Replies

"Again, the issue is not total casualties---the north often had more---but % of men deployed."

I think you are arguing that Lee was a poor general, because his casualty percentages were higher than his opponents, right?

OK, I count seven major battles for Lee:

1) Gaines' Mill June '62
2) 2nd Manassas Aug '62
3) Antietam Sept '62

4) Chancellorsville May '63
5) Gettysburg July '63

6) Wilderness / Spotsylvania May '64

7) Petersburg April '65

Of those battles, Lee clearly won three: Gaines' Mill, 2nd Manassas and Chancellorsville.

At Gaines' Mill, Lee outnumbered Porter by 80%, and suffered 13% casualties to Porter's 25%.

At 2nd Manassas, Pope outnumbered Lee over 50%, but suffered 26% casualties to Lee's 18%.

At Chancellorsville, Hooker outnumbered Lee over 80%, and suffered 16% casualties to Lee's 22%, though Lee's numbers were 4,000 fewer casualties.

Two battles were more-or-less a draw: Antietam and Wilderness / Spottsylvania.

At Antietam, McClellan outnumbered Lee nearly 50%, but Lee still fought him to a draw, while suffering 14,000 (27%) casualties to McClelland's 12,000 (16%).

At the Wilderness / Spotsylvania, Grant outnumbered Lee by 2/3 more troops while suffering 36,000 casualties (36%) to Lee's 23,000 (38%).

Lee lost two critical battles: Gettysburg and Pettersburg.

At Gettysburg, Meade outnumbered Lee by 8,000 (11%), while suffering 5,000 fewer casualties (28%) than Lee's 28,000 (37%).

At Petersburg, Grant outnumbered Lee over 2 to 1, and suffered over 2 to 1 casualties. Both had casualties of 8%.

Finally, we should note that Civil War statistics can be all over the map, depending on who counts, and who they count. Even so, I think the general picture here is on target.

Take a look at the chart in McWhiney and Jamison's "Attack and Die," up front. Their numbers are different, and again, they don't make everything about Lee, but rather the Rebel fighting style overall.

Also, I don't see Malvern Hill listed: Lee lost 2,000 more men than McClellan, and both armies were the same size (80,000). Again, based on the fact that one army should be "on defense" and that the attacker usually is to have a 3:1 advantage, it doesn't seem like genius to lose such large percentages of men in so many critical battles. But, as you say, stats can be all over the map. I personally rank Lee #3 among Civil War generals, behind Grant and Sherman, although Jackson might have been at the top if he had an independent command opportunity.