Actually---I know I'll get flamed here---Lee was not quite as great a general as he is always cracked up to be. In "Attack and Die," historians Grady McWhiney and Perry Jamison note that in 11 of the first 12 battles (including multi-day battles) of the Confederacy, the Union only had a higher casualty ratio of all men deployed in battle in one: Fredericksburg. Admittedly, Shiloh, Vicksburg, and a couple of others on their chart were in the West; and 1st Manassas was not Lee's command. But still, even in all those battles Lee led the South, he only achieved a superior
ratio of casualties inflicted on the enemy at Fredericksburg. His losses at Antietam and Gettysburg were horrendous, over 20% of his force at Antietam and 30% at Gettysburg.
For a general leading the side that supposedly is "playing defense," this is an unacceptable level of loss, one doomed to defeat.
"even in all those battles Lee led the South, he only achieved a superior ratio of casualties inflicted on the enemy at Fredericksburg. His losses at Antietam and Gettysburg were horrendous, over 20% of his force at Antietam and 30% at Gettysburg.For a general leading the side that supposedly is "playing defense," this is an unacceptable level of loss, one doomed to defeat. "
No flame here, just a gentle reminder:
But of course, Lee wasn't "playing defense," in the sense of sitting behind fortifications and waiting for northern attacks.
Lee understood that the best defense was an active offense, and the only way to defeat the North's superior numbers was: first draw them out of their positions.
That was the whole idea of Gettysburg.
And note what the Union army did -- they followed Lee north, then immediately took up defensive positions at Gettysburg.
In that age, the army on offense expected to lose more troops than the army on defense.
So Lee's high casualties were the result of being on offense.
When "butcher" Grant put his army on offense, they also suffered high casualties.