You are twisting Grant's words again, because you will not acknowledge that there ever was or is a thing called "attrition" in warfare. In your mind, all warfare is attrition, so therefore the point is moot, and the word "attrition" may well be taken out of military terminology altogether.
This is why you overlook Grant's initial order, "Find Lee's Army and Destroy it," and how he subsequently chose to maneuver for position, specifically targeting, after crossing the James, Lee's advanced base of supplies, Petersburg.
Then you choose to ignore his "Siege" or siege, depending how you define it, chalking it up to "all warfare" as if a siege is the exact same thing as a field battle, or at least close enough to it to warrant no distinction of the two. This again stems from your desire to defend Grant's "honorability," and ignore the fact that there is a thing called siege warfare and attrition, and that Grant very clearly carried it out, and wrote in his memoirs, that by "mere attrition, if nothing else," that is IF NOTHING ELSE, as in a back up plan, he failed to defeat or destroy Lee's army, which he failed to do.
You are simply ignoring all of this because you believe Grant conducting a "siege," is disnhorable, and in this case, MOST HISTORIANS do agree with me, not in an attempt to lie and throw you off, but in fact do agree with me, BECAUSE THEY CALL IT THE "SIEGE OF PETERSBURG." So you're whole attempt to say there was no siege, or anything close to a siege, or anything called "attrition," is completely bat **** crazy and disqualifies you from a serious discussion on THE SIEGE OF PETERSBURG.
And Grant certainly was willing to waste exorbitant amount of lives for a tactical victory. See his Assault at Cold Harbor, which he offered no excuse for in his memoirs, though he wrote that he regretted it.
As comparing to Stonewall, you are again ignoring THE SIEGE OF PETERSBURG. That whole campaign does not exist in your mind. In your mind, it is conventional field battle warfare. Any level of familiarity with the SIEGE OF PETERSBURG will convince you that it was attrition. But you are so hellbent on protecting Grant's "honor," as if he were some virgin maiden, that you block out all historical examples of siege warfare and attrition altogether, as if it never existed and Civil War historians are just making it up as a "Lost Cause" effort to "dishonor" Grant, which is ludicrous in the extreme and betrays your complete dearth of military knowledge, that you would even present that argument with a straight face, perhaps, and expect people to take you seriously.
And yes, Grant did throw his men at Lee's lines around Petersburg until Lee was outnumbered 4-1. That is exactly what he did. Again, ignorance on the subject is your weak point.
And Grant did not maneuver to force Lee out of Petersburg, as a field maneuver. He targeted Lee's lines of supply into and out of Petersburg, to force Lee into a position he could no longer sustain. At that point, Lee would have to abandon Richmond and Petersburg, come out into the open, and Grant would then attack him while he tried to establish a new advances base somewhere. That is exactly what he did, and in the meantime, he fought a war of ATTRITION, targeting Lee's supply lines, and "hammering away"—GRANT'S WORDS—until Lee, by mere attrition, if nothing else, was left no choice but to submit to the Constitution and laws of the country, as Grant saw it. That is exactly what happened, and if you are in any way familiar with the conditions of Lee's army as it progressed throughout the Siege of Petersburg, even you, before you typed a response, would have to admit to yourself that there is a thing called "attrition warfare" and that Grant excelled at it and was quite willing and eager to do it, and did do it for 9 months.
And yes, you were lying, because you have a bug up your butt about Grant's infallibility, and you will not concede in any way shape or form that Lee ever, or could ever, take the initiative from Grant.
And you clearly said there was no such thing as attrition warfare,
"In one sense - as you point out OpnCoronet - all warfare includes some degree of attrition and, in that broad sense, Grant was clearly using attrition in the Richmond/Petersburg siege to destroy Lee's logistic system and spread his lines thinly to achieve local numeric superiority. But in the narrow sense, there are too many orders from Grant counseling his lieutenants NOT to just throw men into the meat grinder - but to use them only where an advantage could be reasonably expected - to label Grant's strategy as pure attrition in that narrow sense."
Which I never pointed out to OpnCoronet by the way, so you are confused, again, or lying, again.
Simply put, you think "attrition" is a word used by Lost Causers to dishonor Grant. You believe all war is attrition, and therefore nothing special, not warranting any use in terms of warfare, because it is redundant. You also ignore, or are completely ignorant, of what Grant did during the SIEGE OF PETERSBURG, to the point where you consider it all a field maneuver, with no targeting of supplies, no bleeding Lee dry, and no wearing down Lee's army by means of ATTRITION, which Grant exactly said he would do, by "hammering away," which is exactly what he did during the SIEGE of Petersburg, which very nearly resembles the fundamentals of all sieges and wars or campaigns of attrition down the ages.
So take your complete and utter ignorance and stupidity towards all things Grant, his report, his SIEGE, SIEGE WARFARE, AND ATTRITIONNNNNNNNNNN ATTRITTIONNNN and give it to somebody who's never read a book on the military before. Maybe they will buy into your lost cause paranoia and hero worship of Grant.
As it is, I stand by Grant's words and actions, not some paranoia about Grant's "honor" and the "lost cause."