How is this a question? There are countless accounts of the war and your question is designed to filter racist. What would you ask if the south had won?
Something to do with to much inbreeding too.
I think it had more too do with the fact that the south was almost entirely Agricultural rather than the Solid Manufacturing ba<x>se the north had. Plus the North had tons of railroad, way more people, Far more wealth, and economic strength.<br />
Once the North got their sh*t together after the first year the south never stood a chance. Even if the CSA had managed to hold the mason dixon and become their own country they didn't have the technology, ports, or infrastructure to survive on their own without trade with the north.<br />
Anyone who says otherwise is either lying or working off whitewashed/southern sources.
I didn't mean the south grew the nation's food, I meant the north's main economic strength was in manufacturing, trade, and innovation, compared to the south's heavy reliance on a slave labor based agricultural economy. That was my point.
That and the fact that they had less than ten percent of the nations rails didn't help either.
They were doomed even before corruption could set in. They were doomed by their agricultural economy.
I would say that it had more to do with the lack of supplies in general. Yes, there was corruption but that was on both sides. They were DANGEROUSLY close to winning the battle of Gettysburg and marching right into Washington. If they'd had the same supplies and manpower as the North they probably would have crushed them.<br />
Luckily that isn't how it played out.
Yes, that generally being my point that the South lost the war because they lacked supplies and men. I am well aware that the union army was much bigger however as you admit much of the Union army was out of position to defend at Gettysburg. Lee's troops came dangerously close to flanking the army at Little Round Top. There's no saying exactly WHAT would have happened had they been successful but if you look at the history of prior battles the union troops broke and fled many times when flanked or divided. If that had happened and the southern troops had moved quickly enough they could have taken Washington before the could swung the other armies up to have intercept them.
Did it happen? No. Would it have definitely have happened that way if the line had broke? Absolutely not. Is it possible? Yes, many historians have speculated on that being one of the most likely results had the South taken the hill at the battle of Gettysburg.
I don't think any one aspect is ever the cause of a defeat, but that probably contribute.<br />
and id say the cause of tht causenwas the deeply ingrained culturenof what I'd call economic and technical laziness as a result of an econmy ba<x>sed on slavery instead of innovation.<br />
I think at that time the north was automating with reapers as one example, producing many times the output of food and materiel what the south could hope to produce.
no but "its"*** corruption may have. God thwarts the plans of the wicked.
? So the NYC plane attackers werent wicked? Logiicfail
ultimately, He does, in my OPINION