Rebuttal: If Grant had not captured Vicksburg, situated on the banks of the Mississippi river, which gave Union forces complete control of the Mississippi river, the Confederacy would have been able to use the Mississippi river to transport supplies, would not have split the South into two and stopped Southerners from getting much needed supplies coming in from the west. “A Yankee captain wrote home to his wife “The backbone of the Rebellion is this day broken. The Confederacy is divided…Vicksburg is ours. The Mississippi River is opened, and Gen. Grant is to be our next President.” (P. 407 Roark) Also, if the railroad system did not fall that would have allowed supplies to be shipped to soldiers. I feel that after the fall of Vicksburg the
…show more content…
I believe everything was on the line in the election of 1864. Further, Generals in the second half of the war like Grant, Sherman, and Sheridan were all Republican generals who destroyed resources in the South, plantations, food supplies, slaves, and railroads. Democratic leaders earlier in the war like McClellan did nothing to destroy the South’s economy. Those generals were not against slavery, but only wanted to hold the Union together. If Grant had not won, the battle of Vicksburg it would not have split the South shrinking the size of the Confederacy by knocking out states. The South would not have been opened to become ravished by Sherman and his army. If the North did not win the battle of Gettysburg it would have split the North and a victory might have been possible for the South. Furthermore, the South really did not have to win, they just had to not loose since lowered morale of the war in the North. Public opinion puts pressure on Democrats to stop the war. “Democrats were labeling the Republican administration a “reign of terror” and denouncing as unconstitutional Republican policies expanding federal power, subsidizing private business, and emancipating the …show more content…
Jefferson Davis’s poor leadership or insubordination to work together with his generals, the South’s failure to gain, England and France’s support to their cause, morale of the South towards the war 's end and the Norths superior resources made the outcome inevitable. The Civil War was a trying time for both the South and the North, but the signs of the South’s outcome were obvious from its beginning. The North won decisive victories over the ill equipped south. Northerners experienced an enormous industrial boom rather than facing difficulties of war. To the South it was debilitating and draining like a leech sucking the land dry of economic hardships. The debate on the Civil War 's outcome will always be full of “what ifs?” and so on any comprise to be reached. “In less than two years, Lee handed his sword to Ulysses S. Grant at Appomattox. The day after he surrendered, the Confederate general offered this explanation: “After four years of arduous service marked by unsurpassed courage and fortitude, the Army of Northern Virginia has been compelled to yield to overwhelming numbers and resources.” (P. 284
I believe everything was on the line in the election of 1864. Further, Generals in the second half of the war like Grant, Sherman, and Sheridan were all Republican generals who destroyed resources in the South, plantations, food supplies, slaves, and railroads. Democratic leaders earlier in the war like McClellan did nothing to destroy the South’s economy. Those generals were not against slavery, but only wanted to hold the Union together. If Grant had not won, the battle of Vicksburg it would not have split the South shrinking the size of the Confederacy by knocking out states. The South would not have been opened to become ravished by Sherman and his army. If the North did not win the battle of Gettysburg it would have split the North and a victory might have been possible for the South. Furthermore, the South really did not have to win, they just had to not loose since lowered morale of the war in the North. Public opinion puts pressure on Democrats to stop the war. “Democrats were labeling the Republican administration a “reign of terror” and denouncing as unconstitutional Republican policies expanding federal power, subsidizing private business, and emancipating the …show more content…
Jefferson Davis’s poor leadership or insubordination to work together with his generals, the South’s failure to gain, England and France’s support to their cause, morale of the South towards the war 's end and the Norths superior resources made the outcome inevitable. The Civil War was a trying time for both the South and the North, but the signs of the South’s outcome were obvious from its beginning. The North won decisive victories over the ill equipped south. Northerners experienced an enormous industrial boom rather than facing difficulties of war. To the South it was debilitating and draining like a leech sucking the land dry of economic hardships. The debate on the Civil War 's outcome will always be full of “what ifs?” and so on any comprise to be reached. “In less than two years, Lee handed his sword to Ulysses S. Grant at Appomattox. The day after he surrendered, the Confederate general offered this explanation: “After four years of arduous service marked by unsurpassed courage and fortitude, the Army of Northern Virginia has been compelled to yield to overwhelming numbers and resources.” (P. 284