是什么原因讓美國(guó)內(nèi)戰(zhàn)的勝利偏轉(zhuǎn)向北方？

oldcrowmedicine
The South never stood a chance. The North had money, population, a fucking navy, a broader transportation system, and money. Large swaths of the Northern population never even felt real danger. The war was entertainment. The South, on the other hand, starved and fled and watched their cities be torched.
There’s no way to put everything in this response (like the northern towns that were decimated from losing all their men in the beginning of the war, or the early southern victories that were products of northern hubris) but the short answer is the South was doomed from the beginning.

南方根本沒有機(jī)會(huì)打贏。北方有錢、有人口、有海軍、有全面的運(yùn)輸系統(tǒng)，重點(diǎn)是錢多。大部分北方人甚至都沒有感受到真正的危險(xiǎn)。戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)對(duì)他們來說就像個(gè)節(jié)目一樣。而南方那邊，他們挨餓、潰逃、眼睜睜地看著他們的城市被燒毀。
各種情況沒法一一列舉（比如在開戰(zhàn)之初，北方城鎮(zhèn)因?yàn)闆]人守而被摧毀，還有早期南方的勝利是北方過于傲慢的產(chǎn)物），但總而言之，南方從一開始就注定要輸。

UtzTheCrabChip
I'm saying very plainly that the Yankees are better equipped than we. They've got factories, shipyards, coalmines... and a fleet to bottle up our harbors and starve us to death. All we've got is cotton, and slaves and... arrogance.

我明說吧，北方佬的裝備比我們好。他們有工廠、船廠、煤礦，還有一支艦隊(duì)封鎖我們的港口，可以把我們餓死。而我們只有棉花、奴隸和……傲慢。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://www.mintwatchbillionaireclub.com 轉(zhuǎn)載請(qǐng)注明出處

H4SK1
Why did the South attack first though? Did they think they could win, or did they expect the European powers to intervene?

這樣的話南方為什么還要先發(fā)動(dòng)進(jìn)攻呢？他們是認(rèn)為他們能贏，還是指望歐洲強(qiáng)國(guó)會(huì)干涉？

UtzTheCrabChip
That's from Gone With the Wind and it was Rhett Butler speaking truth to all the other southern gentlemen. They thought a southern gentleman was worth 10 Yankees and they'll have this thing wrapped up in a couple of weeks

從《飄》里面和白瑞德對(duì)南方紳士說的話來看，他們認(rèn)為一個(gè)南方紳士可以頂十個(gè)北方佬，幾個(gè)星期之內(nèi)就可以把他們搞定。

no_we_in_bacon
From the southern perspective they were a separate country. They took over all of the federal buildings in their territory. Fort Sumter happened at the end of this takeover process, but they were unable to expel the unx from the fort. Their choice was a) let a “foreign” military have a fort in their country or b) kick them out with force as necessary. They chose b which meant they attacked first.
Yes, they thought they could win by waiting for the north to get tired of the war and give up.
Yes, they thought Europe would intervene, but that was unlikely in reality.

從南方的角度看，他們是一個(gè)獨(dú)立的國(guó)家。他們接管了他們領(lǐng)地上的所有聯(lián)邦建筑，接管薩姆特堡是在這個(gè)過程的最后階段，但他們無法將北方聯(lián)邦驅(qū)逐出薩姆特堡。他們的選擇是：a）讓一支“外國(guó)【北方】”軍隊(duì)在他們的國(guó)家擁有一個(gè)堡壘。b）必要時(shí)用武力將他們趕走。他們選擇了b，這意味著他們會(huì)先發(fā)動(dòng)進(jìn)攻。

jonahvsthewhale
Exactly. The only way the unx would have lost is if they had gotten tired of fighting or maybe if Great Britain had entered the war on the side of the south which was really a pipe dream

北方失敗的唯一可能，就是他們厭倦了戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)，或者大英帝國(guó)站在南方這邊對(duì)北方開戰(zhàn)，然而都是不可能的。

Damien__
The north also had the industry and infrastructure that the south didn't

北方有著南方?jīng)]有的工業(yè)和基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施。

MattJFarrell
The different forms of government, too. A centralized government has its drawbacks, but in wartime, you need a central authority making decisions.

政府的形式也不同。中央集權(quán)政府有它的缺點(diǎn)，但是在戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)時(shí)期，你需要中央政府來發(fā)號(hào)司令。

Chief1117
The war was entertainment? Are you serious? Nearly 4% of the population of the north was a casualty of the war. That’s a pretty significant number. That’s almost the same amount as who has had COVID in the US today and we all know someone with Covid at this point. The South never had the resources the north did but it wasn’t quite that simple. The North’s generals were not using these resources until Lincoln fired enough generals to get to Grant. Had Grant not eventually been given command there could have still been a small chance the South held their ground long enough for the North to lose public support and quit. Grant was the only one willing to truly fight a war of attrition.

“戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)對(duì)他們來說就像個(gè)節(jié)目一樣”？你是認(rèn)真的？北方近4%的人口在戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)中傷亡，這是個(gè)相當(dāng)龐大的數(shù)字。這和美國(guó)如今【一個(gè)月前】的新冠病例差不多，我們認(rèn)識(shí)的人里基本都有患病的。南方?jīng)]有北方那么多的資源，但也不是那么簡(jiǎn)單，因?yàn)楸狈降膶④妭儧]有使用這些資源，直到林肯撤掉很多將軍任命格蘭特為止。要是格蘭特沒有得到指揮權(quán)，南方還是有可能長(zhǎng)期守住陣地，直到北方失去公眾的支持而退出的可能性的。格蘭特是唯一一個(gè)愿意打消耗戰(zhàn)的人。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://www.mintwatchbillionaireclub.com 轉(zhuǎn)載請(qǐng)注明出處

zackdeblanc
The South had advantages of having to fight a defensive war, having (in some instances) better trained soldiers and having good generals. Some of the early Southern victories, like Bull Run and Charlottesville, were stunning southern victories due to generalmanship.
However, the North had many advantages. The North had a much larger population, plus a steady supply of European immigrants, which meant they could put more soldiers on the battlefield. The North also had more industry and a larger economy. The South may have been able to force a stalemate, especially if Gettysburg had gone differently, but they never could have decisively won the war.
A history professional (I took a class on the Civil War) once made the point that the South's best hope would have been to convince the North that the cost of victory was too high and that it just wasn't worth it.

南方的優(yōu)勢(shì)是打防御戰(zhàn)，擁有訓(xùn)練有素的士兵和優(yōu)秀的將軍。南方早期的一些勝利，如公牛河戰(zhàn)役和夏洛茨維爾戰(zhàn)役，都是在將軍們的才能下取得的絕妙勝利。
然而，北方有很多優(yōu)勢(shì)。北方的人口更多，加上歐洲移民的穩(wěn)定輸入，這意味著他們可以派更多的士兵上戰(zhàn)場(chǎng)。北方的工業(yè)和經(jīng)濟(jì)實(shí)力也更強(qiáng)。南方也許可以勉強(qiáng)打出個(gè)僵局，特別是如果葛底斯堡戰(zhàn)役結(jié)局不同的話更是如此，但他們不可能獲得決定性的勝利。
一位歷史專業(yè)人士曾經(jīng)指出，南方最大的指望是說服北方，說勝利的代價(jià)太高了，打仗不值得。

AgoraiosBum
Don't forget the biggest source of troops that the South couldn't use - black troops. 10% of the unx's troops at the end of the war were black.

別忘了，南方無法使用的最大兵源——黑人部隊(duì)。戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)結(jié)束時(shí)，北方10%的軍隊(duì)是黑人。

jakebandersen
I’ve seen a people saying the South were essentially doomed from the beginning. It’s not that simple. It’s important to understand the different victory conditions of the North versus South. The North essentially had to conquer and subdue the South in order to declare victory, as their role was essentially to crush a rebellion. If the South had to invade and conquer the North, then yes, they’d never stand a chance. But they didn’t. They only needed to be left alone. If the North lost the will to fight the war through enough losses and sued for peace, they could still have possible win a certain version of the peace they wanted. This was a particularly big problem in 1864 as the Democrats has grown increasingly opposed to the war. So while Vicksburg and Gettysburg are still probably the most important military turning points, but the the fall of Atlanta helped boost Lincoln’s chances for re-election and ensure that the unx could still wage war.

我看到有人說南方從一開始就注定完蛋，情況沒那么簡(jiǎn)單。很重要的一點(diǎn)是要了解南北雙方勝利條件的不同。北方必須征服并占領(lǐng)南方才能宣布勝利，因?yàn)樗麄兊慕巧且?zhèn)壓叛亂的。如果南方必須入侵然后征服北方才能宣布勝利，那么是的，他們永遠(yuǎn)沒有機(jī)會(huì)。但其實(shí)南方不必如此，他們守著就行了。如果北方由于損失太大而失去戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)的意愿，然后要求和平，那么南方仍有可能贏得某種形式的和平。在1864年，這尤其是一個(gè)大問題，因?yàn)槊裰鼽h人越來越反對(duì)戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)。因此，雖然維克斯堡戰(zhàn)役和葛底斯堡戰(zhàn)役仍然可能是最重要的軍事轉(zhuǎn)折點(diǎn)，但亞特蘭大陷落能增加林肯連任的機(jī)會(huì)，讓聯(lián)邦仍然可以發(fā)動(dòng)戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://www.mintwatchbillionaireclub.com 轉(zhuǎn)載請(qǐng)注明出處

Mr_Westerfield
As many people have pointed out, the North had a substantial advantage in men and material. But frankly we should be wary of carrying this to the assumption that the war was a foregone conclusion. Losers are often keen to frx their loss as a matter being overwhelmed, but many countries have faced steeper odds than the South and won. There were a lot of contingent factors, political, administrative, etc. where the North won because it did a better job. To name a few:
Better administration - The North was better at managing its resources, with an efficient system operating under a single quartermaster. By contrast, the south struggled with getting officers to do basic requisition work, and gradually wore out their rail networks through poor management
Better officer training - While the Southern officer corps is often portrayed as outclassing their Northern counterparts, the reality is very different. In truth, 82% of West Point graduates stuck with the north. Perhaps the south had a slight advantage with experienced officers at the outset, but in a war with a very high attrition rate this advantage was gradually worn down. The north had a system for replacing its officers, the south really didn’t

正如許多人所指出的那樣，北方在人力和物力方面有著巨大的優(yōu)勢(shì)。但坦率地說，我們應(yīng)該謹(jǐn)慎，不應(yīng)因?yàn)檫@點(diǎn)就假設(shè)戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)已成定局。失敗者往往熱衷于把他們的失敗歸咎于無法力敵，但許多國(guó)家曾面臨過比南方更險(xiǎn)峻的情況，最終還贏了。其中有很多偶然的因素，政治上的，行政上的，等等，而北方之所以贏了，是因?yàn)樗鼈冏龅酶?。舉幾個(gè)例子：
1、更好的管理——北方在管理資源方面做得更好，一個(gè)軍需官就能讓系統(tǒng)高效的運(yùn)行。相比之下，南方很難獲得足夠的軍官來做基本的征用工作，由于管理不善，他們的鐵路網(wǎng)也不堪重負(fù)。
2、更好的軍官培訓(xùn)——雖然南方軍官經(jīng)常被描繪得比北方的軍官?gòu)?qiáng)，但其實(shí)不然。事實(shí)上，82%的西點(diǎn)畢業(yè)生選擇北方。也許南方軍官在開戰(zhàn)之初有一點(diǎn)經(jīng)驗(yàn)優(yōu)勢(shì)，但在消耗率極高的戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)中，這種優(yōu)勢(shì)逐漸被削弱。北方有一套替換軍官的制度，而南方則沒有。

Better cohesion - The South was always riven by various internal tensions that undermined it. Slaves were a large population of potential spies and rebels, while poor whites were often alienate by the idea they were fighting for rich slave holders. And of course, the Confederated government and state’s rights always made coordination more difficult. Meanwhile, the North was able to work its diverse population into a pretty into an effective fighting force through good politicking, patronage, etc. The federal government and professional institutions also helped quite a lot
Better command structure - The North’s resources became most decisive when they were used in coordinated offensives, overcoming the south’s advantage with internal lines of communication. This was eventually enabled by a centralized, and relatively meritocratic, command under Grant. In the South, by contrast, command was centralized in the hands of Jefferson Davis, who had no coherent strategy and tended to promote personal favorites like Braxton Bragg.
Better diplomacy - Seward’s diplomatic strategy was ultimately effective in isolating the South, scaring off intervention while also giving just enough to avoid conflict. By contrast, the South’s over reliance on king cotton for leverage led them to overplay their hand and fail to make friends

3、更強(qiáng)的凝聚力——南方總是有各種各樣的沖突撕裂他們內(nèi)部，削弱他們的實(shí)力。奴隸是間諜和叛亂分子的溫床，而貧窮的白人常常被疏遠(yuǎn)，因?yàn)樗麄兪窃跒楦挥械呐`主而戰(zhàn)。當(dāng)然，聯(lián)邦政府和各州的權(quán)利讓協(xié)調(diào)變得很難。不過，北方能夠通過良好的政治活動(dòng)、贊助等手段將形形色色的人口整合成強(qiáng)大的戰(zhàn)斗力量，聯(lián)邦政府和專業(yè)機(jī)構(gòu)也起了相當(dāng)大的作用。
4、更好的指揮體系——當(dāng)北方的資源被用于協(xié)同進(jìn)攻時(shí)，他們的資源變得非常有決定性，用內(nèi)部通訊線路戰(zhàn)勝了南方的優(yōu)勢(shì)。這是在格蘭特領(lǐng)導(dǎo)下的、中央集權(quán)的和相對(duì)精英化的指揮下實(shí)現(xiàn)的。相比之下，在南方，指揮權(quán)集中在杰斐遜·戴維斯手中，他沒有連貫的戰(zhàn)略，而且傾向于提拔布拉克斯頓·布拉格這樣的個(gè)人親信。
5、更好的外交——蘇厄德的外交戰(zhàn)略最終有效地孤立了南方，嚇退了外部干涉，同時(shí)也付出足夠的代價(jià)來避免沖突。相比之下，南方過度依賴他們作為棉花王國(guó)的地位，手段用過頭而拉攏不到朋友。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://www.mintwatchbillionaireclub.com 轉(zhuǎn)載請(qǐng)注明出處

Sean951
Yes and no. I think of it as saying, from the outset, the South had a mountain of issues to overcome and it was unlikely to ever succeed.
It's the same narrative in WWII, Germany never had any real chance of final victory, but it still took years to muster the resources and get them in position for the Allies to win, and millions still had to die.

說得有對(duì)有錯(cuò)。南方從一開始就有眾多的問題無法克服，他們不可能獲得勝利。
二戰(zhàn)也是如此，德國(guó)沒有任何機(jī)會(huì)獲得最終的勝利，但盟軍要贏仍然花了幾年時(shí)間來聚集資源，讓它們就位，仍然有無數(shù)人死亡。

Mr_Westerfield
You're justifying one questionable assumption with another. There are lots of ways Germany could have won WWII. Yes, if you're taking the united and fully mobilized front of the US, UK and USSR as a given, then sure their advantage in men and material was quite substantial. But it wasn't a given. The British Empire could have destabilized. The Soviet government could have collapsed. The Soviets could have failed to rebuild the Red Army, or failed to evacuated their industrial base and logistical networks out of German reach. Or the Alliance between the Western Allies and the USSR could have broken down due to their many conflicting interests. And had any of those things happened, they would have seemed just as inevitable in retrospect.
My point here being that:
You can't just reduce history to a tale of tapes, because you never know which measures are going to prove decisive
Treating things as inevitable like this discounts the ingenuity and effort of the victors, while excusing the faults of the losers. Both the North and the Allies won because, ultimately, they planned for the war better, managed their resources better, and smoothed over their internal differences more effectively.

你在用一個(gè)有問題的假設(shè)來證明另一個(gè)有問題的假設(shè)。德國(guó)有很多種可能贏得二戰(zhàn)勝利。如果你把美國(guó)、英國(guó)和蘇聯(lián)的聯(lián)合和完全動(dòng)員作為一個(gè)既定條件，那么是的，他們?cè)谌藛T和物資方面的優(yōu)勢(shì)肯定是相當(dāng)大的，但這不是注定的。大英帝國(guó)可能會(huì)動(dòng)蕩，蘇聯(lián)政府可能會(huì)垮臺(tái)，蘇聯(lián)可能無法重建紅軍，或者沒能把他們的工業(yè)基地和后勤網(wǎng)絡(luò)撤離到德國(guó)人夠不到的地方?；蛘呶鞣矫塑姾吞K聯(lián)之間的聯(lián)盟可能會(huì)因?yàn)樗麄兊谋姸嗬鏇_突而破裂。如果這些事情發(fā)生了，它們?cè)诤笕嘶仡檿r(shí)，看起來就像是不可避免的似的。
我的觀點(diǎn)是：你不能把歷史簡(jiǎn)化成磁帶故事，因?yàn)槟悴恢滥男┮蛩乇蛔C明是具有決定性作用的。
像這樣把事情看成是不可避免的，會(huì)貶低勝利者的智慧和努力，淡化失敗者的錯(cuò)誤。北方和盟軍最終都取得了勝利，他們更好地為戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)做計(jì)劃，更好地管理資源，更有效地消除內(nèi)部分歧。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://www.mintwatchbillionaireclub.com 轉(zhuǎn)載請(qǐng)注明出處

fatmanrox67
My humble opinion is that what you said is basically true. The turning point to me was July3/July4, 1863 - victories at Gettysburg and Vicksburg by the North. The South (Lee) gambled on a win at Gettysburg in Northern territory being the victory that broke Lincoln's (and the Northern public's) resolve. Obviously that didn't happen, and the South lost too many men and too much materiel - they didn't have the resources to rebuild strength. Vicksburg gave the North virtually total control of the Mississippi River, which cut the Confederacy in half. Added to this, the North controlled most of the waters off the coastal South, so the South was very isolated.
The South could have won by breaking the resolve of the North, which they almost did. But winning Gettysburg/Vicksburg provided a morale boost among the troops for sure, and more importantly, among the citizenry. There's a lot more to the story, but those are the basics IMHO.

在我看來，轉(zhuǎn)折點(diǎn)是1863年7月3 -4日北方在葛底斯堡和維克斯堡的勝利。南方在葛底斯堡孤注一擲，認(rèn)為此戰(zhàn)勝利能夠打破林肯和北方民眾的信心。很明顯，這并沒有發(fā)生，而且南方還損失了太多的人員和物資——他們已經(jīng)沒有資源從新發(fā)展力量了。維克斯堡戰(zhàn)役讓北方幾乎完全控制了密西西比河，這條河將南方一分為二。此外，北方控制了南部沿海的大部分水域，因此南方陷入孤立。
南方本來是可以通過打破北方的信心獲勝的，他們幾乎做到了。但是北方贏得葛底斯堡和維克斯堡戰(zhàn)役無疑鼓舞了軍隊(duì)的士氣，更重要的是鼓舞了市民的士氣。能說的還有很多，但在我看來這些都是基本的東西。

Rook_Castle
Victory was always assured for the North. They had the numbers, hospitals, and supplies to keep going indefinitely.
The biggest risk was the South gaining international recognition from England if the war drug on too long.
I heard it said in Ken Burna documentary that the North had fought the war with one arm tied behind its back.

勝利必然是北方的。他們有足夠數(shù)量的醫(yī)院，有大量的物資可以無限期地供應(yīng)。
最大的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)是，如果戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)持續(xù)時(shí)間過長(zhǎng)，南方將獲得英國(guó)的國(guó)際承認(rèn)。
我在肯·伯納的紀(jì)錄片中聽到說，北方打仗的時(shí)候束手束腳的。

ArkyBeagle
Not necessarily. I'm no "lost causer" but the South just needed a draw, which is a more achievable target. The big monday-morning-quarterbacking criticism of Lee is that he fought for victory rather than a draw, especially by invading Pennsylvania.
Politically, Lincoln just got by on the skin of his teeth. The unx had leadership problems - Grant only got promoted late in 1863.
That being said - once Vicksburg and New Orleans were in unx hands, it was only a matter of time. But time was not something Lincoln really had.

未必。南方只要平局就行了，這是一個(gè)更容易實(shí)現(xiàn)的目標(biāo)。有很多對(duì)羅伯特李將軍的馬后炮批評(píng)，就認(rèn)為他是為了尋求勝利而不是平局，尤其是入侵賓夕法尼亞。
在政治上，林肯應(yīng)對(duì)得很勉強(qiáng)。北方的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)層存在問題，比如格蘭特直到1863年底才被提拔。
話雖如此，當(dāng)維克斯堡和新奧爾良落進(jìn)北方手里時(shí)，南方的失敗就只是時(shí)間問題了。但時(shí)間正式林肯急缺的東西。

EdisonDave
Short answer? The north had more money, more manufacturing, lots of soldiers and time on their side
The longer answer, is the very fun and complicated kind. Well it's true that the South had the majority of military leaders, the main reason they had so many early victories in the war, and using the "argument of states rights" to slowly rally support behind them from other countries. As well this was a pretty good rallying cry for their soldiers, which made them fight all the harder. But unfortunately, that's all they really had.
Well the major slave owners of the South were obscenely wealthy, that wasn't true of the economy of the south as a whole. In fact their whole economy revolved around cotton. And during the war, their main cash crop was almost impossible to sell, As they were at war with their most profitable market, And we're being barred off from any other profitable markets they could hope to make some much needed capital from thanks to the unxs stockade, the only way they could win the war is if they manage to end it quickly.

簡(jiǎn)單回答：北方有更多的錢、更多的制造業(yè)、更多的士兵，時(shí)間在他們這邊。
詳細(xì)的回答就比較有趣和復(fù)雜。南方確實(shí)擁有大多數(shù)的軍事將領(lǐng)，這是他們?cè)趹?zhàn)爭(zhēng)初期取得這么多勝利的主要原因，他們利用“州權(quán)之爭(zhēng)”慢慢地獲得其他國(guó)家支持。同時(shí)，這是對(duì)他們士兵相當(dāng)不錯(cuò)的戰(zhàn)斗口號(hào)，能讓士兵更奮力的戰(zhàn)斗。但不幸的是，他們的優(yōu)勢(shì)也就只有這些了。
南方大多奴隸主都非常富有，但這并不是南方經(jīng)濟(jì)的全部情況。事實(shí)上，他們的全部經(jīng)濟(jì)都是以棉花為中心的。在戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)期間，他們的主要經(jīng)濟(jì)作物幾乎無法出售，因?yàn)楸狈骄褪撬麄冏钯嶅X的市場(chǎng)，由于北方的封鎖，南方也無法進(jìn)入其他賺錢的市場(chǎng)，因此，他們贏得戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)的唯一方法就是盡快結(jié)束戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)。

However they were never going to be able to do this, thanks to the fact that they were dwarfed by the size of the Norths population/army (or rather, there free population were dwarfed), which is never a good sign when you're trying to invade/hold off against someone. They just couldn't hope to outlast the unx army, and they had no hope of beating them quickly enough. They couldn't even try and steamroll too the capital, as when they tried they were pushed back! Unlike the unx, Just look at Grant, that was his whole battle strategy, and he had the numbers to make it work.
On the other hand the unx army was at least double the confederates at any given time (Don't quote me on that I'm using numbers from my head), They had a good economy revolving around manufacturing, which was doubly good for helping to get supplies to their troops. And after Lincoln gave the Gettysburg address, They insured that no other country would try and help the Confederates thanks to their "particular institution" being seen as barbaric in most other countries, as well as giving themselves the moral high ground, and making it all the harder for the poor, beating, tired Southern soldier to try and keep fighting, as they couldn't argue that they were fighting for states' rights without also arguing that they were fighting for the very elite to be able to become richer.

然而，他們永遠(yuǎn)也做不到這一點(diǎn)，因?yàn)樗麄兊娜丝诤蛙婈?duì)規(guī)模與北方相差太大（或更確切地說，是自由人口相差太大），在戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)中，這可不是好事。他們不可能比北方軍堅(jiān)持得更久，也不可能快速擊敗他們。他們甚至無法快速攻占首都，因?yàn)楫?dāng)他們?cè)囍サ臅r(shí)候，他們被擊退了！北方與南方不同，看看格蘭特和他的全部作戰(zhàn)策略，他有足夠的人力和資源來實(shí)施。
另一方面，北方軍的數(shù)量至少是同時(shí)期南方軍的兩倍，他們經(jīng)濟(jì)實(shí)力強(qiáng)大，以制造業(yè)為中心，這在供應(yīng)軍隊(duì)方面擁有巨大的好處。在林肯發(fā)表葛底斯堡演說后，沒有其他國(guó)家會(huì)幫助南方了，因?yàn)樗麄兊摹疤厥鈾C(jī)構(gòu)”在多數(shù)國(guó)家被視為野蠻，讓北方戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)道德制高點(diǎn)，讓貧窮、挨打、疲憊不堪的南方士兵難以繼續(xù)奮力戰(zhàn)斗，因?yàn)樗麄儫o法再說服自己是在為各州權(quán)利而戰(zhàn)斗，也不能以為了讓精英集團(tuán)變得更富而戰(zhàn)來說服自己。

原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://www.mintwatchbillionaireclub.com 轉(zhuǎn)載請(qǐng)注明出處