No? Maybe not, for armchair quarterbacks. I suspect Mr. Lincoln might have disagreed. Along with Generals McDowell, McClellan, Pope, Hooker, Burnsides, and probably even Meade and Grant.
In the first place the idea that the confederate army was makeshift or poorly equipped is absolute nonsense, at least for the first 3 plus years of the war.
Well, you got me there. It is absolutely true that for the first three years of the war the Union army generously kept those ragamuffins well-supplied with muskets and artillery.
If there was a major reason why the rebellion lasted as long as it did, then it would have to be that the Union didn't turn to total war until the last year.
There is a lot of truth to that. On the other hand, getting back to my original point, had there been an equivalent number of rabble, the Union would have had to resort to total war the first year, with doubtful results.
What do you suppose Messrs. Bragg, Polk, Pemberton, Buckner, Pillow, and Johnston would have said?
Well, you got me there. It is absolutely true that for the first three years of the war the Union army generously kept those ragamuffins well-supplied with muskets and artillery.
You really have no clue about anything west of the Shenandoah, do you?
On the other hand, getting back to my original point, had there been an equivalent number of rabble, the Union would have had to resort to total war the first year, with doubtful results.
Or if they had, the rebellion would have been put down much more quickly.