The CSA could have won the Civil War (2)

Second round, however, I can rebute. Rebuttals: 1. The South lacked the infrastructure to do anything but a static defense. You presumed that the South had a viable infrastructure system but the sad reality is that it was non-existent. According to Arturo Rivera, for AmericanCivilWar. com, "The South lacked the necessary industrial, and transportation infrastructure to wage an effective war. " 2. The South could not focus on simply "key areas". The South's entire economic machine was slave labor. Ergo, every part of frontier had to be protected in order to keep the economy going without allowing Union forces to penetrate the economic machine. Furthermore, the South lacked the manpower of the North to carry out an effective resistance. 3. Great Britain was barred from trading with the South. Trade would have included buying warships. The North also had financially isolated the South, barring it from "selling bonds to British aristocrats". Remember, E-Trade didn't exist in the 1860s, so digital transactions were impossible. 4. According to "AMericanCivilWar. com" the Union had 42 commissioned warships in April of 1861 whereas the South had none. The Southern Navy was entirely underprepared to take on the advanced and numerous Northern naval vessels. 5. Regardless of who started the war, the South's defeat was inevitable. 6. Again, the South lacked the infrastructure necessary to successfully move equipment from one place to another. 7. Due to the chronic deficit problems plaguing the Davis Administration throughout the war, the South would have been unable to allocate, much less gather, the supplies necessary to sustain Vicksburg for a year. 8. It's a funny thing about defense; the North tended to defend what was valuable. It would have been impossible for the South to attack a weakly defend and valuable Northern area for a simple fact, the North would have defended it making it "strong not weak". Rebuilding my own points: My opponent today has attempted to reason that the South already had some supply of weaponry. However that supply was simply not enough. According to Arturo Rivera, for AmericanCivilWar. com, "The south also lacked the factories and other facilities (ironworks, etc. ) to create cannons, rifles as well as other weapons". Their supply of weapons was too little to carry on any drawn out war. He went on to reason, that if the South had bought ships from Europe everything would have turned out differently. However, when looking at the actual timeline of events, the Northern blockade was in place long before a single ship could have been built to protect the South. Ships are not made overnight, they take months to build. Furthermore, my opponent fails to understand the significance of industrial power. Look back to my evidence from General William T. Sherman; it is quite clear that industrial power would ultimately be a deciding factor in the war. My opponent goes on to say "If the South had done a scorched earth policy, Sherman would have been in trouble", while that would have made it more difficult for Sherman, the South would have still lost thousands of acres of farmland, the basis of it's entire economy, rendering it weaker. My opponent goes on to say the Union would have been unable to create more supplies and replace casualties; however, this couldn't be farther from the truth. The Union actually had a huge numerical advantage over the South, a 23 million to 5 million ratio. While the South ran out of men, the North held a significant population advantage which would become a deciding factor. Taking a step back, let's clarify the debate this evening. My opponent has failed to take into consideration the absolute necessity of industrial power, which favored the North. The North held huge infrastructural, industrial, population, logistical and naval advantages over the South, which would ultimately lead the North to victory. Thank you.