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.
Yes, but interestingly, even on offense, the Union’s casualty rates were lower than Lee’s-—7 Days’ Battles, for example. And I’m not even throwing in the overwhelmingly lopsided surrender of Vicksburg to Grant, or Ft. Donelson. In those, the Confederacy lost 100% of its men deployed, and, no, Lee wasn’t in charge of either.