OpnCoronet
Lt. Colonel
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2010
Basically true, but, not really. Grant was chained to Washington as much Lee was to Richmond. It was up o the commanders of their country's biggest armies to square the circle of defending their Capital's while fighting an aggressive offensive waarfare.I agree 100%. I also believe it was a genius plan, because it basically nullified Lee as a commander. All Grant had to do was keep hammering at any army in his front, and cut off their railroads, and it would have eventually forced a surrender due to attrition.
Lee, who was chained to Richmond by Davis' orders, was almost a non-factor in a way. Sure he lasted longer than any other general probably would have, but as long as he was chained to Richmond all he could do was sit there and take the siege.
Grant's paln was to field three armies a different points against Richmond. Lee could not defend against all of them, Something would have to give. But, Siegal in the Valley was routed and Butler allowed himself to be peenned up on Bermuda Hundred, leaving Grant to face the entire AMV/ Any other Union commander would have believed they would have to withdraw and rest and refit, instead he drove South and linked up with Butler and forced Lee to ground at Petersburg and accepted Lee's surrender of the ANV just a little less than a Year after he began the Overland Campaign.