The CSA could have won the Civil War (2)

"...every part of frontier had to be protected in order to keep the economy going without allowing Union forces to penetrate the economic machine." 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. Vicksburg is an example and shows that the Union concentrated on key areas such as that and during Sherman's March to the Sea he did free some slaves but his army was mostly busy looking for supplies for the army. "Furthermore, the South lacked the manpower of the North to carry out an effective resistance." We can use example of battles to prove this wrong. 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. This still proves that the CSA had better generals in the war and thus had the potential to winning it. No victory or loss inevitable, there are many things that can happy in any way that can change the course of it. At the Second Battle of Bull Run the Union outnumbered the South again by at least 10,000 men yet the Union still lost. Despite the population differences according to the 1860 National Census showed that only 4 million men from the north were of combat age, not all 22 million of them. This can be found in the book "Don't Know Much about History" on page 219. 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. Furthermore, if the south adopted a hit and run mentality then those big Union armies would not stand a chance. The Union forces cost more than the southern forces did and by making the war more expensive for the north then the industry would have to create more and more things such as uniform, firearms, cannons, and other items an army needs. By making the war to expensive for industrial north, Lincoln would make to sign peace terms. 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. "The South lacked the infrastructure to do anything but a static defense." If they could not do anything but a static defense then why were they able to mount assaults on the North? Seems like they could do more to the defense since the Union kept concentrating on Richmond and defending Washington D.C. which proves that they were in a war of attrition. You have to take risks in war and that is scorched earth. Yes the south would lose some acres of land in Georgia but that benefits of it would be an big Union army awaiting disasters as it would be starving. Then if the south used hit and run tactics, Sherman's march would have ended differently. You take the advantage away from a larger army by staying in the mountains. Big forces can't move fast in tight spaces, and the resulting columns are easy to break and bottleneck. Prepositioning artillery in strategic high ground locations would have made it very hard to get into SW Virginia all the way down through the Appalachain foothills in Georgia. It would be very expensive to remove an insurgency, and the insurgency could be very effective breaking invading troop supply chains. 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. http://answers.yahoo.com... http://answers.yahoo.com... http://www.physicsforums.com... http://bevinalexander.com...