Yes, it was a last, resort, and it is what he did. His attempt to bag Lee In 1864 failed, so he dragged the war on through attrition, laying siege to Petersburg until Lee's army was depleted, immobile, and unable to collect supplies. That is attrition. Your ghost story that Grant hammered away and won battles in the field and did everything or something other than attrition is false.
Grant won the war by attrition, and he took the credit for such in his report.
Please state how Grant won the war other than by attrition, in your opinion.
What exactly was a last resort? What attempt did Grant fail? Moreover, why misapply blame for the prolonged war on Grant? The USA was not remotely exhausted in any aspect, so nothing Grant did was a last resort. If anything Lee engaged in a last resort by running instead of surrendering. He was finished but kept on going knowingly, so he could be called the butcher or some some blood thirsty bandit with an all-inclusive disregard for human life. But Lee had 2,000 hagiographies that claim he was a demigod with summum bonum character and the generalship of Napoleon. I am from the same state as you are and you know as well as I know that nobody up there cares a smidgen about the Civil War or if Lee was great in any aspect, so Lee's super hero reputation comes from the Lost Cause. However, the actual evidence points in the direction that Lee knew he was going to eventually lose but kept wasting men in the process, so I give all honors of the butcher to Lee.
Here is part of your above-mentioned excerpt:
laying siege to Petersburg until Lee's army was depleted, immobile, and unable to collect supplies. That is attrition. Your ghost story that Grant hammered away and won battles in the field and did everything or something other than attrition is false. You literally proved with this statement in bold that Grant knew that he could win and Lee knew Grant was going to win. Grant must have known that the Confederates were close to collapsing and that's why he kept going. What about Lee? What do you think he thought? Do you think thought he could still win at that juncture? I severely doubt it. Why did Lee keep going after he was pretty much exhausted and defeated?
Furthermore, you fellows are arguing about semantics and the textbook definition of of "attrition." Hammering away trying to win battles in the field and depleting supplies are both components of attrition. Yes, both methods are attrition, so there's no use in trying to split hairs. I would suspect Grant used both methods. Therefore, you and Mr. Dan are both correct. Do you think Grant should have used blitzkrieg in that era? Even the Germans with their modern war machine had a difficult time with that method penetrating the Maginot Line(fortification). What do think Grant could have done in your eyes to defeat an army who was dug in(fortified) and who would not surrender in a era where fortification gave numerous advantages? I'll refrain from compromising a list of advantages the Confederated had and squandered(i named them 1,000 times). But I personally believe that the Confederates underperformed and should have lasted way longer. There have been contemporary armies who had the same disadvantages in resources and man power as the Confederates and were carpet bombed almost into oblivion, took genocide type casualties and lasted way longer than the Confederates. How do you explain that one?
As for the superior number theory and casualties, it is widely misunderstood, IMO. When an army goes on the offensive it requires a 2:1 to 3:1 advantage at the point of attack. Some of you boys sound like Grant just bum-rushed the Confederates by overwhelming them by throwing all his men at them at once. Nonsense. That's not how it went down at all, not even close. Grant used force concentration, which aimed to cause disproportionate losses on the enemy and therefore destroy the enemy's ability to fight. What else could have Grant done to an army that was fortified, knew the terrain, had a spy network tracking the Union's movements, which those advantages made tactical movements easy? In the modern era, they(third person pronoun) would shake -n- bake(carpet bomb) those fornications and Confederate perimeters and then send in the ground troops. Not sacrifice ground troops using frontal assaults to open up perimeters like Grant had to, that's a meat grinder. I would love to know what method Grant could have used to other than superior numbers to defeat Lee? I am all ears...
People on the internet misapply death tolls and count up total death tolls but don't understand how to do percentages for "battlefield" death tolls. It is true the Union had way more men and had a higher "total" death toll but had a lower "battlefield" death toll than the Confederates. Yes, I did the actual numbers and the Union had a 14% battlefield death toll and the Confederates had a 20% battlefield death toll. It seems to me that Union commanders did a very good job and the Confederate generals did not do so good. I don't know why I incorporated total battlefield death tolls in this post, but I think it contributes to refuting your superior numbers theory.
Can you rebut my post, other than spouting out rhetoric? What could have Grant done other than using Force Concentration? Can you explain why Lee was so good even though he held every advantage and still three of is armies were captured? Can you explain why you think Lee and the Confederates lasted long but in reality they didn't last long at all? I know, you are going to use that bland superior number theory without expounding.