From what I’ve read most historians believe that the South lacked the industrial centers to win the war despite having better leadership and overall the more committed and talented men. If winning the war was a war of attrition that the South couldn’t win outright. Why didn’t the South fight more of a defensive guerrilla warfare strategy similar to Afghanistan?
No expert here, but it seems there might be a couple of reasons. One, the South's generals were trained just like the North's, so the massed-force type of warfare was how they all thought and fought. And secondly, they didn't have the hindsight afforded by the Viet Nam and Afghanistan experiences we've now seen. Just my $.02; interesting and thought-provoking thread especially as to how it might apply in the future.
