In fact Lee lost a greater percentage of his troops then
Grant ever did and Sherman's losses were suprisingly small
considering the boldness of his

Surely,If your Army is 100000 men strong the loss of 5000 men percentagewise
insignificant,But if you have only 25000 men,loss of 5000 men is very
significant.

Even during so called Union victory at Gettysburg, Union lost more soldiers
than Confederates but percentagewise Union casaulties were less than 25% of
their streght,but Lee lost almost half of his force.

considering the boldness of his campaigns, marching
across the confederacy with an army of 60,000 men
cutting their own roads through forests and swamps

Dare to compare their actions with Nathan Forrests'.
(He could not even dream of having 60000 men )

a complete revolution in military practise. Sherman
and Grant were in many ways the first of the modern
Generals ffighting a total war.

He was simply a Butcher without military finesse of Lee and other Confederate
commanders.
His legacy is the main reason why US military was and is unable to win anywhere
without "overwhelming power" which always means "lots of gun fodders".

It was Lee who threw away men's lives at Gettysburg
and Nathan Bedford Forrest who had his men launch a
frontal attack on a Union force that badly outnumbered
them at Tupelo suffering considerable losses to no effect.

They had no other chance,unlike Union that was able to replace losses within
days with fresh immigrants,they had no chance of fighting on equal or near
equal terms.

Worse still at Franklin John Bell Hood murdered 6000
of his own men and 6 generals in pointless frontal attacks
that fatally weakened his army and led to its rout at
Nashville.

True.But when you speak about Confederates you speak about American Aristocrats
and Knights,a breed that unfortunately does not exist in US anymore.
BTW I am sure you know the story of light cavallery during Crimean War.Mistakes
happen in wars,sometimes the mistakes themselves show the quality of fighters
who try to carry out orders.