It is often easier to look back and point out a previous error than to look forward and know what the future entails. So what's your point?
The territory was enormous, etc. Territory was enormous, but I am curious as to what you speak of in the "etc." The south did have a number of advantages in the war. Territorially, they were indeed huge (but that also means bigger coastline to defend etc). They had an advantage in military leadership. But they lacked severely in population and industrialization. The essentially yankees won the war by overwhelming the south with both. I direct you to the commentary made by grant and lee at appomatox if you doubt me - the confederates were starved for able bodied men at the time, lacking in proper equipment, and without food. The yankees had full provisions, plenty of expendable men, and enough food to feed themselves AND the entire confederate army. In the end, the war came down to population and resources, which were a northern advantage.
And that was probably true. But the CSA leadership never developed a grand strategy
Most historians would tend to differ with you on that and for a good reason. The war came down to manpower and resources. The north had superiority in both. The amazing thing is just how hard the confederates made it for the northerners to conquer. Some of this is evidenced in the far higher northern casualty figures than were those found in the south. That is because northern troops were plenty and expendable. Southern troops were not.
and its military leaders bumgled away any chance of military victory.
Considering that you are defending the north, I do not believe you are in much of a position to accuse other military leaders of "bumgling."
Now, people will now begin pounding their key boards. Who should we hold up as successful CSA generals? Pemberton? Bragg? Joe Johnston? John Bell Hood? Okay, how about Lee? He usually gets a good press. But what Lee did was dissapate his force in offensive operations, where prudence could have kept him going much longer. Oddly, he eschewed George Washington's policy of maintaining his army intact and picking his actions for a policy that guaranteed heavy casualties he could ill afford. Look at Antietam. Except for McClellan''s blundering, he would have been crushed, and he still took heavy casualties. In the Seven Days Battles, he took more casualties every day than McClellan did. Onlly Little Mac's timidity made him look good. And Gettysburg...well or course he wrecked his army at Gettysburg. Lee's reputation mostly hangs on one battle--Chancellorsville. And that was a great victory for him.
Weighing the successes of individual generals is by no means an easy task. Take Hood for example. He entered the war and soared on one brilliant victory after another, all the way to Chickamaugua. But then, as the old saying goes, Hood "played hell in Tennessee." From there on out it was over for the general with loss after loss, in part due to his possession of a war ravaged army that was quickly losing ground to superior union numbers and resources.
I noticed you neglected to mention Jackson and Stuart all together, nor did you say a word of Lee's solid victories at Fredericksburg (over the "bumgling" of Burnside) and 2nd Manassas, not to mention his continued foiling of yankee attempts to force a decisive battle at spotsylvania courthouse, wilderness etc. in the closing days of the war.
And on the topic of "bumgled" decisions, let's add a little balance to the equation. Even Lee's worst mistakes do not compare to several major cases of northern idiocy. Good ole Ambrose Burnside had a bad habit of marching his men across narrow water crossings and the sort straight into the mowdown range of confederate fire. And McClellan? The guy couldn't even figure out where he was going much less how to get there. Ironically, his defenders at the time likened him to Belisarius, blaming his ineffectiveness on none other than your boy Lincoln, a modern Justinian who was impeding his general more than anything (which makes me wonder about your position on this controversy over your side's early leading commander and one of its most prominent generals pitted against your favorite president. Who do you side with? Cause both of them could not have been "right"). Or what about the entire union flotilla of warships that fell victim to a confederate force of only 43 irish dockworkers led by a mere lieutenant who decided to disobey his orders and hold his position? Or of Stuart's legendary calvalry circumnavigation? Confederate victories against superior union numbers are legendary throughout the war. Yet remarkably few cases exist where small unequiped bands of union soldiers forced the surrender of entire confederate forces. Why is that, Walt? Surely it mustn't have something to do with the failings of union leadership? But then again, you would not concede any such failing no matter how evident it is because you skew history to your side to a degree of absurdity. You never do mention anything historical that is inconsistant with your often misguided personal assertions. That is because you selectively bend your way through history and actively shape it to your worldview. It's intellectual dishonesty at its worst.