Had a real general been in charge of the Union armies the fantasy wouldn't even have lasted as long as it did. Grant would have run the traitors out of Richmond within a couple of years IMHO. I read this but I find it hard to credit. McCllellan was within six miles of Richmond when Lee took over in 1862. And in the Seven days battles, the rebels took heavier losses than the federals on all seven days, but Mac still didn't get to Richmond, obviously. Had someone who was as stubborn as Grant been in charge of the Army of the Potomac, the rebellion might have collapsed in less than a year.
As it was, some of the largest rebel cities were quickly back in Union hands. You can count Nashville, New Orleans and even Baltimore in that group.
The rebels were pretty inept, all things considered.
Your analogy to the hunt for Osama is pretty apt.
Walt
Well considering all that was going against them: lack of international recognition; pre-feudalist economic system; lack of an educated population; inability to recognize the way the world was moving; lack of modern institutions; lack of a developed banking system; third rate politicians; contradictory beliefs; depleted lands; total reliance on agriculture; millions of enemies behind the lines and a social structure which made Russia look progressive I don't think they did that badly.
They parlayed their only strength, an experienced military caste, into a horribly destructive (especially to the South) war.
Personally, I thank the leaders for destroying once and for all the system they were trying so suicidally to preserve.