General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Civil War Question [View all]thucythucy
(8,045 posts)who made the argument, being interviewed as part of the Burns documentary.
The South could have won the war, the military preponderance of the North notwithstanding. History is full of examples of under dogs winning against the odds, from the American revolution to Vietnam.
The South lost because a) its leaders insisted on hanging on to slavery, at the expense of gaining foreign intervention b) its military insisted on fighting a conventional war, rather than a guerilla non-conventional war and c) by 1863 most of the enthusiasm for the "Cause" among non-slave owning whites was spent--hence the need of the Confederacy to impose a draft and extend two or three year volunteer commitments for the duration. (The North, by contrast, allowed two and three year enrollees to leave the service when their time was up).
Southern apologists like Foote like to say the loss was inevitable as a way of excusing the incompetence of their heros, first and foremost Robert E. Lee. To suggest that the South lost due to poor leadership and devotion to an evil cause doesn't fit into the whole let's glorify our wonderful ancesters meme.
Just my humble opinion.