First we should probably talk terms.
Pyrrhic meaning a war that inflicts such a devastating toll on the victor that it is tantamount to defeat.
Attrition meaning a struggle in which either side (or both sides) are unable to achieve decisive victory through a battle or campaigns but rather has to grind down their opponent(s) until they lose the will or ability to continue the fight.
I'd say Grant won a number of decisive victories, so I disagree Grant fought a war of attrition.
I don't think anyone on the Union side saw the victory as tantamount to defeat, but the war certainly inflicted a devastating toll in terms of numbers of lives lost. No doubt all those responsible for making poltical and military decisions had a part to play in that.
I also disagree that Grant 'threw his men into meat grinders'
If the reference is to Grant being a 'butcher' then we've had recent thread you may find interesting
https://civilwartalk.com/threads/a-...ants-overlooked-military-genius.153060/page-2
Not Pyrrhic because the Southern states remain in the Union today. There was certainly a “gain” in that.
Now this fits the bill:
at·tri·tion
/əˈtriSH(ə)n/
noun
noun: attrition
the action or process of gradually reducing the strength or effectiveness of someone or something through sustained attack or pressure.
"the council is trying to wear down the opposition by attrition"synonyms:wearing down, wearing away, weakening, debilitation, enfeebling, sapping, Attrition has no connection to victories or defeats (beyond maintaining the willingness of your force, to continue “attriting” ones opponent). Victories supply that willingness, but aren’t essential to sustaining the effort.
pyr·rhic1I said Pyrrhic, not Carthaginian. Albeit, I think we would be better off today if the south did receive a Carthaginian defeat. You know Pyrrhic, win at all costs, no matter the cost.
No. The census information demonstrated mathematically the imbalance in fighting manpower between the US and the Confederacy, in May of 1864. Volunteers from the formerly enslaved population were increasing the US army. Immigrant men were maintaining the US work force. Each age cohort reaching age 18 in the paid labor states was larger than the previous group.
The Confederacy was recruiting from a rapidly shrinking territory. Fighting age men in the frontier states of Texas, Arkansas and Missouri could not have joined the eastern Confederate armies if they had wanted to, and most did not want to.
Confederates may not like but the arithmetic of shrinking the Confederate army by fighting it and capturing its home land could only end one way. It was a mathematical certainty by January 1864.
No. In war, victory seldom comes without a high cost. Grant suffers from a badly mistaken claim that he was a heartless "butcher". He was no worse than his opponents (in fact, a soldier in R. E. Lee's Army of Northern Virginia was more likely to be killed!)
It sure seemed like he did. I just believe he could have minimized his casualties a bit. I'll check out that thread you posted. Thank you.