Civil War History - General DiscussionFor Discussions on Civil War Era Personalities, Politics, Issues, Campaigns, Battles, and more. Serious Civil War Discussions Only Please! All other posts will be deleted.
View Poll Results: Who was the better general between these two Great Warriors?
A very informative discussion gentlemen; makes for enjoyable reading. Question: How do the two of you relate Sherman as a necessary facit or perhaps tandem component of Grant's success? Seems to me he should get a piece of the credit for the ultimate close of the war.
Larry,
I am not a big Sherman fan. He had interesting strategic ideas, worked well with his fellow commanders, and managed to get what needed doing done. Considering how unusual those traits are in the history of the war, he deserves respect.
However, I also think Thomas would have won the Atlanta Campaign much earlier than Sherman did. Sherman was tactically inept; Thomas was very good.
Regards,
Tim
__________________ "Let us, then, consider all attempts to weaken this Union, by maintaining that each state is separately and individually independent, as a species of political heresy, which can never benefit us, but may bring on us the most serious distresses."
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney of South Carolina, 1740-1824, Revolutionary War soldier, one of the authors of the US Constitution in 1787, speaking at the South Carolina Ratifying Convention in 1788.
I am not a big Sherman fan. He had interesting strategic ideas, worked well with his fellow commanders, and managed to get what needed doing done. Considering how unusual those traits are in the history of the war, he deserves respect.
However, I also think Thomas would have won the Atlanta Campaign much earlier than Sherman did. Sherman was tactically inept; Thomas was very good.
Regards,
Tim
Tactically inept? He consistently outflanked the confederates forcing Johsnton to fall back all the way to Atlanta without harldy giving battle. I wouldn't call that inept.
__________________ "In mortal combat, a man may and will become so infuriated by the din and dangers of a bloody fight that his heart will turn to stone and his every de sire [be] for blood."
John Hadley, 7th Indiana after the battle at Port Republic
Tactically inept? He consistently outflanked the confederates forcing Johsnton to fall back all the way to Atlanta without harldy giving battle. I wouldn't call that inept.
In military usage, what you are referring to is at the Operational level, above Tactical and below Strategical.
Sherman was OK there. Better than OK, really. But down at the level of battle tactics he was inept, and his tactical record throughout the war shows it. He was personally brave (almost all Civil War commanders were) and he could hold on and fight with the best when things were tough, but there are easily dozens of other commanders who were better tactically.
Sherman himself knew it, and rarely ventured most or all of his force in battle. When you do see him acting tactically, you usually see mediocre work or outright disasters. For example:
1) Sherman was the frontline commander hit first at Shiloh, taken completely by surprise, and responsible for camp security .
2) Sherman's headlong smash into Chickasaw Bluffs in December 1862 cost Union lives by the hundreds
3) Sherman was responsible for the fiasco of the main attack at Chattanooga in late 1863
One result was that by 1864 Sherman didn't risk enough to win quickly. That's why McPherson is so weak at the opening of the Atlanta Campaign (missing the chance to destroy Johnston). Sherman also blows the chance to destroy Hood at Jonesboro around September 1. He's a general who was careful enough to avoid defeat while maneuvering for non-battle victory in the campaign and deserves his fame. I think, though, that a Lee, a Jackson, or a Longstreet might have smashed him back.
Regards,
Tim
__________________ "Let us, then, consider all attempts to weaken this Union, by maintaining that each state is separately and individually independent, as a species of political heresy, which can never benefit us, but may bring on us the most serious distresses."
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney of South Carolina, 1740-1824, Revolutionary War soldier, one of the authors of the US Constitution in 1787, speaking at the South Carolina Ratifying Convention in 1788.
I am not a big Sherman fan. He had interesting strategic ideas, worked well with his fellow commanders, and managed to get what needed doing done. Considering how unusual those traits are in the history of the war, he deserves respect.
However, I also think Thomas would have won the Atlanta Campaign much earlier than Sherman did. Sherman was tactically inept; Thomas was very good.
Regards,
Tim
I am not the biggest fan of Sherman but you are way off with him. He may not have been a tactical genus but inept is any sense of the word is incorrect. He was successful in most of his engagement with confederate forces and in the end he almost always achieve the task assign to him.
You rebuke his successful Atlanta campaign by accusing him of being slow. He was not slow for he took the city in Sept., which in turn insured Lincoln's victory in Nov. of 1964. I think Sherman timing was prefect.
Go back:
At Shiloh, yes, he did leave himself open but at the end of the day he was not routed and he stood tall. By the end of the next day he and Grant routed the confederates.
At that bluff: It was one of the earlier failed attempts to take Vicksburg. I do not see this as him being a inept tactician.
At Chattanooga: He was following Grant's plan and I see no fiasco as you call it. It seems its a case of bad maps to me.
I notice you left off his Great March to the Sea with him cutting of his supply lines. His March to the Sea is equal to Scott's Mexican campaign and Grant's crossing the Mississippi in his Vicksburg campaign.
I just do not see this ineptness you mention about him. He was unstoppable from the time he left Atlanta until the end of the war. All confederate forces fell before him.
With what Johnston had. Within a short time after Sherman started moving, Joe Johnston had 75,000 troops. Lee had no more men in Virginia, but Grant had many more men than Sherman, with better supply and movement choices.
Johnston was unflapable in a crisis, knew his craft, and well-liked by his troops. He was not a particularly aggressive general. He was often sloppy about preparations and not detail oriented. For example, after 4 months in place, he had not done a good job of mapping and scouting his rear, or preparing it for delaying actions. He seems to have been in the dark about many things that astound me (which may not mean much ). He seems to have had no plan for what he was going to do other than to await developments -- which hands the initiative to Sherman.
Sherman was an uncertain commander, nervous and thinking too much. He was in his first major independent command. Johnston's style let him feel his way, gaining confidence, and never really threatened Sherman. IMHO, it would have been much better to pressure Sherman at every opportunity -- something Johnston never did. Lee, Jackson, and Longstreet were the three hardest hitters the Confederates had. I cannot imagine Sherman would have had such an easy time against them as he had against Johnston; I think they would have struck and pressured him, struck at his flanks at any opportunity. All three would have been more prepared than Johnston -- but Longstreet's record as an independent commander isn't so good. But in any event, I'd say Johnston's style and approach was the wrong one; it allowed Sherman time to get settled in, build confidence and a record of success.
Regards,
Tim
__________________ "Let us, then, consider all attempts to weaken this Union, by maintaining that each state is separately and individually independent, as a species of political heresy, which can never benefit us, but may bring on us the most serious distresses."
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney of South Carolina, 1740-1824, Revolutionary War soldier, one of the authors of the US Constitution in 1787, speaking at the South Carolina Ratifying Convention in 1788.
I just do not see this ineptness you mention about him. He was unstoppable from the time he left Atlanta until the end of the war. All confederate forces fell before him.
It's been said of Sherman that he never won a battle and never lost a campaign. Tim is essentially right that Sherman wasn't very good at the tactical level.
"He was unstoppable from the time he left Atlanta until the end of the war. All confederate forces fell before him."
He's delivering the coup de grace at that point....
When Sherman leaves Atlanta, there is no force to the East of him string enough to fight him except for Lee's army in Virginia -- which was tied down pretty well by Grant. Hood had taken the AoT off far to the West. When Beauregard gets the news, he decides to leave Hood to his own devices; Hood goes up to Nashville and disaster. The movement itself was amazing and demonstrated the essential weakness of the Confederacy, but nothing in it shows Sherman as particularly able on tactics.
Even later, when Johnston gets together enough troops to at least try something, Sherman blows yet another chance to destroy a Rebel army on the field of battle through excessive caution.
Regards,
Tim
__________________ "Let us, then, consider all attempts to weaken this Union, by maintaining that each state is separately and individually independent, as a species of political heresy, which can never benefit us, but may bring on us the most serious distresses."
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney of South Carolina, 1740-1824, Revolutionary War soldier, one of the authors of the US Constitution in 1787, speaking at the South Carolina Ratifying Convention in 1788.
In early May, after all the reinforcements joined him, Joe Johnston had about 75,000 men. Sherman had about 100,000. In Virginia, Lee faced worse odds and struck Grant hard.
Regards,
Tim
__________________ "Let us, then, consider all attempts to weaken this Union, by maintaining that each state is separately and individually independent, as a species of political heresy, which can never benefit us, but may bring on us the most serious distresses."
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney of South Carolina, 1740-1824, Revolutionary War soldier, one of the authors of the US Constitution in 1787, speaking at the South Carolina Ratifying Convention in 1788.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
). He seems to have had no plan for what he was going to do other than to await developments -- which hands the initiative to Sherman.
Linear Mode
