lets say every confederate general was replaced with a napoleon that understood mid-19th century american technology, logistics, and strategy, just as well as he did of early-19th century europecould the south have won then?
The question you have to ask is, what would Napoleon have done that the Confederate generals didn't? I can't think of terribly much. From the first day of the war, the South was at a severe disadvantage in manpower, industry, infrastructure and resources, and the imbalance in all of those only got worse got them. It's a wonder the CSA lasted a month, let alone 4 years. The only advantages you could name that the South held were superior leadership and patriotic fervor. In those areas as well the North eventually developed great strength of its own, but it took time. Even barring all of the above, there was another, criminally undermentioned advantage held by the North that could have decided the war on its own: Naval supremacy. Southern ports were blockaded from the Chesapeake to the Rio Grande almost as soon as the war began, leaving the South unable to import munitions or supplies, much less export its trade goods for money to buy them. This also allowed the Union to capture New Orleans early in the war, forcing the South into a multi-fronted war in which states were hesitant to send badly needed troops away from their own territory, lest their cities be next. When the fall of Vicksburg allowed Union boats to dominate the Mississippi River, the South was finally cut off from all waterways, and the war was all over but the shouting.
>>17276432No, because the South was never going to be able to match the war material production levels of the North. The South was always doomed to fail, it was just a question of time.
