Good point. And two other reasons: the Union had a succession of truly awful commanders during the first year and a half of the war, especially in the various Virginia campaigns in 1862. Lee, Jackson, Longstreet, et al, weren’t perfect by a long shot, they each made mistakes, but compared to who they were up against, they looked like they could do no wrong.
The other reason was Grant, a commander who knew what to do with a large numeric advantage in 1860s warfare—use it to grind down the enemy. There was a tendency to view Grant as a butcher, but he wasn’t. He was a skilled general who had the spine to stick with a strategy that was causing high casualties because he knew it was going to work. And it did.
}:-)4
What you say is true...I pray we never return to anything like what has not been forgotten...while I look away.