The Union had numerical advantages, but that was negated by the need to subdue a huge land with significant armies of its own. The Confederacy only had to avoid losing and keep up the fight. They gave up the fight. If the lost cause had been so noble to begin with, it would have never become a lost cause. When large confederate areas were regained by the Union, many confederate soldiers lost their heart for the fight. They were fighting for their homes, not for the plantation owners' beloved peculiar institution and not for any cause that needs revival today.
100% Correct.
The Confederacy only had to avoid losing and keep up the fight. They gave up the fight. If the lost cause had been so noble to begin with, it would have never become a lost cause.
I agree
When large confederate areas were regained by the Union, many confederate soldiers lost their heart for the fight. They were fighting for their homes, not for the plantation owners' beloved peculiar institution and not for any cause that needs revival today.
I agree with stipulation. Many, maybe most, did not fight for slavery per se, but the agitators who started the war, the "Apostles of Disunion" as Gallagher calls them in his book titled the same, the politicians, rich, plantation owners, and related diplomats and elected officials DID start the war because of slavery and even the average soldier WAS worried about how emancipation would effect his lifestyle.
In other words, I will concede that your average Johnny-Reb cared little about slavery per se, and fought for home and heart, but that he had a vested interest in seeing the social order stay the same AND, more importantly, the CAUSE from the level where it mattered, ie; the political level which advocated and forced session, WAS slavery.
Oops...forgot that part.
100% agree.