"Prior to Grant Lee was on the offensive and did quite well mostly due to inept Generals and officers of the US army. During the Overland campaign Lee had the advantage of knowing the geogrpahy - and being entrenched more then 90% of the time. Whereas Grant, by the nature of being of the offensive, lost more men. And having Butler and Sigel screwing up his plans didn't help matters. Keep in mid while you are addressing "Grant helping Lee kill all those yankees" that Lee lost more men in the entire war my % and raw numbers then Grant did."

Sooo, you're sayin Lee didn't have any inner circle squabbles so he was able to focus more? That because these campaigns were carried out on Southern soil, Lee's army had a better advantage because, of course, they were Southern? Maybe Lee did lose more than Grant in 'raw' numbers but do ya think it may have been because Grant had more guns, ammo, medical supplies and doctors, food, blankets and raw numbers of men? Are you counting by percentage or real numbers? If real numbers, where is a breakdown for the cause of the loss? How many were lost to Northern prisons, disease and wounds due to lack of medical supplies and doctors, proper nutrition and exposure?

Just wondering.

Pam