[LS]

You are right in terms of resources, although arguably Lee had much better corps commanders that he pilfered from West Point than did the North. However, in actual combat terms, he often had as much artillery, and matched up pretty close in terms of total troops. Even so, even when in defensive positions, it's interesting that Lee usually lost a higher % of his men than did any of his federal counterparts.

[Core_Conservative]

it's interesting that Lee usually lost a higher % of his men than did any of his federal counterparts.

Considering Lee was the one to attack - as the attacker usually looses more men.

[Core_Conservative]

it's interesting that Lee usually lost a higher % of his men than did any of his federal counterparts.

Considering Lee was the one to attack - as the attacker usually looses more men.

[Non-Sequitur]

You are right in terms of resources, although arguably Lee had much better corps commanders that he pilfered from West Point than did the North.

I would disagree with that. Other than Jackson, Lee's corp commanders were decidedly mediocre. Ewell and Hill were both miserble corps commanders at Gettysburg, and even Longstreet was terrible when he was not being directed by Lee. His actions when assigned to the west was disasterous. On the other hand, the Union had Hancock, Sedgwick, Sykes, and Reynolds.