https://padlet.com/markiewicz/tecl652iytel What are some commonalities you can identify in the reasons for the results of the battles? Double click below and type your name into the "title" area and then type your response. Drag it under the side that you feel it addresses. en-us 2017-03-14 13:46:46 UTC 2017-04-05 02:36:22 UTC hello@padlet.com markiewicz https://padlet.com/markiewicz/tecl652iytel/wish/164302590 2017-04-03 12:18:59 UTC https://padlet.com/markiewicz/tecl652iytel/wish/164302590 markiewicz https://padlet.com/markiewicz/tecl652iytel/wish/164302629 2017-04-03 12:19:08 UTC https://padlet.com/markiewicz/tecl652iytel/wish/164302629 markiewicz https://padlet.com/markiewicz/tecl652iytel/wish/164302662 2017-04-03 12:19:18 UTC https://padlet.com/markiewicz/tecl652iytel/wish/164302662 133725 https://padlet.com/markiewicz/tecl652iytel/wish/164428636 The Confederacy had much more superior military leadership. They had the military's best leader, Robert E. Lee. The Union however, did not as Lincoln changed military leaders. George McClellan is a perfect example, as he hired and fired him 2 times, which isn't very good. There was an opportunity to chase Lee whenever they retreated, however McClellan didn't pursue which further proves the poor leadership of the Union. This would have ended the war much sooner, if they would have pursued and killed Lee, there best military leader.]]> 2017-04-03 17:53:26 UTC https://padlet.com/markiewicz/tecl652iytel/wish/164428636 140826 https://padlet.com/markiewicz/tecl652iytel/wish/164429463 The Confederacy had better generals like Stonewall Jackson than the North. Lincoln changed his generals a lot while Robert Lee kept the same generals.]]> 2017-04-03 17:55:40 UTC https://padlet.com/markiewicz/tecl652iytel/wish/164429463 brandom246 https://padlet.com/markiewicz/tecl652iytel/wish/164429644 The Union had an advantage from the fact that they could have a battle strategy and divide the South in half. Once they took Tennessee they split the South and won the war.]]> 2017-04-03 17:56:07 UTC https://padlet.com/markiewicz/tecl652iytel/wish/164429644 https://padlet.com/markiewicz/tecl652iytel/wish/164429757 The North often had faulty leaders leading to their often defeat, whereas in the South they had consistent strong leaders causing them to win. Even when the South was greatly outnumbered, they would still win due to their superior leadership. The south also had the same leaders/generals throughout the war which could have also contributed to their often success throughout the battles we have looked out. ]]> 2017-04-03 17:56:27 UTC https://padlet.com/markiewicz/tecl652iytel/wish/164429757 145481 https://padlet.com/markiewicz/tecl652iytel/wish/164429900 The Confederacy had far better military leadership like General Robert E. Lee while the Union was constantly replacing generals.]]> 2017-04-03 17:56:51 UTC https://padlet.com/markiewicz/tecl652iytel/wish/164429900 https://padlet.com/markiewicz/tecl652iytel/wish/164430612 The confederacy had an overall better strategy and better generals. In almost every battle that Robert E Lee fought in he won. The union had a weaker generals, and they were constantly being replaced by President Lincoln. The south was very organized and knew what they were doing.]]> 2017-04-03 17:58:49 UTC https://padlet.com/markiewicz/tecl652iytel/wish/164430612 https://padlet.com/markiewicz/tecl652iytel/wish/164430655 The south had more big named generals like Robert E. Lee who dominated much of the civil war while the north had a lot generals with less experience and this showed when the battles were done.]]> 2017-04-03 17:58:59 UTC https://padlet.com/markiewicz/tecl652iytel/wish/164430655 https://padlet.com/markiewicz/tecl652iytel/wish/164430670 In the battles we looked at, every time Lee was the commander, the Confederacy won the battle. This shows how having strong leadership allows for winning battles and untimely wars.]]> 2017-04-03 17:59:01 UTC https://padlet.com/markiewicz/tecl652iytel/wish/164430670 https://padlet.com/markiewicz/tecl652iytel/wish/164432644 I believe we see victories on both sides because they both had good reason and spirit they were fighting for. The South was fighting for their ideals and to break away from the Union. The North on the other hand was fighting to preserve their Union. These are both valued reasons that gave each side a reason to be fighting]]> 2017-04-03 18:04:18 UTC https://padlet.com/markiewicz/tecl652iytel/wish/164432644 https://padlet.com/markiewicz/tecl652iytel/wish/164433386 During the battles, the Union had the advantage of more resources than the South and more reinforcements, which often helped them win battles. Also, their navy was much stronger and could create the blockade that cut off the South's resources from Europe.]]> 2017-04-03 18:06:33 UTC https://padlet.com/markiewicz/tecl652iytel/wish/164433386 https://padlet.com/markiewicz/tecl652iytel/wish/164433954 The Union had more soldiers which helped with their war strategies. For example when the battles of Vicksburg and Gettysburg overlapped, the Union was able to split their forces and still have a strong enough army to win each battle. When the Confederate army was split, the forces were too weak to be effective. ]]> 2017-04-03 18:08:19 UTC https://padlet.com/markiewicz/tecl652iytel/wish/164433954 https://padlet.com/markiewicz/tecl652iytel/wish/164435055 Union had more soldiers.]]> 2017-04-03 18:11:26 UTC https://padlet.com/markiewicz/tecl652iytel/wish/164435055 https://padlet.com/markiewicz/tecl652iytel/wish/164435411 I noticed there were various instances where one side outnumbered the other, resulting in them being victorious. Effective leadership with Lee in the East and Grant in the west also proved beneficial.]]> 2017-04-03 18:12:22 UTC https://padlet.com/markiewicz/tecl652iytel/wish/164435411 https://padlet.com/markiewicz/tecl652iytel/wish/164464001  The confederacy won almost every battle that was commanded by Robert E Lee and Stonewall Jackson. It was shown that the South had better and stronger leaders than the Union and exceeded their battle strategies immensely. ]]> 2017-04-03 19:42:10 UTC https://padlet.com/markiewicz/tecl652iytel/wish/164464001 https://padlet.com/markiewicz/tecl652iytel/wish/164471043 Like in any war, both sides are going to have advantages and disadvantages to them. The north was supplied with thousands of men coming in from Europe and with the men that already lived there. They could afford to lose men easily because they would just replace them with the next wave of soldiers. However, the south did not have this luxury. They had limited men, but they had some of the best generals on their side, such as Robert E. Lee, who made it seem like their disadvantage in numbers was nothing compared to his skilled strategies. So for the north, their victories had to do with their numbers, but in the South, they were able to win with their skills. ]]> 2017-04-03 20:14:01 UTC https://padlet.com/markiewicz/tecl652iytel/wish/164471043 https://padlet.com/markiewicz/tecl652iytel/wish/164479585 One reason the south did something to effect their battle is that , they split their forces up. But they did that because they had a great leader with a good reputation, which was Grant. Another good leader was Lee and he and his army pushed away the Union from getting the capitol. ]]> 2017-04-03 21:03:13 UTC https://padlet.com/markiewicz/tecl652iytel/wish/164479585 https://padlet.com/markiewicz/tecl652iytel/wish/164489277 If analyzing the battles you can start to see the pattern of the south winning every battle with Robert E. Lee in command. The Union had larger forces but lacked a strong leader. So, this war came down to who was leading and making the decisions. Although, we do see numbers had a huge role in the result of the Civil War.]]> 2017-04-03 22:22:33 UTC https://padlet.com/markiewicz/tecl652iytel/wish/164489277 https://padlet.com/markiewicz/tecl652iytel/wish/164512837 I noticed that Robert E. Lee was the leader of many of the battles, while the leader for the Union kept changing. With the same leader, there will be similar war strategies. Also, this means that they think he is a good leader since they made him the leader of multiple battles. ]]> 2017-04-04 03:00:30 UTC https://padlet.com/markiewicz/tecl652iytel/wish/164512837 https://padlet.com/markiewicz/tecl652iytel/wish/164623555 The Confederacy more stable when it came to leaders. The Union had a couple occasions where they had to replace generals, like Burnsides, because if their incompetence. The Confederacy on the other hand had two great military leaders; Robert E. Lee and Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson]]> 2017-04-04 14:14:14 UTC https://padlet.com/markiewicz/tecl652iytel/wish/164623555 https://padlet.com/markiewicz/tecl652iytel/wish/164626798 I noticed that the generals in the north kept changing while most of the time the general in the south stayed the same. Whenever Lee was the commander of the army in the south the confederacy won. This proves that having a strong leader can ]]> 2017-04-04 14:22:59 UTC https://padlet.com/markiewicz/tecl652iytel/wish/164626798 markiewicz https://padlet.com/markiewicz/tecl652iytel/wish/164660850 2017-04-04 16:16:29 UTC https://padlet.com/markiewicz/tecl652iytel/wish/164660850 https://padlet.com/markiewicz/tecl652iytel/wish/164772563 The confederacy won most battles thanks to the general Robert E. Lee. The south had a better advantage when it came to battling because of all the skilled/talented generals they had. ]]> 2017-04-05 02:34:24 UTC https://padlet.com/markiewicz/tecl652iytel/wish/164772563