And - as I indicated - Leon Tenney has done a lot of work on Seven Days strengths, casualties, etc In his self-published 2012 expansion of the paper he did under Joseph Harsh's guidance at GMU, he concluded that McClellan's Seven Days casualties were materially higher than Fox's numbers.
In the big picture I don't see the significance (beyond earning debating stars) of the point attempting to be made about "casualty ratios". Once a war starts Job 1 of the military is to end it with a victory. It's not to earn some "style points" award that leaves the war ongoing and the opponent able to continue to inflict defeats like Second Bull Run, Fredericksburg and Chancellorsville. Did Grant suffer heavy losses on May 19 and May 22 at Vicksburg? You bet he did. Did the CSA control the Mississippi after July 4? You bet they didn't. Grant beat Lee and he didn't beat Lee by accident. He also didn't spend all 10 months stupidly launching forlorn hopes against a well-entrenched foe. He mixed in multiple turning movements and even after he had Lee pinned at Petersburg - where it became just a matter of time - he resorted to several local offensives that kept the heat turned up and the throat constricting. Were Cold Harbor and the Crater successful ideas? Not hardly. But ultimately Lee - as he knew would liklely be the case once Grant had again gotten the jump by crossing the James - had to try a desperate escape on April 2, 1865. One week later he had been run to ground and was left with no options. And for the third time Grant accepted the surrender of his opponent's sword. As an aside, and as we know, in his Memoirs Grant had the wherewithal to admit that Cold Harbor was a mistake. Scan Own Story, correspondence with Ellen, etc. for a similar admission about anything. That's probably because the writer made absolutely no mistakes....
Numbers and Losses During The Seven Days 1862 Hardcover – January 1, 2012by Leon W. Tenney
I've never read that. Thanks for mentioning it.