back to top
|i agree with hellcat, the south lost the war because of lack of supply, which you could say was a direct result of the andaconda plan. But can anyone disagree that if the south had an equal footing in the war in reference to man power and supply that the war most likely would have sided with the south? The war lasted so long because the south had winning generals before the north did, at least in the east.
The east was the heart of both armies, you could destroy the rest of the body but the heart would continue to beat. By taking Richmond and destroying the ANV the north would have killed the confederacy almost immediately due to morale... and the same goes the other way around.