And something you Union apologists never seem to ask yourselves is why blockading the ports was so essential? The vast majority of the fighting would necessarily take place on land, because a Navy cannot hold land, and holding land is what is necessary to win.
So what "military" purpose was accomplished by blockading ports?
Not much of anything.
What economic purpose was accomplished by blockading ports?
A great deal. It prevented the establishment of normal trade with Europe, and therefore prevented the much larger profits which the Europeans would have seen from trading directly with the South instead of going through the New York middlemen.
The Blockade itself was clear proof that the economics was the primary reason for the war. It didn't stop any of the land fighting, all it really accomplished was interference with Trade.
I've long thought, if we put ourselves in Jefferson Davis' shoes and attempt to devise a more successful strategy, what might that be?
The only thing I come up with is he should delay the war until the Confederacy is much better prepared.
But that too is fraught with its own dangers, especially since without war Upper South states of Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee and Arkansas remain in the Union.
So I can't see how it would play out.
Also, a basic rule of ahistorical reimagining is that you can't ask people to do things which were not in their nature to do.
For example, in 1861 the Confederacy was chock full of hotheads, and reimagining such folks to have kept the peace for a year or two longer is just not realistic.