LOL! One of the dumbest posts ever. It’s like arguing over exactly how gray the uniforms were. And the last “factoid” doesn’t even relate to the comment I made.
Trying too hard does not score extra points.
In fact, his post directly refutes you. The US had not only to fight the rebels, but also to secure the territory. How important was that? Part of the genius of Grant was to force Lee to fight outside the trenches of Richmond, and then switch his base so his supply lines could not be attacked by Lee. Grant had previously prevented his supply lines from being attacked at Vicksburg by abandoning them and living off the land, as did Sherman.
Further, since there were more immigrants as a ratio outside the army than in, the notion that the US was enslaving immigrants is also shown false. That you can not accept direct refutations shows that your education, from what ever source derived, came short.
Your claim was that the CSA was outnumbered 4:1. I showed the actual numbers were 2:1, and when you deduct the numbers necessary to guard supply lines and occupy hostile territory, the Union most of the time had only about a 50% edge in numbers.
I’m afraid I don’t see why a 50% differential as opposed to a 400% differential is not important.
And you were repeating, I assumed, the common southern claim that the Union armies were largely foreign hirelings. Perhaps you can point out to me just why showing this claim to be untrue does not relate to your comment.
IOW, you made two hyperbolic and inaccurate claims, and I demonstrated their falsity, and then you claim this demonstration isn’t relevant.
Interesting POV.