to beat the South in spite of its disadvantages, a South that was hardly able to stand on its feet.
the union won the civil war !
To starve the south and beat them because they had no munitions, warm clothes, shoes, or other necessaries for war. Also very little food. However, considering the outstanding expert military strategists that the South had (Robert E. Lee, Stonewall Jackson), it still took the north a long four years to beat the Confederacy (1861-1865).
No it didn't.
The south didn't win the Civil War. It was the North (The Union) who beat the South (The Confederacy)
1864
the south used bubble beam on the north.... seriously?...
USA lost to north Vietnam not south. The south was their ally.
They wanted to capture Richmond, and cut off the South's supplies.
The Spanish-American War of 1898 brought the Americans together (re-united them) from the effects of the US Civil War. Operation Desert Storm of January/February 1991 reunited the American people from the effects of the Vietnam War (per President George Bush Sr., "...we've beat the Vietnam syndrome!").
No, the South beat them by almost a year.
you think of the north east west and south
you think of the north east west and south
you think of the north east west and south
Everybody, as Scott went for the South Pole.