Sherman was a hero

[samgrant]

Before the war, Sherman had great affection for the South having lived there for most of his time since West Point, he had no argument against slavery or the ways of the South,he was adamant, however, on the issue of the Union and the Constitution as he perceived it. He was violently opposed to the idea of secession.

Here is a perspective from Lewis, as to Sherman's attitude around about the winter of 1863-1864:

"In 1861 Sherman had thought of himself as one of the men to help build up the reunited nation. Now he had been carried too far into the fire to hold such position. He thought of himself as the destroyer of illegality and rebelliousness, the scourge of the lawless, the punitive force - the performer of work that some must do before the gentle tasks of healing could begin. Grant had shown the healing touch by his treatment of surrendering Confederates at Vicksburg. He was the ideal man to keep in that character, so natural to him. Sherman thought both Grant and McPherson as leaders who must keep themselves unsullied for benign tasks at the war's end. As for himself, he would do the harsher, more terrible tasks of devastation, which must fall on somebody's shoulders."

He wrote: "They had willingly gone into an election and because that election did not result as they wanted, they refused to abide by the result and appealed to war." "If they want eternal war, well and good, we accept the issue, ... Three years ago by a little reflection and patience they could have had a hundred years of peace and prosperity, but they preferred war; very well." "To those who submit to rightful law and authority, all gentleness and forbearance; but to the petulant and persistent secessionists, why, death is mercy and the quicker he or she is disposed of the better."

[SpartanGSG]

Have been working my way through Steven Woodworth's "Nothing But Victory" and came upon what I found to be a very bold statement by Dr. Woodworth with respect to Sherman given my ever growing but limited study. Citing pgs 280-281 on the discussion of Chickasaw Bayou where he clearly lays the blame of the Federal repulse on Sherman, Dr Woodworth writes:
" In a war in which nearly all generals struggled to find successful offensive tactics to cope with the new weapons of the mid-nineteenth century, Sherman stands out for exceptional ineptitude on the tactical offensive. A splendid defensive tactician, a tower of strength in the midst of intense fighting, a profound thinker about the nature of the war, and a brilliant strategist and logistician, Sherman simply did not have the knack for planning and executing successful assaults. A sense of his own weakness in this area may have prompted him to turn over direction of the Chickasaw Bayou operation to Smith and Morgan. Sherman's success as a general was going to depend on how well he could work around this one glaring gap in his abilities."

Covering Sherman in a very positive light through most of my reading of Dr Woodworth's work to this point, I found this to be quite an indictment and bold position to step out on. Would most who have studied him in any detail, pro or con, agree with this assessment?
Respectfully,
Spartan

[ole]

Covering Sherman in a very positive light through most of my reading of Dr Woodworth's work to this point, I found this to be quite an indictment and bold position to step out on. Would most who have studied him in any detail, pro or con, agree with this assessment?

Spartan: I neither agree nor disagree. It can be said that Sherman didn't do well in that scrape. Conversely, I've seen no second-guessing with what he could have done better.

You're obviously familiar with the Chickasaw Bayou campaign. Can you see where he might have improved upon his direction of that engagement? I will cheerfully give Dr. Woodward his opinion in that Sherman was not often successful at assaulting prepared works. (Who was?) He usually worked out a way to flank them and avoid an assault. Was this because he knew he lacked the facility to direct a successful one? Or because he preferred to avoid pitched battle when a flanking movement would accomplish the desired result?

Sherman was one of those rare people that recognized and worked around a self-acknowledged weakness. He became supremely confident of his abilities and that of his troops and was extremely proud of his part in their successes. But I've seen no evidence that he was aware of a lack of ability to plan an assault. I guess I'll have to lift Dr. Woodward's work toward the top of the "stack."
Ole

[samgrant]

Originally Posted by ole

Spartan: I neither agree nor disagree. It can be said that Sherman didn't do well in that scrape. Conversely, I've seen no second-guessing with what he could have done better.

You're obviously familiar with the Chickasaw Bayou campaign. Can you see where he might have improved upon his direction of that engagement? I will cheerfully give Dr. Woodward his opinion in that Sherman was not often successful at assaulting prepared works. (Who was?) He usually worked out a way to flank them and avoid an assault. Was this because he knew he lacked the facility to direct a successful one? Or because he preferred to avoid pitched battle when a flanking movement would accomplish the desired result?

Sherman was one of those rare people that recognized and worked around a self-acknowledged weakness. He became supremely confident of his abilities and that of his troops and was extremely proud of his part in their successes. But I've seen no evidence that he was aware of a lack of ability to plan an assault. I guess I'll have to lift Dr. Woodward's work toward the top of the "stack."
Ole

Both seem correct, Sherman, like Grant learned by experience, and where on the whole better for it. But both, seemingly when they were against form, made errors, Grant at Cold Harbor, Sherman at Mt. Kenessaw.

The common denominator of these victorious Union generals, was that they each had one single purpose, to destroy their enemy, and coincidentially(?), they were all Westerners. Grant, Sherman, Sheridan.

[IAmHistory]

I don't know that I would consider Ohio western...even back then... Indiana maybe it starts to get there, the far west boarder...but Ohio? I'm not far from Ohio and ah... where I live is NOT considered the west now, and nothing I read indicates it was considered west back then either...unless you are just drawing a distinction between far east coat. I mean I thought the west was where the Sioux ran wild...

[blue_zouave]

Originally Posted by IAmHistory

I don't know that I would consider Ohio western...even back then... Indiana maybe it starts to get there, the far west boarder...but Ohio? I'm not far from Ohio and ah... where I live is NOT considered the west now, and nothing I read indicates it was considered west back then either...unless you are just drawing a distinction between far east coat. I mean I thought the west was where the Sioux ran wild...

IAm, in Civil War parlance, the operations that took place west of Virginia are referred to as the "Western Theater." That means that Chattanooga, Tennessee and Atlanta, Georgia are in the West! Ohio troops served in the Western theater and are referred to as Westerners.

At that time, what is now the Midwest was still called the West, and those nebulous regions across the Father of Waters were the Far West.

The Sioux ran wild in Minnesota during the war!

Yours from the Golden West,
Zou

[ole]

IAm:
Zou is quite right. At the time, Ohio was part of the west -- anything west of the Ohio river. Earlier, it was the northwest. The Ohio boys were westerners and a great many of them fought in the Western Theater which, by the way, ironically includes the Carolinas. The Western Theater, in WBTS parlance, is anywhere Bobby Lee wasn't. Zou, on the other hand, lives in the Golden West -- somewhere on the other side of civilization.
Ole

[Miss Markie]

http://home.fuse.net/rrowan/

Old Northwest Historical Society

The Old Northwest Historical Society is an educational organization dedicated to preserving and perpetuating the history of the Old Northwest Territory.This is the region northwest of the Ohio river that became the states of Ohio, Indiana, Illinios, Michigan, and Wisconsin. After the close of the American Revolution, the Northwest territory became the focus of the first western land rush. We remember those brave pioneers and American Indians who fought for the land and made our country what it is today.

[blue_zouave]

Originally Posted by ole

Zou, on the other hand, lives in the Golden West -- somewhere on the other side of civilization.
Ole

Where men are men and women are dang glad of it!!

Always drink upstream from the herd... and don't squat with your spurs on!

[ole]

Where men are men and women are dang glad of it!!

Thanks, Zou. I needed that.

You aren't exactly at the edge of the world, but you can see it from there.
Ole