4 ms·
The Union had a much larger population, far more resources, and almost all of the divided nation's industrial production capacity. In most cases, it's factors l
by c5karl 3y ago
The Union had a much larger population, far more resources, and almost all of the divided nation's industrial production capacity. In most cases, it's factors like those that determine the eventual victor in a war (see WWI and WWII for good examples of this).
But the weaker party doesn't need to defeat the stronger one. They just need to make the cost of the war greater than the price the stronger side is willing to pay. That's how the USA won its independence from Britain, after all. Part of what made the price too high in that case was assistance from the French (it was the French navy, not Washington's army, that sealed the victory in Yorktown, for example).
The leadership of the Confederacy was well aware of this and had diplomats all across Europe seeking help for their cause. If they had succeeded, history might have taken a very different turn.
A good book about Union efforts to keep Britain and other European powers out of the war: Our Man in Charleston, by Christopher Dickey.
- bee_rider 3y agoThe British/US comparison seems a bit hard to line up, though. The British Empire had a whole planet to keep an eye on, losing in NA was of course not what they wanted, but it wasn’t existential or anything. America was a far away colony for them, long way to go to hold on to, basically, a resource extraction colony. The US was a lot more motivated to take the South back. It is a big border, right near our population centers, far too risky to have a hostile country there. If, like, Wales had tried the same strategy as America, I bet they wouldn’t have beat the English.