http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/retropolis/wp/2017/05/19/the-truth-about-confederate-gen-robert-e-lee-he-wasnt-very-good-at-his-job/?hpid=hp_no-name_hp-in-the-news%3Apage%2Fin-the-news&utm_term=.0fdfb402620d 

who had armies often approaching twice the size of his, whose armies were better armed and vastly better supplied.  In case anybody wants to tout Grant aka "the fumbling butcher" as his own troops named him....Lee inflicted more casualties on Grants' army in the first 6 months of Grant's command than Lee even had in his own army. 

Oh and slavery was starting to die out in the Upper South by 1860 contrary to what Rosenwald claims.  To wit:

the percentage of Southern whites who belonged to slaveholding families dropped by 5 percent from 1850-1860 (Robert Divine, T. H. Bren, George Fredrickson, and R. Hal Williams, America Past and Present, Fifth Edition, New York: Longman, 1999, p. 389). Nevins noted that "slavery was dying all around the edges of its domain" (The Emergence of Lincoln, Volume 2, p. 469).

Maryland went from 33% to 12% slaves between 1790 and 1860.
Delaware from 14% to 2%.
Virginia went from 39% to 31%
Missouri only had about 10% slaves in 1860.

The issue wasn't so much states rights as it was the tariff and the grossly unequal federal govt expenditures about 80% of which were lavished on the Northern states despite the fact that the South paid between 2/3rds and 3/4s of all the tax revenue via the tariff.

"What were the causes of the Southern independence movement in 1860? . . . Northern commercial and manufacturing interests had forced through Congress taxes that oppressed Southern planters and made Northern manufacturers rich . . . the South paid about three-quarters of all federal taxes, most of which were spent in the North." - Charles Adams, "For Good and Evil. The impact of taxes on the course of civilization," 1993, Madison Books, Lanham, USA, pp. 325-327

South Carolina Congressman Robert Barnwell Rhett had estimated that of the $927,000,000 collected in duties between 1791 and 1845, the South had paid $711,200,000, and the North $216,000,000. South Carolina Senator James Hammond had declared that the South paid about $50,000,000 and the North perhaps $20,000,000 of the $70,000,000 raised annually by duties. In expenditure of the national revenues, Hammond thought the North got about $50,000,000 a year, and the South only $20,000,000. When in the Course of Human Events Charles Adams

"Next to the demands for safety and equality, the secessionist leaders emphasized familiar economic complaints. South Carolinians in particular were convinced of the general truth of Rhett's and Hammond's much publicized figures upon Southern tribute to Northern interests." (Allan Nevins, The Emergence of Lincoln, Ordeal of the Union, Volume 2, New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1950, p. 332)

When asked "why not let the South go in Peace?" He answered "I can't let them go. Who would pay for the government?" Abraham Lincoln 1861

"If I do that, what would become of my revenue? I might as well shut up housekeeping at once!" ~ Lincoln, in response to the suggestion by the Virginian Commissioners to abandon the custom house of Fort Sumter. (Housekeeping is a euphemism for federal spending.)

There is Much much MUCH more on this.  Northern newspapers?  Northern politicians?  Southern Newspapers?  Southern politicians?  Foreign observers?  Just ask.  I have extensive quotes and sources saved I can provide you with anytime lest you have any doubts.

Next we move on to Rosenwald's laughable claim that the North just got on with things and somehow this one time in history, the winning side did not spew their propaganda.  LOL!  You really expect anybody to believe this laughable nonsense?  Get real dude.

Then Rosenwald swings back to complaints about Lee's strategy and tactics.  He adopted an offensive strategy specifically to take pressure off of Virginia to alleviate his supply difficulties.  No mention is made of that.  As for his tactics, it is true that he did not appreciate at first that the rifled barrel made frontal assaults against entrenched enemies ie the standard Napoleonic tactics everybody was trained to use, suicidal by the time of the War for Southern Independence.  Of course, nobody else learned that either.  Grant was making the exact same mistakes in 1865 and losing vast hordes of men for doing so.  Cold Harbor was a catastrophic defeat for him......he just had more cannon fodder to throw into the meat grinder. 

The real myths here are the myth of the virtuous North (New England had been the hub of the slave trade industry for the entire western hemisphere in the 19th century)  The first "black codes" were passed in the Northern states.  The North was equally only too happy to profit very handsomely from servicing goods produced at least in part from slave labor.

Next is the myth that the North fought a war "to make men free".  They did no such thing.  They could not have been more clear that that was not their aim.  They were fighting to prevent their cash cow - ie the Southern states from leaving instead of being ever more ruthlessly exploited by discriminatory sectional economic legislation which directly benefitted Northern industrialists.

and of course the ultimate, the myth of "Father Abraham" who was some kindhearted angelic figure.  The REAL Lincoln was of course a flaming racist, an economic ignoramus and a tyrant who trampled on civil liberties in the name of prosecuting a war for money that he started.

People - especially PC Revisionists - still get quite emotional when their myths are exploded.