Confederates without the homefield advantage: “Duhhhh cHaRGe!!!!”

Debatable. The classic narrative is the South had better generals, but it would suit the south to think that and it would be a small concession by the North to give their humiliated but prideful former foes a bone there. At wars start both armies were largely inexperienced, but the southern generals did make easily victories. One view is that the North outlasted or were worn down less over time, another is that the simplistic strategies of southern commanders didn’t adapt much through the war and as union troops and commanders became more experienced, the low caliber of tactical prowess in southern command no longer was effective against the North. It is also important to note that defense is usually easier than attack- and the early official war saw the north on the offensive.
We can see a trail of follies and Poor tactical decisions by even “great” southern generals-

In several cases major battles losses or major strategic losses to troop maneuvering occurred because southern generals used resources to chase petty raids or for other purposes largely seen as moves of ego and not tactics. Southern generals on the whole were noted to be aggressive- which early on where experience was lacking, aggression is often the most effective strategy between unskilled opponents, but experience and skill can turn unchecked aggression into a huge disadvantage. Two untrained boxers have a better chance of wining by simply unloading attacks on each other vs. Trying to use trabuques they have no knowledge or mastery of to parry or absorb blows for example- but against a skilled boxer, even the strongest challenger who simply wildly flails in aggression can be defeated with applied skill and experience.

But that might too be unfair to write off all or even most southern or northern generals as such. The north and south each had a share of generals whom were good, at least at times, and bad, at least most of the time. If we judge a generals worth on metrics- we might say battles won, but of course an overwhelmingly superior military force should be able to defeat a disadvantaged force in absence of all but the most inept leadership or wild of circumstances, and to win 1,000 battles generally means little if one doesn’t win the ones that count or the war. Of course losing doesn’t mean one lacks skill, and those of superior skill can lose any contest, war being one that is particularly complex, full of chance, and rarely if ever “won” by a single commanders deeds. We can say that wars can be lost in a single commanders deeds however, so that is one place to consider a generals worth I suppose.

In the end, we can’t really say. If Lee or Grant or take your pick had equal circumstances to their opponent, if there weren’t differences in geography and economics and all the other factors that go into an army and a battlefield and the war effort- if the politics and such were removed and the generals of each army met on equal terms on a neutral field, who would win or perhaps prove a disparity in skill? Not only can we not say, but even that test is imperfect- a neutral field is seldom truly neutral, it might be a place neither commander knows at all, in which case if one commander is more adaptable or quicker of deduction they have an advantage. It may be on grounds they both know like the back of their hand, in which case one may have already placed more thought into tactics than the other or so forth. The south had some notable military victories and people on both sides fought hard and sacrificed much. The North won, how and why aren’t too important there.