American Military History

Student’s Name

Institutional Affiliation

American Military History

1. Discuss the effectiveness of the confederate blockade runners and why they were able to sustain the confederacy until late in the civil war

The confederate blockade runners were effective for a number of reasons. One of them is that they built a Navy in the British vessels. The main aim of using the navy was because the British constantly used ships to transport supplies to various locations. The blockade-runners needed to take advantage of these routes if they had to be ahead of the British soldiers. This was one of the strategies that helped the Americans succeed late into the civil war. Using this strategies, the British people were unable to take hold of the navy waters and therefore had no way to win against the Americans. Another tactic that was used by the confederate blockade runners was fighting with the equipment that were being smuggled through the union blockade. These two tactics meant that the British ships and the officials that were British were sufficiently strained. The strain that they had made each easier for the American confederate blockade runners to go on with their missions (Carrol, 2010).

In addition to these, American confederates has officials in key British cities such as Liverpool and Bermuda. The aim of these was to make sure that the British did not build anything that could have helped them overcome the blockade. Eventually, the American blockade succeeded late into the civil war. There were a few things that made it effective. One was the fact that until later, the British people considered the Americans to be the enemy. However, much later, they needed the Americans as allies as there was a worldwide tension. They therefore had to find ways for the previously distracting confederate blockades to be avoided and shunned. The Americans and the British people and soldiers later united during the end of the civil war, and at around this time, the confederate blockades were defeated (Carrol, 2010).

2. Bases upon the reading by Neely (2004) would you say the civil war was a total war? Why or Why not

The civil war according to Neely was defined as a total war by some. This was because for the war to end, the conditions given were supposed to be fully unconditional. However, this did not happen. There were some conditions that were given by some of the people who wanted to end the war. By default, these conditions made the war to not be a total war. However, Neely explains that the term is a loose term. This means that after the second world war, the term meant attacking the economic resources of the enemy and not just the army. Based on this definition, the second world war would qualify as a total war. However, the civil war would not. The second world war had all the citizens of the countries involved in the war in a total state of alertness and war (Neely, 2004).

In the modern post world war II era. Sometimes the civil war may be regarded as a total war. During these times, it is often considered the first total war that ever was. However, the war was not completely a total war even then. The concept of modernity is also not very important when it comes to military history. This is because all the wars that have been fought using fire arms throughout history are thought to be modern wars by the people who fought them. Excluding the concept of modernity from the equation therefore makes the civil war become not a total war. Based on the two concepts explained above, the civil war was not a total war for two reasons. It did not involve an attack on the economic resources and it is not a completely modern war (Neely, 2004). Additionally, the people who consider the civil war to be a complete war do not mean that in the literal sense. 

References

Carrol, F. M . (2010)Diplomats and the Civil war at Sea. Canadian Review of American studies vol 40. NO. 1 pp 117-130

Neely, M. E (2004) Was the Civil war a Total war  Civil war History Vol 50. No. 4 pp434-458.