alliances (ACW)

• How did the South’s failure to secure an alliance have an impact?

  This was a significant factor in the South’s defeat, they could not compete with the North’s industrial capacity – if the South had secured an alliance with another strong industrial nation could they have sustained their war effort more effectively? Possibly. They tried eg they put an embargo on cotton in hopes it would force Britain + France into an agreement but instead it limited money coming in the South + angered Europeans
• Despite the South getting no alliance what did they get and what impact did it have?

  The only reason the war continued was because they secured European bonds and loans. British war material for the South extended the war by 2 years but overall Britain and Frances policy of neutrality benefitted the Union because they couldn’t support the South who still had slaves. Britain couldn’t recognise the South as an independent nation fro this reason, it meant it was unlikely they’d win, impacting the course of the war
• How big was the impact?

  Very big
• Evidence that the failure to obtain alliances weakened the South?

  • South sustained their war effort from 1861-65 despite facing many disadvantages – if they had help from another resourceful nation it would have clearly aided their cause
  • Jefferson Davis (President of the South) tried many times to secure the help of Britain, evidently, he understood the need for an alliance
  • South did secure some resources from Britain, with some historians arguing this allowed them to fight for a further two years. If they‘d secured a formal alliance surely they would have been able to continue their fight?
• What was the mistake of the South trying to get an alliance?

  They only stood to gain from an alliance but they harmed their own economy in the process while trying to get Britains help, which without it, meant they were unlikely to win. However the loans they got were vital to help the, continue fighting
• Why was it always unlikely that Britain’s ns France would form a formal alliance?

  France was preoccupied with Mexico and Britain dint wan to risk going to war with the USA, lose their grain resources or investments
• What other factors explain the defeat of south?

  • Lee said North secured victory due to them having ‘more men and more guns’
  • The North had many advantages – 2.5 times greater population, 3 times greater railway lines, and 9 times industrial production
  • Some Southern states did not offer their full, united support – disagreeing with conscription and taxes, whereas Lincoln was more able to unite his states
  • Unions strategy of using amended Anaconda Plan under Grant crucial for defeat- knew it was a war of attrition and he needed to wear them down. Shermans SE tactics crippled C’s economy
• How can Grants strategic vision be argued to explain the defeat of the south?

  His 2 main strategies involved relentless attacks on the south to drain manpower and an attack of homeland through ‘Shermans ‘March to the Sea’ which destroyed key supplies of food and cotton as well as beating down morale. Compared with Lee who although was a great leader continued to adopt traditional frontal assault tactics which led to high casualties that the South couldn’t sustain
• How might industrialisation been more important?

  War become more protracted. North had treble amount of railway track, 6x more factories, 10x production capacity
• How did the Norths population help?

  They had 1.5m soldiers vs South 750,000 . Only 8% conscripted because of enthusiasm eg 1st Minnesota regiment took 82% casulaties to maintain the important Union position at the top of a ridge outside Gettysburg