Civil War Argumentative Analysis

985 Words 4 Pages
Many historians have studied the way the Civil War unfolded and how the south could have possibly won if the southern generals executed Fabian warfare. This war technique has the offensive army retreating deeper and deeper into their territory, thus causing the defensive army to have longer supply lines and exhaustion sweep the soldiers. Although Fabian warfare sparks mass discussion, Robert Tanner does not agree with the notion the Confederate nation could have won using this tactic. The southern population did not have a unifying reason why war seemed plausible, nor did the southern army have generals who took advantage of union troops when they showed weakness, and the confederate troops did not practice the art of expertly maneuvering the …show more content…
Tanner uses information and guidance from the famous Carl Von Clausewitz, to support his claim the south did not have a unifying reason for going to war. Clausewitz states “war is a continuation of politics by other means” and a nation should know what the people fight for, and if they do not, support or assistance from the common people will dwindle (pg. 78). The lack of political knowledge southerners obtained hindered the amount of support they gave, which would devastate the confederate armies if they did execute the Fabian warfare. Tanner also brings up the fact the confederate terrain remained very large and spacious, which benefitted and crippled the confederate …show more content…
Based off of his sources, using more primary documents from confederate soldiers and civilians would have shown how unsure the population stood and how exhauster the troops felt. It seemed he used sources from generals and high ranking citizens, which took away the aspect of war and applied it to the society. Using diary’s or letters from ordinary southerners would make the book more interesting, more personable, and would have incorporated the mentality which overwhelmed the southern

Related Documents