Home Debates The South Should Have Beaten The North To A Pulp In The Civil War...
The South Should Have Beaten The North To A Pulp In The Civil War.
For
We All Know That The North Won The Civil War, But The South Had The Better Leadership Skills. They Were Also Fighting For A VERY Good Cause. Given The Right Circumstances, The South Should Have Won The Civil War.
by Wiz_kid  Wiz_kid
 10 May 2008 17:57  
Against
 I think they could have but didn't want to use nuclear arms on them.
 08 Jun 2008 20:37
by Bwtsrl  Bwtsrl
 I have a feeling that if they were in charge of the industrial and had better access to supplies they would of won.
 17 May 2008 08:24
by Gaseater78  Gaseater78
 I'm for it but I would rather not have another Civil War.
~Stacie~
 19 Oct 2008 05:26
by Joshluver  Joshluver
 I'm from the north but live now in the South. The North had their butts handed to them the 1st 2 years of the war. Only attrition and lack of industrial might lost it for the South. The South sent their best to fight ( Dr's, Lawyers, teachers etc. Because they believed in their cause. The Northerners on the other hand could buy their way out of service. They'd pay an immigrant a few hundred dollars to take their place. When the war was over the South had few able men to contribute to the rebuilding. They now became the slaves to the North---thus the continued distrust of Yankees. With an even playing field The South should have won.
 04 Jul 2008 15:22
by Lancer3601  Lancer3601
 The South still can beat the North to a pulp. It's high time for another secession. Only this time I hope Nevada sides with the CSA.
 28 Jun 2008 20:53
by Guest  Guest
 The south was right in what they did. They are the real US. Look at the strong central government we have today. This is wrong.
 16 Jun 2008 16:05
by Mo1821  Mo1821
 The North had control of the industry, I think the only way for them to win was to have God on their side. They were very close to winning in a couple of battles which would have turned the war, but it was not in the cards.
 11 May 2008 03:30
by Coantman  Coantman
 Why allow a few of the souther states to pull out of the union, after we fought so hard to create a union! What kind of message would that have sent to Britain and King George etc. Not a message of unity, that is for sure, leaving us vulnerable to another raid from Britain
 19 Aug 2008 00:33
by Blondiemom  Blondiemom
 The main cause od the Civil War was states rights, not slavery. President Lincoln was willing to trade slavery for peace, but not states rights. States rights would have ruined this country. The South lost the war at the Battle of Gettysburg. Darkness is what helped the North. The North was losing the battle when darkness arrived. The South decided not to continue the battle in darkness. Had they kept on going, we would all be talking with a southern accent.
 25 May 2008 01:47
by Pusspuss  Pusspuss
 Though the South had superior military leaders, they never could've won against the North industrial might. The North beat the South to a pulp!
 17 May 2008 17:15
by Jcatgrl  Jcatgrl
 It was never going to happen! The economics of War stood the test. Agriculture against technology? No Contest.
 17 May 2008 16:04
by Pencil  Pencil
 Doesn't that mean it could be possible to still have slavery? If so there is no way they should have. Slavery is unfair and racist!
 11 May 2008 00:42
by Hellopeopl  Hellopeopl
How Many Losses Were Taken By Both Sides At The Attack In Shiloh?
What Is The American Civil War?
How Many States Were In The Union During The Emancipation Proclamation?
How Many Black Soldiers Were Put In Southern Prisons At The End Of The American Civil War?
What Was Lincoln's Position On The Emancipation Of Slaves At The Beginning Of The American Civil War...
 
 

Ask a Question via Twitter

Send a question to @askblurtit and we will publish it online and send you a reply everytime you receive an answer.

Blurtit Store

Get T-shirts, hoodies, caps and more at the Blurtit store

Blurtit International