Bleeding the Union White

[TexasRick]

Although I am a novice in the study of this campaign, I do consider it to be one of the most fascinating areas of the Civil War to study. The one thing that I noticed in my readings were the almost countless missed chances for the Confederate forces to inflict serious damage to the Union forces. Granted this was done on some occasions such as Holly Springs, Chickasaw Bayou, and some of Grant and Porters attempt to approach Vicksburg from the north using waterways.

I'm curious as to the opinions of others as to what other chances were missed. I will list a few examples:

The use of scattered cavalry units more effectively
Complete lack of coordination between Johnston and Sherman
Not contesting Grant's crossing of the river below Vicksburg
Loring's performance at the Battle of Champion Hill
Not placing heavy batteries on De Soto Point
Lack of coordination between Pemberton, Johnston, Kirby Smith, and Theophilus Holmes
More effective use of the CSS Arkansas

Well that' more than a few but you get the idea

 

[OpnCoronet]

The title of this thread seems to be misleading, because it appears to be premised on the assumption that the resources of the South were roughly comparable to the North, and thus with a little bit of luck, could have won a war of attrition. When, IMO, the disparity of resources (men and materiale') was much greater than many assume.
What that means, is that the North could cover the losses due to inefficiency or incompetence(or bad luck) better and faster than the South in any war of attrition.