Civil War History - The South & Western TheatersCheck this forum for all South and Western Theater Questions. Included are the Western, Pacific, Trans-Mississippi, & Lower Seaboard and Gulf Approach Theaters.
I would be pleased if you gentlemen would carry this discussion a bit further and consider the relationship between Grant and William T. Sherman, his southern commander. I strongly believe those two working somewhat in tandem brought the war to a close and victory for the Union. Sherman was the mastermind behind the western theatre from 1863 onward and Grant of course was working the Virginia scene. Considerable communication is recorded between the two when Sherman was in Savannah waiting to move north and complete the crush of the Confederate armies. Lee called it quits which Joe Johnston was taking one last shot. Grant and Sherman deserve the ribbon for last guys standing.
I believe Sherman was a general approaching great. Without the steady hand of Grant, however, he was volatile and given to periods of uncertainty.The steadying hand and friendship kept his mind on his business, and his mind was virtually unerring in the business of war.
The pair of them brought the war to an end. I don't know if Grant could have done it without Sherman, but Sherman most certainly could not have done it without Grant.
A rather unique combination, don't you think? Is there a comparison between Sherman and Patton? Patton was, like Sherman, a fighting fool -- tempermental, impolitic. Perhaps it ends there. Patton also had a second front against Monty on the issue of personal aggrandizement. While some of that might have been present in Sherman, I don't see it in the same extent. Patton needed his Bradley. Once he had him, he was virtually unstoppable. Sherman needed his Grant.
And, let us not forget that Sherman was also under the aegis of Halleck.
Now, a question for you learned sir. Do you think Grant was aware of Sherman's dependence on his calm leadership? (Assuming you buy into the previous suppostion.)
It was, indeed, a synergistic arrangement -- together they formed a greater force than the two of them simply added together. (I know you know what synergism is so there is little reason to add the definition except for verbal diahrrea.)
There are other factors (Sheridan, Thomas, et al.) but as you brought up the two only, I've limited this reply to them.
Doesn't it all come down the the generalship of Grant and his having nurtured an amazingly proficient lieutenant?
Two slight comments (as most of mine are). I agree with you on the vast majority of this. Sherman was with or near Grant at Shiloh, so their 'association' was long and well-tested. After Chickamauga, they went their separate ways and their was a period during the Atlanta campaign when Sherman developed some generalship on his own before his much discussed march across Georgia and South Carolina. In the meantime Grant wasn't paying too much attention to Sherman because of the minor distraction (ha?) with Robert E. Lee. Grant and Sherman could only re-unite in command or tactical planning after the winter of 1864. Sherman earned his stars by chasing the Army of Tennessee away from Jonesboro. The rest was clean-up except for his old nemesis Joseph Johnston who stubornly (at Lee's order) took one more round at Bentonville. The southern cause would have been far better served had Johnston stayed with the Army of Tennessee (hindsight from someone who wasn't there except genetically). Perhaps Johnston would have had better sense than to attack Nashville in the worst weather of the decade, if at all. Sherman grew in experience and in confidence as he reached Savannah. By that time he could have served on equal terms or even replaced Grant. Thomas, who we didn't bring up, in my opinion was also a competent general who didn't get much press, but who covered his part of the court with demonstrated efficiency. Thomas was a professional and proved it though his only competition was the exceptionally gifted amateur Forrest and a drug infested cripple Hood. Patton, as you know, was in a world of his own. Patton succeeded only because of Eisenhower who held all the marionette's strings. Ike was able to dictate when (with a little help from Marshall) Bradley, Patton and Montgomery took the stage and to some extent where. The artistry of that effort was the ability to contain Patton as governor of Germany before he got himself into big trouble. There was no Eisenhower that I have found in the civil war, certainly not Davis or Lincoln. As for learning, I still am?
Your comments, Larry, are always welcome. Interesting that you rank Eisenhower above both Davis and Lincoln. In what context do you do that? As a president? As a general? As on overall capable man. Can I assume that you would not rank Grant or Lee in DDE's league?
Just continuing the thread. The comparison between WBTS personalities and those more contemporary to us is what fascinates me most about that unpleasantness. And I really would be interested in your further explanation.
I believe your are in line with my meager thoughts. Two different worlds. Things had gotten a bit more complicated by Eisenhower's time. Eisenhower didn't have the burden shared by Lincoln and Davis in trying to attract political backing. Ike was given a carefully considered and unquestioned mandate by Roosvelt and Churchill during WWII, another luxury that Lincoln and Davis didn't share. If you look at the personal fortitude of Lincoln and Davis, you find two men certainly of character, but of a more simple time. The more I learn about Lincoln, the less I'm impressed. He was a politician, little more. Davis had heart and some experience as a soldier, but was on an ill-conceived mission from the outset. Eisenhower did manage to attract the backing of the entire free world.
If you lined up our three contestants, Eisenhower, Grant and Lee, how would they score? For looks and sex appeal: I'd go 1. Lee 2. Eisenhower 3. Grant. Brains and initiative: 1. Lee 2. Eisenhower 3. Grant Ability to react under extreme pressure: 1. Eisenhower 2. Grant 3. Lee Personality and stage presence: 1. Lee 2. Eisenhower 3. Grant...... Looks as if I'm not much of a Grant fan. Not true. Who would I take with me into a bar room brawl: 1. Grant 2. Eisenhower 3. Lee That last one had to account for something. The Civil War was hand-to-hand and rifle-to-rifle. Grant survived while being in the middle of it. He didn't watch on tv or ask James Longstreet to tell him what was happening. Give me Grant and Forrest in a fight.
Ole, I'll concede Lincoln was a master politician and formidable speech maker, but he would have to share the political savy laurels with Ike. Juggling the personalities in WWII and surviving four years of that had to equal anything Lincoln was challenged with, aside from John Wilkes Booth.
Sir, as you know, I,m new here, but as I said in a thread in "Searching for your ancestors section", Friendship cemetery in Columbus, MS has over 2000 graves of soldiers from Shiloh, both Confederate, and Union. They were sent down the Tombigbee River both to be burried, and Columbus served as an hospital center. You can log on to Friendship cemetery, through the Columbus city web page, and see the many markers as well as monuments. Also of intrest, a group in Columbus is trying to have a civil war monument taken down, get this, because when viewed from the side, the flag the soldier is carring looks like a clansman.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
