Had Gettysburg and Antietam not happened, Britian and France would have recognized the Confederacy, McClellan probably would have defeated Lincoln and negotiated a truce. By the time Grant arrived on the scene, the southern population was hoping for a quick end; they were already defeated, it was just a matter of when and where Lee surrendered. Stonewall Jackson's death was also a huge blow as was Sherman's "march to the sea." Lee had no real supply line from 1864 onward, he COULDN'T win a battle of attrition. I truly believe that had Lee faced Grant early in the war, he would have defeated him just as he did with McClellan.
It was Grant who dispatched Sherman on his march, and the Union forces were stymied until Grant arrived on the scene to command all Union forces. I don't disagree that the Union had more men and materiel, but offense requires more. Grant was relentless and his genius lie in stubbornly pressing his advantage. He showed earlier determination and skill at Shiloh and Vicksburg.
Yeah, and IF frogs HAD wings their asses wouldn't hit the ground when they jump. Lee was an outstanding general in terms of strategic planning, but a so-so commander. He might have done better if he and his lieutenants not bought into all of the hype about how great and undefeatable they were.