Thanks for the KY file
On the resource situation,
1.) The CSA is really the only side which benefits. The Union already had a fair number of non mixed recruiting options, and their bottleneck in 61 is leadership regardless of resource tweaks. That said, if you're a Union player vs CSA Athena, the CSA boost might spice things up a bit. The difficulty buffs Athena gets, as far as I know, are basically centered around movement, activation, and winning battles she shouldn't, which are transparently gamey. Resource buffs are a nice backdoor way to give her a hand. I find that Athena, even as the Union, fails to heavily industrialize.
2.) I dont PBEM, but from what I understand, there are two main issues which give Union players 90% of the wins:
A.) The CSA Coastline is indefensible, especially in Texas
B.) Grant is both easily promotable and very good
You've indirectly assisted the CSA with A, as players will be able to afford a few extra units and have some new unit spawns. It's not, by any means, enough to hold the coast with, but players can probably more effectively garrison a major port or two.
You're working on Grant by making him less easily promotable. I actually went the other route by nerfing him (I didn't see anything at Shiloh, Cold Harbor, or Paducah to justify more than a 6-2-1 with Reckless, although I left his positive traits), but regardless it's a fix especially given your fix could delay or eliminate some solid division/corps commanders.
As far as singleplayer/trying to get a historical feel, my suggestion might be to eliminate some CSA Arsenal/Powder Mill etc options. If the "extra" resources are spent on a few CSA garrisons in 61, and the Union outclasses them in 62 anyway, then all is well and you've just extended the CSA's lifespan a bit. If the CSA player does something overly gamey and catches up industry then things might look a bit silly.
Just my 2 cents. Again, loving the mod thus far.