I think the History Channel meant to separate the two ideas. Victories being Chancellorsville and Fredericksburg. Heavy casualties example being Pickett's Charge. Whether they got the punctuation right I don't know since English is my second language. I think goo-goo is my first judging from how well I do at English.
I have seen a lot of historians try to put forth the idea Lee was to agressive causing casualties the South couldn't sustain. However, I disagree with them as to that being necessarially a bad thing. Lee bought the South four years of survival with those casualties which was probably three more than they should have had. For example, the Seven Days was probably one of the more bloody campaigns for Lee and he easily lost more men than the Union side. But consider the strategic result and its alternative.
Lee succeeded in throwing back the Union's largest army and taking the war to Maryland. For Lee 1862 was a year of heavy casualties but by the end of it Virginia was cleared for enemy troops almost to the Potomac. Consider the alternative of a "safer" campaign like what say Joe Johnson would have fought. Would the South have survived into 1863 if they had lost Richmond but saved their army the casualties? Would a loss of their Capital following the loss of Shiloh and Tennessee ended the South in 1862? I suspect it would come awful close.
And another view as to who was the bigger butcher Grant or Lee has to look at the size of their armies. Saying Lee was the bigger butcher because he lost a greater percentage is to ignore the fact that he had to stop a larger army with a smaller. The fact that he caused more casualties than he suffered is goes far to measure his tactical and strategic ability. And it doesn't say much for Grant that with an army twice the size of his opponent (sometimes three times) he not only suffered more casualties but managed not to win until starvation and disease reduced the enemy army.
