The Confederates were much better than the Yankees

Ok. Maybe you do not grasp the concept tha you can have more people and a better economy, but that still does not necessarily mean that one is better than another. Response Point 1: One, you only said that the Confederates could not have won a long term war. That is true. But they could have beaten the Union until right before Pickett's Charge. If that charge had worked, the South probably would have won. And again, as stated for the third time, to be better does not mean that you have to have a better economy. We are talking about a better fighting force and spirit and populus (to be better does not mean to have more, except for fighting spirit, which we are debating). You are conceding to me that the Confederacy had better generals. That is an important shot to your debate. But the North's economy is not a shot to mine. Response Point 2: Ok. I will talk about your rebuttal with three seperate parts. First, the top third again has nothing to do with this debate. Second and third are finally debateable points. First Debateable Point: "Their morale was lower (citizen wise)." "The Union Army also faced large scale desertions. Confederate forces lost fewer to desertion than did the northern forces. This has been partly attributed to the southern soldiers fighting a defensive war, on their own ground, rather than an offensive war of invasion, which gave the southern soldiers a sense that they were defending their homeland which is always an advantage in any war. In addition, up until late 1863 the South had many victories (in fact more than the North), and many northern soldiers felt the war was a lost cause. For example, New York alone suffered 44,913 desertions by the war's end, with Pennsylvania having 24,050 and Ohio having 18,354, not to mention the desertions faced by the other northern states.":http://en.wikipedia.org.... This disproves your soldier theory. And on the civilian side, the civilians actually had great morale when taken into account what they went through. In Virginia, barely one acre of ground had a battle not been fough on. In Georgia and South Carolina, Sherman burned a trail through. In Mississippi and especially Tennessee, the populus had to live under Union control for almost the whole war. In the Confederate States to the west of the Mississippi, they were completely isolated from the Confederacy from after July 1863 to the end of the war. The populus sustained famine, pillaging, burning, and stealing on a regular basis. And the Union populus NEVER had to go through this. The populus had a very high morale throughout the war. If they had not, then the war would have been over at their discresion. Second Debateable Point: "ACTUALLY THE AMOUNT OF MAJOR BATTLES WON OR LOST IS TIED (4 VS 4) THIS IS MAJOR BATLES NOT MINOR ONES." The Major Civil War Battles: http://history-world.org.... Fort Sumter: Victory for the Confederacy First Manassas: Victory for the Confederacy Second Manassas: Victory for the Confederacy Seven Days Battles: Strategic Tie, Tactical Victory for the Confederacy (The Union abandoned the whole campaign, so a win for the Confederacy) Perryville: Tie The Battle of the Ironclads: Tie Shiloh: Victory for the Union Antietam: Strategic Confederate Victory, Tactical Union Victory (I will rule this a tie) Fredericksburg: Victory for the Confederacy Vicksburg: Victory for the Union Battle of Chancellorsville: Victory for the Confederacy Chattanooga: Victory for the Union Spotsylvania: Strategic Confederate Victory, Tactical Union Victory (I will rule a tie) Cold Harbor: Victory for the Confederacy I would like to add: Stone's River: Tie Gettysburg: Victory for the Union Chickamauga: Victory for the Confederacy Wilderness: Strategic Confederate Victory, Tactical Union Victory (I will rule a tie) Petersburg: (This was a series of battles fought over a period of nine months. All were Confederate Victories until March 31st at Fort Steadman). This is a Union victory, but there were so many defeats to the Union and the cost was so high that I will label this a tie. Final Statistics: Victories for the Confederacy: 8 Victories for the Union: 4 Ties: 6 (And most of the ties should have been victories for the Union, but there were costly mistakes, so it should be pointed out that ties are better for the Confederacy than the Union.) Response Point 3: Yes, but the Union had to fight a war a lot longer than expected. That should be a strike against the Union. Response Point 4: Again, I will cover two points. First Point: This does not really go against either side. I was just pointing out that the war could have been a lot longer. Second Point: The war most certainly would have been longer if Lee did not reject Gordon's plan of Guerrilla Warfare against the Union Army. If Lee had allowed for it, most of the army would have most certainly been able to slip away, and fight a guerrilla war for at least two more years, maybe even longer. But it would have been useless and wasteful. I am saying that the Confederacy could have fought the war for longer, I did not say that war a good idea. Response Point 5: I knew you were going to come back with that, and would have explained better if I had had more room. But one, the Union made A LOT more mistakes and A LOT more costly mistakes, but they could afford most of them (except if they hadn't, maybe they would have won the war sooner). And two, the few mistakes that the Confederacy made were very costly because they could not afford them. So my point was that the Confederacy had little margin for error, and by human nature and the amount of people in the Army, there was a slim to none chance of the war going exactly to plan. If it had, the Confederacy would have most certainly won the war. Hands down. But being said that the Union made a lot more mistakes is another strike against them. Response Point 6: The difference in population still does not make the Union Army better than the Confederate Army. It is like saying the World War II Russian Army was better than the World War II German Army because the Russian Army had more men. If both sides had equal numbers of men, the Germans would have crushed the Russians in two or three months. And plus, the Germants had to contend with the Russian winter. These two Russian factors of population and winter do not mean the German Army is worse. Only a fool would admit that. In fact Operation Barbarossa was a lot like the American Civil War for various reasons. Response Point 7: A crushed European Economy beat a booming German Economy (just before the start of World War II because the were building so many weapons, thus increasing GDP). Response Point 8: Yet again, a superior German navy was beat by the British Navy. Response Point 9: If the Confederates were organized enough to pursue the routed Union Army after the battle of First Manassas, if Lee had gone after Washington instead of Western Maryland in the First Northern Invasion, if the Confederacy had won Gettysburg, in the Confederacy had won the battle of Columbus, and if Bragg won Perryville. Attacks: How the South could Have Won the Civil War: "I've heard and read novice Civil War buffs assert that the South's defeat in the ACW was strictly preordained because of their imbalance in resources and manpower with the North. This assertion does not stand up to scrutiny.": http://www.physicsforums.com.... Please read this and debate the numbered points. "The South could have won the civil war in many ways and at various points, even late into the war." All the first five answerers say yes: http://wiki.answers.com.... http://www.americancivilwar.asn.au.... Please read this and debate whatever you feel like. http://clevelandcivilwarroundtable.com.... Please read this and debate whatever you feel like.