So was Pyrrhus of Epirus. His tactics, exactly like Grant’s eventually cost him everything.
...
But Grant went on to victory and the United States became the greatest power in the world.
The Overland Campaign was costly, but it put Grant in position to take Richmond, chase down Lee, and win the war.
He had the resources to fight the way he did. Probably only a handful of Generals in history have ever had at their disposal what he did.
He was also fighting an enemy with limited supplies, resources, men and money. That they lasted as long as they did is a testament to the CSA.
Time was on his side, so was the money, the manpower, and as I mentioned - the resources. Plus he had a President who backed him 100%.
Tactically, Grant was an amateur. The only reason he won the war was because when others turned around after their first bloody nose, he pushed on. And on. And on. And on.
He lost over 55% of his men in that campaign.
It still took him almost a year to take Richmond even after all that loss.
Any General given those sets of circumstances and combined with his deplorable tactics of continuous frontal assaults without care given to casualties, will eventually win the war.