Lee was NO butcher. He fought to win the war (or at least his side of the conflict) as soon as he could. And that meant going on the offensive! But Grant? OMG! He was so over-rated as a general, a leader and a president! And let's not forget, he was a man who had NO problem launching assault after assaault on Lee in '64. He was relentless and stubborn to a fault but in his mind, what's a few more thousand Union casualties when you have your opponent outnumbered 3 to 1? As I have said in some earlier posts, there was NOTHING about Grant the man that suggested greatness before or after the war. He was so lucky to have faced inferior leadership when in the West. And by the time he moved East, he had all the men, food, supplies and horses he could desire. But instead of slowly squeezing Lee to death and forcing a surrender, his Overland campaign was as bloody as he could make it. Now, let's talk about Grant the man; his wife owned slaves so clearly he was no abolitionist and could never be accused of fighting a war to free the slaves. And NEVER forget what he personally did to screw the Indians when he was president and how his word was null and void. Not to mention, how corrupt his administration was. One more thing about Grant; how did he rank in Lincoln's eyes at the start of the war? In other words, how many commanders and West Point grads were ahead of him in the pecking order in leading the AOP against Lee? Instead, Grant was a "no name" general assigned to duty in the West. Had Grant gone against Lee in '62 and '63, Lee would have sent him packing along with all the other generals named McDowell, McClellan, Pope, Burnside and Hooker. And let's not forget, Meade didn't beat Lee either. If he had, Lee would NOT have escaped back to VA.