Interesting. If there's any curious minds: The reason the South lost so dramatically at Gettysburg is 2 simple reasons. The North commanded the high ground, but it still didn't stop the south from attacking. 2. The south attacked using antiquated battle techniques from the 1700's. In other words marching uphill, in a straight line , right into cannon fire with muskets. Again, and again, and again until their army was decimated.
Soo, why didn’t grant lose during the overland campaign? For a year he marched thousands of men in straight lines towards confederate trenches…if your theory was 100% true, it would have to hold up during the overland campaign. And, the overland campaign had way more casualties than Gettysburg
Nothing in any war or battle is that simple. Its the thousands of small details. If Sickles didnt push out against orders and force more union troops to the left flank ie little round top, Hood almost certainly would have taken the hill and rolled the flank. If Stuart hadnt been so far north and east he would have been able to give Lee much better situational awareness. If Longstreet hadnt dragged his feet on the 3rd day and attacked earlier and not have Pickets men sitting in the heat all day. To boil the battle down to two details is disingenuous.
