<p>Listen up, y’all! This is THE debate of the century, of the history of mankind! Which, North or South, was vastly superior, regardless of who won the war?
DISCUSS which division was best. From what I can tell on this message board, the confederates are outnumbered here as a vast majority of folks ascribe their homeland to the New England area. This is it, y’all! The north vs south debate of all time. WHO WAS THE BETTER? ARE YOU READY?!?! I SAID, ARE YOU READY?!?!?!?!?!</p>
<pre><code> GIT R’ DONE!!!
</code></pre>
<p>PS, I realize the north won, but lets discuss who truly was the superior army!</p>
<p>The South, in my opinion, had the superior Army…plus they were underfunded like a *****. Robert E. Lee made a bad mistake in Gettysburg that gave the North the upper hand.</p>
<pre><code> I agree! Lee did make a poor move at Gettysburg, but all around was a far superior general to Grant. Ullysess was nothing more than alcoholic who was poor at military decisions.
</code></pre>
<p>Hmmmm, no, had the south better supplies and railways, it would surely have crushed the neck of the Northern Army. The South, my friends, surely would have been superior.</p>
<p>Well you also have to take into account that Lee never really engaged with Grant…since Grant was busy invading the deep South, while Lee was potruding into the North most of the time.</p>
<p>MtL07- That is EXACTLY why I say the South had the better military. The North had more resources, and a better Navy…but the South still fought better than the North for the majority of the Civil War. The North didnt do such a good job on blockade runners, especially with the British on the South’s side</p>
<p>@LEE Well judging by your SN im sure your not biased whatsoever. You’re also totally wrong on bother of those statements. Union had superior factories and trading, their navy disrupted any outside aid the south was trying to get. The simple fact is, the union was stronger, although the south may have had some good generals, they made some stupid moves which hastened their inevitable defeat</p>
<p>I’m not really sure who had the superior army and generals. Of course the north had more casualities simply because it is harder to invade than defend as the South was doing. The South won many little battles and skirmishes, but the fact is the Union came through when it mattered.</p>
<p>I mean…the original question asked who was VASTLY superior…the South wasnt VASTLY superior. I believe its military was better than the North in terms of victories and such. The Union was a Stronger force, but its military was definitely lacking…mostly in leadership</p>
<p>Stonewall Jackson and Nathan Bedford Forest were great generals along with Lee…Sherman was aight I guess, he’s more remembered for what he did after the war</p>
<p>What? Why, had the south won, America would have been a Utopia. I concur, however, that the North had much better supplies; but, the south held its own despite the circumstances. Golly, many southern soldiers hadn’t any shoes. See what I mean?</p>
<p>If the South had won, slaveholders would have continued to rent the slaves out to build the rest of the West. Asians and Blacks would have been the prime source of cheap labour and their services would have been used more to build railroads, work as blacksmiths, etc. . The working class of White America would have trouble competing for jobs. (Probably the reason why the southern soldiers didn’t have shoes.) In the end, America would not be a Utopia because 1.There would be a great loss in opportunity to improve social status, 2. The wealthy would get richer and big business would have a greater hold on the little guy.</p>
<p>Well, the South had alot of slaves. If they had fought for the confederacy instead of going to the union side, perhaps the extra man power would have won them the war.</p>
<p>The South was blocaded. You couldn’t pee in the gulf of mexico without the Union navy knowing it.</p>
<p>The whole slavery thing turned European countries off. England wanted more than anything to crush the up-start Yanks for beating them in the Revolutionary war and in 1812, but England had already abolished slavery, and Lincoln made that a main point in his war effort, so they couldn’t aid the confederacy and save face.</p>
<p>What was Lee doing going into Pennsylvania anyway? All he had to do was keep the Union out. The Union needed to fight a war of conquest, the Confederacy just needed to play defese to win.</p>
<p>It wasn’t Grant that beat the south, it was Sherman. That guy literaly tore the South into itty bitty little pieces.</p>
<p>And no, we would not be better off if the south had won. Seperation didn’t work for Germany, Vietnam, or Korea. More wars would have been fought over the western part of the continent, and of course, slavery would have continued.</p>
<p>Interesting fact: Mississippi actually had a african-american speaker of the house not long after the civil war, but as soon as union forces pulled out after reconstruction was “finished”, blacks got killed for voting, Jim Crow laws took into effect, and the rest we are still paying for to this day.</p>
<p>Honestly, had the south won, it would have been a matter of time before slavery were to be abolished. Seriously, it would have been inevitable, y’all!</p>
<pre><code> Sherman was nothing more than a barbarian. He didn’t FIGHT the southern military, but fought the innocent, unprotected families and farms of the south. Yeah, Sherman was sure a military man. He could sure fight those helpless farmers, women, and children. Sherman, the general that fought the helpless, not the military.
The yankees were quite kind to us southerners during the Reconstruction Period. Marshall Law is loads of fun. Just another way for the north to slap us in the face for "rebelling"
<p>The South would have won but they played a defensive war. had they decided to march on Washington they could have easily at least twice when the North was weak.</p>