The Confederates were much better than the Yankees

"Attack Point 1: Most Confederate Generals were A LOT better than most Union Generals."The thing is it doesn't matter if you have a better economy (more money = yo can pay for the war longer), have a smaller populaiton that limits the size of your armies, and e unio just had a better army. The political, economic, and military strength of the Union was much greater than that of the Confederacy. [1](cp'd from the source) Although each side had its share of military successes, in the end, the superior Northern economy, centralized government and overwhelming manpower would eventually lead to victory. In mid 1863, both the Union and the Confederacy could have won the war although; the Confederacy lacked the industry, or manpower to wage a long war with the Union. [1]also c/p'd. So the confederates COULD not have gone through a long term war. So yes your army had beter generals but had no chance as they lacked reasources. "Attack Point 2: Confederate Soliders were A LOT better fighters than Yankee Soldiers." "With a larger population, the Union could, of course, have a larger army. More people could work in factories to produce war materials. This advantage became very important towards the end of the war". [2](3rd post his words)The union soldiers where well equiped [3]The confederate soldiers where less eguiped and poorly funded [4]They won those battles not because of training or equipment, but rather the generals. Also let's look at morale:First, of the South's nine million people, four million were African Americans, who expressed little voluntary support for the Confederacy and instead sided strongly with the Union. Second, the pressures of war created great hardship for Southern civilians and this hardship depressed the morale of many. [5]Their morale was lower (citizen wise). ACTUALLY THE AMOUNT OF MAJOR BATTLES WON OR LOST IS TIED (4 VS 4) THIS IS MAJOR BATLES NOT MINOR ONES. [6]Also if you look at the overall battles list the Union wins more. So how does the south fight better if they lose more?"Attack Point 3: The War lasted A LOT longer than the Yankees were expecting."They still lost. "Attack Point 4: The War could have been A LOT longer."You yourself concede the north still may have lost. Also key word, you said could have. So sure it could have but did it? no. "Response Point 1: The North only won the war because of a few costly mistakes by the Confederacy."You might as well have conceded. The resolution is the confederates where better. The BOP technically falls on you for most of this. Also the confederate mistakes = they lose = they are worse. If you said union mistakes but they overcame then it would be a good argument. But the funny thing is you concede the south had MAJOR mistakes hence they lost. "And from a military school which taught me that to fit into society, you can't just do anything you damn well please because it will suit you. And that it's much better to be with the winners than it is with the losers. " Sam Donaldson Read more: http://www.brainyquote.com... "Response Point 2: The North or South couldn't help this. They did not get higher population by working for it."In war you can't fix things, you either have it or you do not. Population was a big issue. A small country will most likely lose as it cannot make large armies. Also you say the amout of populaiton size didn't matter as both had = amount working for them, false: The Union Army had more than 2,210,000 personnel vs the south had somewhere between 750,000 and 1,000,000 personnel [7] This source is usually not credible but that asswer had sources, making it as credible as us. That disproves your argument. The population makes them better as you have twice the amount of people that you can throw on the feild. "Response to Point 3: Again, neither side could "really" help this. " Once again it doesn't matter if you can help it or not. It is you either have an edge or you don't. Having a worse economy means less money, lesmoney means you can't pay for it. So you have it or you dont, you conceded this to me. Having a good economy is good in war. Having less money and a less diverse economy is a geniune disadvantage in war. Russia collapsed as their economy couldn't handel the arms race, our diverse and large economy carried the day. Simir factors apply here. "Response to Point 4: Again, a cause of the industrialization of the North." You conceded that too. Having a whole branch of military at a disadvantage is bad. Also you prove my economic arguement here. You haven't refuted this, you just said "well we had a bad economy so..." So yes my argument is a HUGE advantage to me. and you just say nothing. Haing a bad navy is bad, blaming it on the indstrialization isn't good either, therefore this disadvantage stands. "Response to Point 6: The Confederacy could have won with some smarter moves at the beginning" The thing is they didn't. sorry. But basically, the North had the population, the manufacturing, the ability to produce division after division of soldiers, are them, and manufacture fleets of ships to blockade the South. The South just didn't have the necessary means for waging a protracted war. [8] c/p'd 2nd answer Also name some ways tey could have won early on, their blockades stunted economic growth, their poor economy = less money, 4/9 people where slaves that where unwilling to fight, and their population was to small to make a large army. The south would throw 100,000 in the north early on (what you imply) the north wou recruit 200,000 troops defend, with a 2/1 advantag (plus the defense and home feild advantage) pushed them back. Example seen in gettysburg. The south could not have won. my opponent has failed to refute my case and just conceded it to me. He also claims my arguments are not related to war yet all of what I mentioned had a drastic effect. Also their proslavery stance was unpopular even in some of the south, that would have (and did) lead to political unrest. SO ll of my arguments still stand and are related. I urge you to vote con as I have refuted his points and mine still stand and are supported with facts. VOTE CON! Sources:http://americancivilwar.com... [1]http://www.enotes.com... [2]http://www.civilwarsoldier.com... [3]http://www.civilwarsoldier.com... [4]http://encyclopediavirginia.org... [5]http://en.wikipedia.org... [6]http://answers.yahoo.com... [7]http://answers.yahoo.com... [8]