Re: Northern vs. Southern Generals?

one should also consider the fact that the south had great defensive
terrain. large well equipped armies and they didn't need masses of troops to
defend their supply lines. the unions railroads did them no good in the
south, the south had all the weapons they could uses and never suffered on
that point.
the rule of thumb is that a three to one advantage is needed to guarantee
victory.
also the confederacy was a huge area. when all that is considered the union
actually won fairly quickly.

the primative road net and railroads in the south constricted movement,
armies could not just swarm about anywhere. they had to follow routes
determined by roads which followed natural features. mountain ranges,
trackless forrests and unfordable but also unnavigable rivers made the
souths task of defence easier.
choke points like chattanooga which was where you had to go through as it
was the only place to cross the tennessee and also pass through mts.
it is still so today.
you view of the strategic and tactical realities is as simple as your view
of the constitution.

One should consider the ratio of numbers of population and income in
money and other factors, also the  and superior supply chain in terms
of rail transport, and the fact that the union had a large navy when
making such statements. If the generals were roughly equal, then the
union should have won quickly.

They did not, ergo their generalship was probably deficiant.

Note that the troops to space ratio was not so dense as to make it
possible to defend all lines of approch by either side so the war was
very much one of manuver and so generalship was more not less
important. That is as opposed to conflicts like WWI where the troop to
space ratio were such that both side had several men per linear yard of
front.  In the war between the states the space ratio was much much
larger.

the south had one competant general. lee.
in the western theater the south was losing from the beginning.
A.S.Johnson, bragg, pillow, and many others,{a very long list} were
hopeless. even jackson and longstreet are over-rated.

that the south had better generals is a myth that does not stand up to close
scrutiny.

and i believe you meat president davis , not jackson, and his self imagined
genious hurt the south whereas lincoln knew he was nonapoleon and he was
willing to listen to council.

I observe that the North had a string of incompetent generals until
Grant, Sherman, and Sheridan took command.  And I observe that the
South had a string of competent and brilliant generals - except for
Bragg and Ewell (after Ewell lost his leg).

What was the cause of this?
Chance?
Or the fact that President Jackson was a military man, and President
Lincoln was not?

Your response please.
Thanks, Ralph.