Not trying to argue, but I’m not of the school that thinks it’s best to waste good soldiers so long as the job is done.
Custer....and Napoleon....and Marcus Licinius Crassus....all were of that school. They are losers historically. To be fair I’d say Lee butchered his men also in several battles.
Grant did get the job done, but it cost way more than it should have. You win wars by slaughtering your enemies not your own (Patton paraphrase).
The next war will cost tens of millions of lives (if not hundreds of millions).
I agree, but the fault lies not with Grant, but with McClellan, who could have ended the war smarter in late 1863, rather than dithering until Grant had to respond to a rebounded ANV in late 1864.
P.S. The reason Custer, Napoleon, and Crassus--and I would include Darius in Greece, and Hitler at Stalingrad to the list--were losers was because they were the aggressors, meaning they started the war, and aggressors are successful when they follow Sun Tsu's tactics, rather than simply pushing pedal to the metal and hoping for the best. Defenders, OTOH, have to slaughter-and-burn the aggressors, so that the aggressors decide it isn't worth it anymore and either surrender or go home, which is essentially the same thing.