if the south had equal supplies

"The South Was Right." "The South would have won if it had equal supplies."

More myths from the Lost Cause?

No, I do not think the Confederacy, which was already well up the spout in 1863, would have won even if they had an equal number of supplies. They did not have an equal population. The North won not only because it supplied its armies better than the Confederacy did, but also the North had a navy, the North had superior military leadership, and after 1863 and the Emancipation Proclamation, the North had the moral right and the C. S. A. lost its chance at diplomatic recognition.

p.s. There are those who would like you to believe that Confederate Generals (P.G.T. Beauregard, Braxton Bragg, J.C. Breckinridge, William J. Hardee, John Bell Hood, Theophilus H. Holmes, Joe Johnston, Leonidas Polk, and Earl Van Dorn) were somehow "the best." They were not - they were all greater failures than Burnside, Hooker, and McClellan ever were!

Sorry, but this is actually an illogical question. If the South had had an equivalent population as the North, there likely would have been no Civil War to begin with. The South had seceeded largely over panic from the changing nature of the balance of power in the federal government. First, because of a smaller population (and thus much less pressure of settlers to the new territories to create new states) the South had lost the balance of votes in the House many decades earlier and much more recently in the Senate. In 1860, Lincoln had won the Presidency with NO electoral votes from ANY slave states. They figured that was two out of three branches lost, they had better get while the getting was good (before the North used its governmental power to cripple the South from within).

As to equal supplies, the South had always had the opportunity to match the North in manufacturing capacity, as the majority of investment in manufacturing in the North was from hard money earned by Southern exporters of cotton (they instead wanted to keep the South a largely agricultural economy to take advantage of its near monopoly of cotton in the world market). When the war began and the North instituted its blockade and Europe found alternative supplies of cotton, Jefferson Davis asked that Southern farmers change from cotton to food crops; the Confederate Congress attempted to impeach him.

Among the shortcomings of the south were of men and supplies. This is why the war took a lot longer than any one imagined. Certainly the innovators seemed to favor the south side. The whole of military tactics entirely changed as a result of of the American Civil War.

Eliminated entirely were the frontal assaults and men marching abreast in modern armies. From Cold Harbor (Union Armies marched headlong into entrenched soldiers) on military tactics changed for ever. This is why in WWI, it was largely a trench war. The major tactic was that each side would dig a trench longer than next guy...until the next guy was out of men...then just charge. They'll be nobody there, or thinly defended...just roll up the sides. Naturally, the machine gun and tank ruined that theory.

Would the South have won if men and supplies were equal? There is a distinct possibility. They were better led.

First, I'd just like to point out to MEG that they didn't have tanks at the time of the civil war. Next, I would like to inform her that a bunch of what happened in the civil war is why our military is so successful today, and we train our officers with those tactics in mind. Anyway I think not, the north won by attrtion. They would have just kept up their blockade and harrassing the supply lines and waited the south out, until they starved or gave up. Through blockades, and a general embargo of food stores and other supplies. The North's logistical raiding also played a part in shutting down the supply lines. There were also advances in technology and medicine that were prevalent to the northern army that played a major role in their victory. The south had organizational problems too, they had problems maintaining steady supplies of food, and it wasn't because the supplies were lacking. Things like these caused a lack of morale. Sherman had control of the entire division of the Mississippi. literally he had 3 Armies coming up the Mississippi delta, were talking 20,000 men. He directed them all, for what he seen fit. There was no general in the south who had that many men at his disposal.

Easy for the uninformed to spout the opinion of what is laid out in the textbooks. The point is, we don't ******* know what would have happened. What if the Europeans had supplied the South to the hilt? What if Lincoln was a cross-dresser? If the Confederate Generals were so poor, why did a great many of them teach at the academies? (Including in the North?)

There was no noble idea of morality then. The Yankees wanted to diminish the power that the planters yielded, bottom line. All the rest of you are full of it.

I'm glad the south did not win - so I never think about this.

Also, isn't this a ridiculous question? Why not say, "do you think the south could have won if they had sixteen men to one, one billion tanks, fifteen billion dollars in supplies, and an endless supply of medicine?"

It's likely that the superior organization, training of officers, and support from European nations would have seen the Union winning the war anyways, it would have just been longer and more bloody.

It's hard to say but I don't see why they would not. The south had the best generals.

If you look at the neo-con, christian, white, country-music loving stupidity that is rampant in modern America, you might argue that the South won in the end...

its done..dont matter no more. but still i think north would still beat their azzezz