this could not be the reason either because the same was true during the Revolution, but the fight for independence in the 18th Century was a successful fight. So why couldnt this fight be one?Freehling looks at the economical factors of the Confederacy during the war to explain that the home front was not able to withstand the hard times so therefore it flowed into the cause on the battlefield. With many of the plantation owners gone, the wives were left to control the plantation and the slaves. These slaves ran away leaving the fields unworked and soldiers and families hungry. Also the railroads were being destroyed in the west and by Shermans March to Sea. Already plagued with low sources of food, the ability to move food to troops was virtually impossible. Freehling believes that military outcomes formed social outcomes (Freehling, 221). I disagree here with Freehling because everything he talks about seems to go the opposite way. Slave desertion, lack of food, and railroad devastation were social outcomes but they were the cause, and the battles were the effect. The feelings at home spilled onto the battlefield. Why put so much emphasis on circumstances that are obviously spurred on by what is going on at home. Both McPherson and Freehling both state issues that could be reasons for the loss of the Confederacy, but in the next sentence after they state a cause, they negate it with why that could not be true. McPherson talks about Lincoln and his re-election and his role as the Union president versus the Confederate president, Davis. Then Davis could have gone done in history as the next George Washington (McPherson, 39). Lincoln did win and he was the better commander-in-chief than Davis was. It is impossible to add this to a possible cause for war, because it did not happen. As a reader, there is no need for the writer to add this in because it did not happen. Also, he discussed the re-election of Lincoln. ...
