Well I see some (Frank) took time to address your topic (and included some very accurate and stategic points) and now that I know you and me is pards I'll throw my two cents worth in. And it may come up a little short of that total. Anyway........ as a true Southerner (North Carolina and Tennessee roots, I was the first Virginian in the family) who studies, listens, visits, reads, and even reenacts (and yes I do wear the blue from time to time) here's my short take on the situation that we call here "The Invasion". The South was and still is to some extent a very romanticized area of the country. People in The South take things personally. Whether it be the new color on the neighbor's house to the new preacher at the church to our favorite school/sports team/racecar driver, to the people that we put in place to represent and govern us. State's Rights was a real issue in the early 1800s. I think our "Founding Fathers" tried to shy away from the very same central government that they ended up building. The problem, if you want to call it that, was that The Confederacy always put the first string in any time there was a game. In this instance the game was war. Yep, Vance bucked Davis with his North Carolina troops. But North Carolina troops account for just at 25% of all casualties in the Southern Army. Couldn't take that many hits if you didn't have a lot of players in the game. The Confederacy lost the "cream of the crop" in their struggle with the Lincoln Administration and it's army. Southern leaders alway led from the front. Remember Tom Beringer/Longstreet in the movie Gettysburg......."hard to lead from behind". Southern soldiers, out of heart and soul elbowed up in the trenches, hungry, thirsty, cold, and tired because that was what was expected of them. Not saying there weren't stragglers and deserters, not saying the Union man was any less of a man. But I think the Union soldier just didn't have the drive, the zeal, the fortitude, the win or die attitude that the Southern soldier had. Now factor in the the most important word in a conflict of this type: attrition. Southern soldiers could note be replaced. There were no points of entry for immigrants heading for the "cotton states". Now look to the North. New York and Boston harbors were bustling with immigrants. Interesting tactic....you want to be an American citizen? Take this rifle and this blue uniform and report to command in "pick an area" and if you live and make it back here, you'll be an American citizen. An American that risked his life to be a part of America. But there was no option in The Confederacy. It was fight to the bitter end and maybe die or maybe victory. Grant even stated in 1864 that if he lost 3 men to every Confederate killed that it was worth the price. Because he could replace his soldiers and the South could not. So in the long run it was mathematical. I read somewhere that Jackson said that First Mannassas made the Southern troops cocky and invincible. That it might have been better for the South to have taken a little whipping to prepare them for the coming struggle. So as I see it the South lost our Jackson's, our Stuart's, our Pelham's and our first string while the North groomed their Hancock's, their Chamberlain's, their Grant's , and Meade's and trained and equipped their first string to go in the final quarter and deliver the win. Just my observation.

Keith