If the confederates win at Antietam do they win the war?

[ExtraBilly]

Concerning the war its pretty simple. The North had two overwhelming advantages: more people and more industry. As long as the North had the will to fight, which President Lincoln provided, the outcome was guaranteed. The South's only hope lay in a major technological advancement which would have tipped the balance on the battlefield. Once again the primarily agrarian South was lacking in this department.

[wittmann]

Hi ExtraBilly. I think we discussed the possibility of a war weary North and, therefore, a failed reelection if the South had been able to hold the West together longer. I believe the West was badly neglected to the detriment of the South's cause. I can see why: both capitals were in the East and only 100 miles apart, but it was a great and costly error. The soldiers of the West were every  bit as good as those in the East, only poorly led.  The administration realised too late that 1 man(Grant)was tearing their country in pieces and gobbling up territory that could not be retaken.

[ExtraBilly]

Hi ExtraBilly. I think we discussed the possibility of a war weary North and, therefore, a failed reelection if the South had been able to hold the West together longer. I believe the West was badly neglected to the detriment of the South's cause. I can see why: both capitals were in the East and only 100 miles apart, but it was a great and costly error. The soldiers of the West were every  bit as good as those in the East, only poorly led.  The administration realised too late that 1 man(Grant)was tearing their country in pieces and gobbling up territory that could not be retaken.

Yeah all of the people who believe in the "glorious south" have their theories.

[Mallery29]

It was a war by attrition....Antietam would have had to been at least 2:1 ratio for the South to even gain an advantage.   The demolition of the forces on both side were great, but the South was not as well trained (but more aggressive during this time period), so in order to balance it out, I would think that's a good guesstimation on what damage they would have had to do.  As mentioned before, leadership outside Lee was not as effective at fighting the Union.   And war weary north?  What does it say about the south when 2 states in the Confederacy have elections for 1864 and vote Lincoln? (votes didn't count). 
I could see France possibly joining to help the south, but the 1850s/60s for England was of great intellectual movement forward, and I don't know if England would be able to handle its own revolt if they sided with the South...But if France joined, that would have weakened their position against England and the Prussians, which probably would have led to an earlier demise of Napoleon III, and greatly affect European events. 
Finally, the industry factor was too much for the south to overcome...without great success in clearing the blockades, money for ships from outside contractors would have dried up and not have been able to keep up with the North's ability to produce. 

If the south and the Union had come to terms, the South would face Post WWI Germany situations with inflation and supplies, and as noted by our first several years of existence, a Confederate government DOES NOT work...it borders on lawlessness.

[wittmann]

Hi Mallery. When I said a war weary North I meant there would have been less fervour from some of the electorate if things had not gone as well in the West.if the South had realised the importance of it and allocated better resources and a better Army of Tennessee commander,
then it is possible Lincoln may not have won relection.
As for Louisiana and Tennessee voting as it did, I think the fact those states were under occupation and any or all its Southern leaning voters were under arms or trying to avoid attracting the enemy's attention, may have helped the result. I am not sure but could a Southerner have voted how he wanted anyway? Did they have representation? Am interested to know, but cannot find any evidence of figures.