Alternative confederate leaders and decisions how could the south have done better based upon differ

The South building up its 'fleet' is pretty hard to do when under a comprehensive blockade. Immigration during war is an absolute non-starter. You haven't answered or rebutted this, simply reiterated your point. The CSA didn't have the shipbuilding capacity nor the ability to build sufficient ships to break the Union blockade. Other states didn't want to do it for them.

Transportation issues is a short, almost euphemistic way of saying that the CSA was under blockade and could not export more than a little trickle compared to prewar trade levels.

Indian and Egyptian cotton may have been less than optimal, but the latter absolutely increased and did serve as a substitute (https://www.nytimes.com/1864/06/26/archives/egyptian-cotton-its-modern-origin-and-the-importance-of-the-supply.html and www.smithsonianmag.com/history/how-american-civil-war-built-egypts-vaunted-cotton-industry-and-changed-country-forever-180959967/ ). Egyptian cotton also supplanted that from the Southern United States in fairly short order in terms of quality ( southwritlarge.com/articles/king-cotton-the-khedive-and-the-american-civil-war/ ). Indian cotton provided the bulk amounts needed that made up for any questions of comparative quality. ( www.english.uga.edu/sites/default/files/2009-2010_Barnett_Mays_John.pdf ). In the end, King Cotton wore a false and hollow crown, as it did not drive Britain into the arms of the CSA.

A list of diplomats is fairly irrelevant to the issue, as the problem wasn't the personnel, but the separatist state. No matter the loquacity of individuals, the broader interests of the nations and empires in question are stronger factors.

The list of better diplomats does not relate to the blockade as this discussion is about superior confederate leadership.

King cotton is still a monarch it has its limits.

Many historians have argued if the CSA could win its independence it should have been done in the early years of the war such as 62 some are 63 and even a few argue that it could have been done in 1861.

In 1861, that same year Confederate privateers made fortunes in privateering, but by the end of 1861 it was no longer a relatively safe (job in comparison to civil War occupations during 1861. )

As for blockade running the north started out 42 at active ships , which only three ships were meant for blockading . The Union navy eed had to cover from the Gulf of Mexico to Virginia which add first was a daunting task as Confederates called it a paper as its effectiveness, and the early part of the war was of that name.

Crates full of Lee enfields, and other weapons, including rations from England were sent to the Confederate military from Southern cash crop exports .

New Orleans was one the most important confederate blockade ports which confederate could have had superior defenses, preventing a comparative quick and relatively easy capture.

However, different circumstances I start with the confederates, not attacking Fort Sumter which already , provide a different political climate.

Well, it is true the Confederate Navy dwarfed the Union as it began with no navy the Confederates maybe it’s not have had to blockade other people's coasts it nearly had to protect its main shipping lanes or blockade-running ports.

Fort Sumter can equal New York City's separation.

The CSA navy was granted limited resources ,but it was also do overemphasizing the needs of the army. Malory was placed as secretary of the navy because he was of the very few southerners, who were really qualified or had interest in the position. This is one example of how it displays at the south and not have a maritime tradition like New England had. A quick or Quicker southern victory war is important that it could make sure that southern cotton will remain king.

Well, Brennan had colonies to produce cotton in France did not have cotton production colonies at this time.

A superior confederate diplomacy agenda with superior diplomats, (rather then what the south had historically) play a key role in providing ships or supplies for the southern war effort.

The CSS Alabama is one example of a confederate ship produced in the British ports www.essentialcivilwarcurriculum.com/confederate-commerce-raiders-and-privateers.html

No doubt, a immigration shipping to be slow release in comparison with a blockade Runner I think.

However, that is the point of having their ships to escort the vessel.

Early on Jefferson to policy in 1861 and part of 1862 he wasted a lot of Manpower by scattering forces out on the costal fort Guaring places where invasion would never come. I think the south could have spent more resources to protect blockade runners with more fortifications and smaller craft at least at some point. Fort Pulaski which ended in a Northern victory not only gave the north a place to stage attacks against the blockade runners route the CSA fort helped protect, blockade runners coming back home. That eventually Jefferson Davis realized that a lot of the troops were not necessary for them to be scattered out throughout the kid, but that’s not the main point of my argument.

Also, as for the cotton embargo, some of this was done by the states authority. There are examples where it would’ve been a better idea for the south to grow more food rather than cotton, but this also has to put in the factors for transportation. As the north had a large amount of control, all the rivers throughout the war. One interesting fact is that the battle of fort Donelson, the confederate artillery, which was shooting cannonballs, were surprised that it did quite a big deal of damage against the ironclads when they were close up. It took a long time for a lot of them to have metal ships as most were made from wood.

To end my post briefly it is true that the South had armament issues but I think the difference would be if their cannons were the equivalent to the north such as the battles, New Orleans, Fort Sumter, Fort, Henry, and fort Donelson, and other engagements in the lower sea bed.