The South vs. The South
William W. Freehling
1-How anti-Confederate Southerners determined the course/outcome of the civil war. Specific information was given by Freehlng to show how the anti-confederates southerners determined the course and outcome of the civil war. The information is discussed in the following paragraph. According to Freehling, the events beyond the battlefields partially determined military verdicts. Furthermore, home front and battlefront unveiled defining aspects of civil war. The division within the south also helped pave the path toward the war and also, the division among the southern and home front dissensions determined battlefield verdicts. The outcome of the war was the collapse of the confederacy that was caused by the defeat in the military sphere, rather than dissolution behind the lines. Anti-confederate southerners piled on psychological, economical and geographical burdens that ultimately helped flatten white confederate’s resiliency. President Abraham Lincoln’s statecrafts, the union’s anaconda military strategy, northern democrats and English men’s attitudes seemingly tangential matters bore vitally on southern anti-confederates capacity to influence the battlefields and to illuminate important characteristics of civil war. The tale of the southern house divided, highlights under appreciated gems of civil war lore, including revealing code words, colorful luminaries, key battles and vital military orders, this tells why the war came. In conclusion, the anti-confederate southerners in so many ways that are discussed in the paragraph above determined the course/outcome of the civil war.
2-North had the resources to win the war but the South had specific advantages that made it difficult to do so The North which had more men, more materials more sophisticated weapons to military points of contacts were thought to defeat the less well endowed foe but it was not accomplished because the south had advantages that made it difficult for the North to do so. The North also faced some difficulties that hurt them and on the other side helped the confederates. The difficulties and south’s advantages will be discussed in the paragraphs below according to how Freehling made account of it and to the way he illustrated it. The slave south’s land mass was as large as the Western Europe and it was ten percent more extensive than Northern land which required the Yankee troops to walk thousands of miles to storm hundreds fortification to make themselves seen farther from the North’s better railroads and factories. The rebels in terms of exploding railroad tunnels, torching railroad bridges, and twisting railroad tracks successfully used the irregular warfare. They threatened to cut-off invaders from the Yankee home base, isolate federals from enforcement, and also subject them to revenge of an enraged citizenry, wild to redeem heart and home from detected Yankees. The southern tinkers fashioned a sea monster from a buried corpse, they raised the USS Merrimack and shaped it like a barn roof with roof planted with irons and it became the world’s first ironclad, power-driven warship and renamed it the CSS Virginia which seemed a threat to sink the federals Atlantic fleet. The CSS Virginia sank two union wooden warships. The new rifle reduced the more industrialized north’s military advantage. Rifles could be mass-produced in the south, mass purchased in England and mass confiscated from Yankee corpses. The confederacy adequately possessed the new weapon that boosted undermanned defender’s power. In conclusion, with more railroad tracks, more ships, more firearms, more irons and more fighting men, it would have been thought that northerners should have easily crushed under industrialized, under populated southerners but with southerners advantages, it made it difficult for the northerners to win. This account will best fit the provide which says ‘Those with head doesn’t...
Cited: 1- Freehling, William. The south vs. the south How Anti-confederate Southerners Shaped The Course Of The Civil War. New York: Oxford University Press, Inc., 2001.
Please join StudyMode to read the full document