And I think 'short history' is your key point:
out of the box governments, in time of war, are not likely to get everything right.
Took the USA over ten years, Iraq knows what they want but struggle, Etc.
Might add that, while certainly not a model of governance, the south failed to centralize in many ways and it cost them. Forces were both State and CSA, command was hampered and length of service was spotty. Loyalties were almost entirely local rather than national. And, there were at least three competing motives for serving that the troops could select from.
"The Founders brought in Europeans to fight Europeans."
The founders were Europeans rebelling against the European crown that established them in a new world. Precisely like the CSA, they sought foreign recognition of their rebellion. Also, those foreign troops fought against loyalist Colonials as well as red coated Englishmen.
"The rebs wanted to bring in aliens to fight fellow Americans."
Funny thing about being outnumbered.
"Lee tried to incorporate Maryland into the Confederacy."
Like Sibley tried to bring Colorado, New Mexico, and Utah into the Confederacy.
Maryland was a southern state and Lincoln was terrified that it would go with the South from the start, probably the only thing that stopped that from taking place was the immediate proximity of Union force. Many of the most horrific stories of the war took place in the border states and even Southern California and Arizona had skirmishes.
"But while Lee had one of the finest operational minds of the war, his strategic vision wasn't commensurate with it, and he missed the opportunity."
Seems to me that Lee screwed up Gettysburg, should have forced south with Hill and Ewell to roll up the Union lines instead of exposed maneuvering and wasted forces on the federal left.
Strategically and politically, Pennsylvania was intended to scare the bejezus out of the Union capitol. Any other effect would have been gravy.
PS to all: We can debate and list slavery as the cause of that war 'till we drop but it was never the motive force in the north that history has made it out to be. Lincoln's motives were entirely built on "the Union".
PS to whom? We all know that the unionists didn't go to war to free the slaves.
By the end of the war, though, that's what the union managed to do, thanks to a constitutional amendment that wouldn't have been passed otherwise.
There is some sense, though, in the supposed popular wisdom that you condemn: when the Confederacy was too closely identified with the preservation of slavery and did nothing to shake that tie, the other side naturally came to be identified with freedom for the slaves.
And in the big picture, that's what they achieved. People will argue about whether the Unionists should get some moral kudos for that, but what happened happened.
"PS to all: We can debate and list slavery as the cause of that war 'till we drop but it was never the motive force in the north that history has made it out to be. Lincoln's motives were entirely built on "the Union"."
Now now, you're not being fair to the people who think that the Confederates were all evil.
Ignore the fact that 90% of the Confederate Army never owned slaves, or that 90% of the Union Army would have thrown down their rifles and refused to fight if this were THE reason.