>>64116351
>Didn't they kick the shit out of the north, but ended up losing due to inferior numbers?
Early on. The Confederacy was a society in which most of the labor was done by black slaves, while the army had a bunch of really restless, knife-fighting, crazy white rednecks who didn't have anything better to do, and those people were terrifying. They won a lot of early battles but then got crushed by the sheer weight of northern mobilization.

>>64116768
>The North had like all of the manufacturing and all of the railroads. The South could never win a war of attrition and tactics had not kept up with technology and that gave a massive edge to the defenders
Well that's the problem with building an economy around cultivating export crops with large gangs of slaves cultivating the soil on mass scale. The north's economy was more productive because of capital investment which runs contrary to the nature of slavery, unless you can convert your states into slave-breeding states (yes, I'm sorry, but this is terrible truth) to breed MORE of them to export to new, fertile territories that haven't been exhausted.

>That being said, fuck niggers and fuck people who think the civil war was about slavery when slave states that fought for the north got to keep their slaves after the war until it was inevitably abolished. And also fuck Booth
And that's a bunch of nonsense because Confederate leaders wrote at the time that it was about salvery and how their whole society was based on it and that's a good thing, and that was the essential difference between them and the north, but you could say it was more about the expansion of slavery into the western territories. Lincoln did campaign on stopping that, which would mean bringing in a bunch of new states, which would permanently shift the balance of power. It was about politics and how slavery interacted with politics. Wars are about politics ultimately.