Well we all though the South would beat you Yanks.
Up until 1862.
If I recall correctly, your Lord Palmerston announced after the Battle of Antietam that Great Britain would not recognize the Confederacy.
How are you defining likeability?
Grant's drunkenness and attrition tactics really rub me the wrong way. He and Sherman targeted civilians to make the South tired of war - also not cool in my book.
The thing is, the tactics worked. Were their ethics questionable? Sure. However, it was a surefire way to end the war quickly.
Grant and Sherman recognized that the Confederate armies had to be eliminated as a force that could fight. They couldn't be left in the field nor supplied and supported by anyone. And it is my understanding that Grant's drunkness tended towards being observed when he wasn't on campaign, if I recall correctly, yet a bummer that anyone has such battles in life with things like alcohol.
The reason for his drunkenness was actually his rampant depression. While he was away from his wife and son, he went into several different depressive episodes, and performed much better when they were actually, you know, around.
It proves that being better was not match for having more.
Except that they were not, you know, better. Union training, equipment, and transportation was better in every way than that of the south. I will give you the south had better generals for the first half of the war though.
The Union had a sizable manufacturing base, whereas the Confederacy had to import or improvise a good amount of its weaponry. Its first ironclad, the CSS
Virginia, was actually made of melted-down railroad iron cast over a ship frame. The Union Army was also able to draw from an (essentially) infinite pool of money, equipment, resources, and, most of all, manpower. Although Chancellorsville was a slaughter, it cost the Army of Northern Virginia a sizable chunk of its fighting force. Moral and tactical victory? Very much so. Strategic victory? Debatable.
I'm also always willing to argue that the railroads won the war for the Union Army. When the war broke out, the government basically nationalized the entire railroad network and turned it into a giant war machine. Yes, the Confederacy had a railroad network. However, the system was in a horrible state of disrepair and had a whole variety of gauges (track widths), ranging from standard (about 1.4 meters, or 4 feet, 8.5 inches) to broad gauges of approximately 1.52 meters or 5 feet. Interchanges between the two interfered horribly with efficiency and productivity. Locomotive technology also lagged slightly behind the North, and the railroads were one of Sherman's primary targets when he marched through Georgia.
It proves that being better was not match for having more.
Except that they were not, you know, better. Union training, equipment, and transportation was better in every way than that of the south. I will give you the south had better generals for the first half of the war though.
The general leadership and training of the Confed army, at least in the first half of the war was far better than that of the union. This can be seen mostly, but not only, in the cavalry units. It is only when the union's more (the fact they could withstand early losses etc) kicked in that the confed started loosing. Also it is worth noting, the command was far better in the east then in the west for the confed and better in the west than in the east for the union.
The equipment of the confed was not worse than that of the union, just the union had more of it, a lot more of it.
Their artillery was also a good deal behind, and by the end of 1863, the Confederate economy was fairly dead. Inflation was rampant, and cotton diplomacy had failed miserably.
Just my two cents (In Union currency, of course. I won't accept Confederate money.)
-The General
