Yes, casualties on both sides were horrific at Antietam and the Union botched and mismanaged the battle. But that's all tactical. As you guys have been discussing, the Confederacy was simply not able to withstand a war of attrition the way the Union could, especially
during their two battles in Union lands (Antietam and Gettysburg) with long supply lines.
When Grant took over the Union army, finally giving it a competent leader, he did not bring any sort of magical tactical sensibility. I mean no one for the Union was even a shadow of the battlefield tactician of Lee, Jackson, or Longstreet. But Grant understood that the whole point of military strategy was to destroy your opponent's ability to wage war -- not to capture cities. So his overland campaign in Virginia in 1864, especially in the bigger battles like Spotsylvania and Wilderness, was a matter of bludgeoning the Confederate army into tactical stalemates, despite suffering grievous losses of his own. Because he knew
that he could make up those losses and Lee couldn't. That's what eventually led to the siege of Petersburg, which was effectively a sneak peak at World War I tactics.
But anyway, back to racism, the point I was making was that Lincoln emancipated the southern
slaves against a clear majority opposition (this was under his assumption that the confederate states were still part of the union); and in contrast to the post I'd responded to before, this WAS to the benefit of the country and to humanity. The majority isn't always right.
When you look at it though, even with the same man to man ratio, had the Confederacy been able to give thier soldiers the same amount of provisions (guns, munitions, clothing) they would have won the war.
Obviously that's hard to know, but I'm not sure that's correct. I mean if the Confederacy had won the war, it would have only been because the North had lost the will to fight. But there is no circumstance in which I can imagine the Confederacy completely destroying the North's military, their agricultural or industrial productivity, or taking much of their territory. I mean the virtual entirety of the war was fought on southern land.
Remember that you are mainly focusing on Lee's army here, the Army of Northern Virginia. And that's where the Confederacy's resources and elite leadership was concentrated. But Jefferson Davis was an utter moron of a president, and he decided to micromanage the war himself and not have a military commander of all southern armies. So Robert E. Lee did NOT command the armies in Mississippi, in Kentucky, etc. On the other hand, Lincoln DID have a supreme command of all Union strategy under various people, initially Winfield Scott and ultimately Grant. This allowed coordinated strategy between different theaters in the war; and it's why the dual blow of Gettysburg and Vicksburg (perhaps more important than Gettysburg) was possible. Lincoln was clearly a better war leader than Davis, who with his coterie were basically a band of raving village idiots.
Also, don't forget the economic pressure and naval warfare in which the Union utterly trounced the Confederacy. The Union blockade of the southern ports, and then (after the battles of New Orleans and Vicksburg) complete control of the Mississippi, was every bit as effective and decisive as the Allied blockade of Germany during the first world war -- and it's chiefly responsible for the Confederacy's poverty and inability to supply its troops.
Finally, the famous southern generals were all brilliant battlefield tacticians in the style of Napoleonic warfare, i.e. maneuvering and studying height of land and using multipronged attacks and using cavalry, etc, etc. But apart from Longstreet (who was very much marginalized by Jackson), the south did NOT have anyone who truly understood modern warfare. The north had generals by the end who understood 1) that the defensive position is FAR stronger than the offensive one with modern weapons -- hence Pickett's charge, for instance; 2) that the movements of armies should not be to capture capital cities or to sway public opinion -- it should be to destroy the opponent's army; and 3) that a holistic war strategy includes destroying the opponent's industry and economy.
So all of this adds up to a bunch of things that STILL favored the Union in the end, and were perhaps more important than their advantage in numbers.