But they still lost since they were so heavily outmatched. As stated the issue is less the southern will to resist as is the northern will to fight until victory.Which, in the context of the Confederacy maintaining a strong defense, is there any doubt they would lack the will? They did fight a war of independence to the extent they suffered almost Soviet level casualties.
I think that ~1860 there was probably still a fair amount of cottage industry in the UK, although it was a declining factor. Very much doubt that the vast majority of manufacturing in the union states let alone the rebel ones were in large factory units.I said it doesn't matter in the context of what the original point was, which is that the South didn't have a cottage industry. I actually agreed with you many posts ago on the theory; it's the same issue as the first point, you've lost cite of what you were originally arguing. See here:
Which is actually different from your initial point where you argued that there were no differences in industrial factories or cottage production in terms of their capacity to expand output, modernise equipment and methods etc.
Which can be an argument for "lets just keep with what we're used to. Then when the wars over/or conflict is averted we can consider what we actually need."Which, again, has no real support as the start of the conflict by mainstream historians nor was a war assured from the get go either. Even then, if you wanted to argue this point, the initial belief of both sides was that the conflict would be over quickly and relatively bloodless.