Who won? The South or the North?

Shadownexius

Student
S
Joined
Nov 7, 2005
Messages
38
History records that the North won the civil war in America, but is this really the case? The South had the advantage of better weapons, while the North had the advantage of larger land mass; in turn the South would not have the man power to cover that much terroritory and their supplies would deminish equally as fast as the north, which lacked the technology to take the South. So in your opinion who really won the Civil war?
 
Shadownexius said:
History records that the North won the civil war in America, but is this really the case? The South had the advantage of better weapons, while the North had the advantage of larger land mass; in turn the South would not have the man power to cover that much terroritory and their supplies would deminish equally as fast as the north, which lacked the technology to take the South. So in your opinion who really won the Civil war?
Click to expand...

Hmmmm... well I would probably say... the North won the American Civil War. I'd base that judgement mainly on the 1865 Surrender at Appomattox where the South surrendered to the North. I even have a link to prove my claim:

http://www.civilwarhome.com/surrender.htm

But, I could be wrong.
 
The North won, the South may have won more battles but they surrendered.

I think I'm missing the point of your post.
 
Also missing the point of the post.

And for the record, I believe the south had the larger landmass, not the north.

Regarding quality of weapons, I think that is quite arguable, too.

I saw a study once which calculated the average amount of munitions (in weight) expended per casualty-inflicted. I don't remember the numbers (nor do I know if it was reliably done), but the south had a large advantage.

Still, the north won.

ETA: I recommend Columbia Games' Sam Grant and Bobby Lee for excellent boardgames, especially Sam Grant.
 
Last edited:
You mean all that belly-aching about "the lost cause" was mere propoganda to disguise the fact that the South surrendered to superior Northern forces and seemingly lost the battle of attrition, production and technology? Tricky bastards those Southerners....I think they had Grant completely foooled.
 
bob_kark said:
Hmmmm... well I would probably say... the North won the American Civil War. I'd base that judgement mainly on the 1865 Surrender at Appomattox where the South surrendered to the North. I even have a link to prove my claim:

http://www.civilwarhome.com/surrender.htm

But, I could be wrong.
Click to expand...

[Pedant] You are wrong. The Confederacy did not surrender at Appomattox Court House: General Lee surrendered the Army of Northern Virginia. [/Pedant]
 
Where do the duly elected Senators and Representatives of the various states which belonged to the Confederacy all meet together?

In Washington, D.C., with the rest of the congressional representatives of the various states which belong to the United States.

Question answered.

(ETA: The Union Forever!)
 
Last edited:
Well considering the goal of the south was to secede from the union and form a 'Confederate States of America' and (last I looked) all of the former Confederate states are still part of the US, I think its safe to say the North won the war.
 
The South won the war. I got Sylvia Brown to channel Jefferson Davis and he told me so...
 
Nick Bogaerts said:
[Pedant] You are wrong. The Confederacy did not surrender at Appomattox Court House: General Lee surrendered the Army of Northern Virginia. [/Pedant]
Click to expand...

Well, the South had already lost their capital of Richmond at the time and the majority of the confederate forces surrendered upon hearing that Lee surrendered. But, if it makes you feel better we can narrow it down between the Surrender at Appomattox, VA on April 7th, 1865 and the Surrender of General Stand Watie at Doakesville, OK on June 23, 1965. Either way, all of the Confederate troops had either surrendered by this point or run away to Mexico. Therefore, I think the North could, in good conscience, go ahead and declare victory.

ETA, not really 1965, 1865.
 
Last edited:
Like others, I'm not sure where you're going with this, but a couple of points.

Shadownexius said:
The South had the advantage of better weapons, while the North had the advantage of larger land mass;
Click to expand...

The South was basically agricultural while the Northern States were more indutrialized. Throughout the war the South suffered from lack of equipment while Northern industries turned out more than enough weapons. Much of the Southern forces were initially equipped from US Army depots seized at the start of war (i.e., Harpers Ferry) and later from material captured in battle.

As for land mass, it was fairly close to equal IIRC (if you count Texas). The South's advantage was shorter lines of communication/movement, which let them move troops quicker between theatres than the North.


in turn the South would not have the man power to cover that much terroritory and their supplies would deminish equally as fast as the north, which lacked the technology to take the South.
Click to expand...

Well, Southern strategy was never to invade and conquer the North, it was to hang on and force the Northern states to give up the attempt to 'conquer' them. So the South was in a defensive mode from the start. Even the invasions of the North by Lee and Bragg were designed to lead to a 'decisive battle' that would force the North to end the war, rather than to permanently take over territory.

And again, the North was Industrial and much more advanced in terms of technology than the South. That the South did as well as it did is due to mankinds ability to do much with little.

So in your opinion who really won the Civil war?
Click to expand...

I'd stake a small wager that the North did...:D :cool:
 
Bob, enjoyed the history lesson (the Civil War west of the Mississippi is pretty much unknown to many folks), but headscratcher and I were referring to the date
..and the Surrender of General Stand Watie at Doakesville, OK on June 23, 1965
Click to expand...

I mean, holding out for 100 years is really something...:D

PS--Just read your previous poist--Nevermind.
 
Hutch said:
bolding and italics mine--they really held out that long?!?! ;) :p :D
Click to expand...

I am impressed. Really impressed. I mean, even the last Japanese soldier surrendered 30 years after WW2...
 
Shadownexius said:
History records that the North won the Civil War in America, but is this really the case? The South had the advantage of better weapons, while the North had the advantage of larger land mass; in turn the South would not have the man power to cover that much terroritory and their supplies would deminish equally as fast as the north, which lacked the technology to take the South. So in your opinion who really won the Civil War?
Click to expand...

/Start Southern accent

Are you by any chance referring to the War Of Northern Agression?

/End
 
The Central Scrutinizer said:
Are you by any chance referring to the War Of Northern Agression?
Click to expand...

Hey, buddy. You lost. We get to name it whatever we want.

Like The War of Southern Intranasigence or something
 
Another rather large factor was that the North did a far better job of, y'know, feeding their troops. Hardtack and salt pork, but it's better than boiling leather.
 
ranson said:
Another rather large factor was that the North did a far better job of, y'know, feeding their troops. Hardtack and salt pork, but it's better than boiling leather.
Click to expand...

True. The South actually could have fed and clothed their armies adequately, but lacked the planning and transportation to effectively move the stuff to the locations the troops were at. And when the Norht destroyed infrastructure (like railroads), the South did not have the industrial capability to replace it.

Generals win battles, but Logistics wins wars. so sayeth Hutch (Logistics Management Specialist, GS-13)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom