The CSA could have won the Civil War (2)

A theoretical historical debate is almost always fun and I have thoroughly enjoyed this debate. For that, I thank you. To provide a roadmap of the final posting: I'm first going to go over his rebuttals. I'm next going to rebuild my own case, if necessary. And finally, I'll clarify the debate today and show the framework for voting. Looking over his rebuttals: " If you looks at some northern campaign you can see there plan was not to free slaves during the war but to take on key goals. " - Actually, the entire reason the North went to war was to abolish slavery. It was serendipitous that the North that the North effectively annihilated the foundation of the Southern economic machine. The North's plan was two-part, 1) Abolish Slavery. 2) Destroy Confederacy by taking down their economy. They accomplished both goals. "Despite the CSA losing the war, several battles such as Cold Harbor prove that there is more to war than numbers. Grant outnumbered Lee at least 2-to-1 and yet he still lost. " -There is obviously more to war than simple numbers. However, the North had the manpower and almost every other factor working for them. If you read Sun Tzu's "The Art of War", a numerical advantage is imperative to victory. The South lacked the manpower necessary to continue the war. Look to my . http://www.fasttrackteaching.com... evidence. My opponent goes on to say "If casualties started to heavily mount up then those 4 million men will be surely reduced which means more men from the workforce that are not of the combat age would have to fight and those militias would probably not do as good as regular troops. "- That is not correct at all, look at the figures. The North had 23 million people, the South only had 5 million people. The population and numerical advantages once again go to the North. The North had the ability to replace the fallen, whereas the South did not. "If the south adopted a hit and run mentality then those big Union armies would not stand a chance. " - The infrastructure of the South and the size of the armies did not allow or a "hit and run mentality". "If the South focused on their defense to cause more defeats to the Union then Lincoln would probably be voted out of office in 1864. "- For the most part, the majority of the entire Civil War was fought on Southern territory, particularly the war in the Western areas. It was a defensive war, and the North continued to win for above reasons. "If they could not do anything but a static defense then why were they able to mount assaults on the North? "- Well, I'll answer your question, the North had the infrastructure. As time went on in the war, the South's initial advantages were soon discounted and the North's overbearing industrial strength became more and more of a deciding factor in the war. "You take the advantage away from a larger army by staying in the mountains. "- Yes, but both sides had big armies, it would have been illogical for the South to adopt a million man "in the trees" approach. "Also since the South was very able to mount assaults on Union land what if they won at Gettysburg? Then the South would have the opportunity to move north onto heavily industrial places that were vital to the Union. " - Even if the South had won at Gettysburg, the longer the war went on the South would have found themselves more and more financially unable to continue the war effort. The South lacked the finances, the economy, and the industrial power necessary to continue a strong war effort for any longer than a year or two. That is why the majority of the South's victories were in the first part of the war. The South did not have the opportunity to go toward the industrial centers as they would've quickly ran out of resources and the areas to the North were heavily defended. Onto my own points: My opponent has failed to argue against the foundation of my points today. 1) The South lacked the economic ability. The simple fact of the matter is, industrial prowess played a huge role in deciding the ultimate victor. The Southern economy was plagued with lack of exports and imports, massive inflation, and massive chronic federal shortfalls. The South did not have any economic ability. The North on the other hand held such abilities. The North had the financial backing, the industrial backing, a population advantage, a logistical advantage, and nearly every other advantage. A Northern victory was almost inevitable. 2) the South lacked the resources. Look to my Sherman evidence, the South did not have the industrial capacity to carry on a war effort or be self-sufficient in terms of producing essential war materials. Furthermore, the South was grossly outnumbered. Though my opponent has pointed out numbers aren't everything, and indeed they aren't everything, they play a deciding role in the outcome of nearly every engagement. The North outnumbered the South almost 5 to 1. Finally, let's look at the entirety of the debate today. Only a negative ballot is possible, my opponent has failed to disprove any of my evidence regarding the technical, population, or industrial advantages of the north. My Opponent had to prove the South could have won, but I have proved that the Southern economy was grossly outmatched by the Northern economic machine. Naturally, I urge all voters to take into consideration everything that has been said in today's debate and look at the entire picture. Thanks again to my opponent for the historical debate. Thank you, and I urge a negative ballot in today's debate.