[BroJoeK]

Lagmeister: "Grant butchered almost as many of his own men in a few months than the number of casualties that Lee suffered in the years of his entire command.
In short: it took Grant months to lose what Lee lost in over three years."

DoodleDawg: "May I ask your source for that please? "

Different sources use different numbers, different methods of calculating -- for example, are we talking about just killed or killed + wounded or killed + wounded + captured + missing?
And if you are not super-careful, it's easy to get them confused ending up comparing apples to oranges.

Another example: in my opinion, the Gettysburg campaign should include Lee's retreat, where he lost another 5,000 soldiers on top of the 28,000 lost in the battle itself.
Why were they lost?
Certainly not because Mead chased them down & killed them, because he didn't, much to Lincoln's frustration.
No, those have to be losses suffered at Gettysburg but not fully tallied until later.

Finally, my source in post #467 is this, but it matches up to the numbers reported here, for example.

[Lagmeister]

Wasted enough time on this. Your source is slanted and the title screams it... your numbers are nitpicked and over-embellished (Grant went after Lee with 400 thousand armed men you say???? what??? - he could have instantly surrounded Lee and choked every move!!)

This isn't worth the cutting and pasting I would do in some not-worth-the-effort reply to show you where I got my numbers. I am glad you enjoyed the book.

I guess you win the argument by a massive amount of whatever against the wall.