[Lagmeister]

Lee, like Jackson, was a risk taker. Lee's assault at the Union center in Gettysburg was no 'attrition' attack but a calculated risk that it was soft.

Basis Lee's piety versus Grant's hard drinking (costing him rank in 1854), I would say a pure war of bloody attrition was not something Lee would do.

His campaign into PA was to get a decisive victory - getting France to recognize the South - and end the war.

[DoodleDawg]

Lee, like Jackson, was a risk taker. Lee's assault at the Union center in Gettysburg was no 'attrition' attack but a calculated risk that it was soft.

Lee did what he needed to do to win. He took risks when he had to, as did Grant. He threw his soldiers against enemy positions when he had to, as did Grant. The men had more in common than most people realize.

Basis Lee's piety versus Grant's hard drinking (costing him rank in 1854), I would say a pure war of bloody attrition was not something Lee would do.

Piety and drinking have nothing to do with it. Lee would have done what he needed to in order to win. If you don't think so then you misjudge the man.

His campaign into PA was to get a decisive victory - getting France to recognize the South - and end the war.

That ship sailed the year before when Lee lost at Antietam and Lincoln announced his Emancipation Proclamation. There was no chance of European recognition following that.