"... But I still think the Lee/Jackson combination was far superior in performance, given the material limitations they were operating under, to that of Grant/Sherman."
Disagree, Parsifal, I believe Jackson and Lee were outstanding leaders and generals but they did not have an achievable plan for defeat of the north .... they didn't have it because the government they served didn't have any such plan; whereas Grant and Sherman had such a plan, the President complely endorsd it, and they executed their plan mercilessly.
Grant had his demons, with reason no doubt, but never lost a battle notwithstanding cruel butcher bills, he deeply believed that the CW was God's punishment on the nation for a major war, an unjust war, on Mexico.
You are too critical, IMHO
, on Grant's drink ..... I will wager a $1.00 to a doughnut that when Grant and Sherman hunkered down in that Cincinnati hotel and thrashed out the strategy and the division of responsibilities for the winning campaigns that followed, (besiege Richmond and cut the south in two with the march to the sea) I'll wager there was a bottle on the table between them.
Grant and Sherman in Cincinnati or The Strategy to End the War - ...
Much of my perspective on Grant is from Shelby Foote's 4 volume
Narrative History of the Civil War
Grant was very skilled at reading and using terrain. Having read copiously on the EF and then reading John Mosier's
Grant: Great Generals I was struck by a sense that in a different incarnation Grant would have made a superb Eastern Front general with the Heer. In 1914
or 1941.
Cheers
M