Was Sheridan's Relief of Warren after the Battle of Five Forks Justified?

Was Sheridan's relief of Warren after the Battle of Five Forks justified?

  • Yes, it was justified

    Votes: 5 18.5%
  • No, it was not justified

    Votes: 22 81.5%

  • Total voters
    27
At that time, Sheridan's (and Grant's, for that matter) treatment of Warren was unfair. I believe that the argument could be made that Warren could have and should have been relieved at various times during the Overland and Petersburg Campaigns. He was not particularly able for large portions of those campaigns and was somewhat lucky to have gotten through them with his authority intact.

Ryan
 
At that time, Sheridan's (and Grant's, for that matter) treatment of Warren was unfair. I believe that the argument could be made that Warren could have and should have been relieved at various times during the Overland and Petersburg Campaigns. He was not particularly able for large portions of those campaigns and was somewhat lucky to have gotten through them with his authority intact.

Ryan

Exactly right, Ryan. The specific reason for his relief was unjust, as the court of inquiry found.
 
I voted no. The case of Warren and Sheridan has always intrigued me and probably has its roots in personality differences between the men. Warren was quite deliberative and often questioned superior orders during the Overland and Petersburg campaigns, a trait that bedeviled Grant to no end. In fact, Grant gave Sheridan permission to relieve Warren prior to the Five Forks engagement. Sheridan too, was a more emotional, highly aggressive commander who had little patience for those like Warren, who Sheridan perceived as being less than effective. But at Five Forks, Sheridan was plain wrong. He blamed Warren for failing to bring up his V Corps in a timely manner, when the order to Warren barely gave enough time to do so, and for being being unavailable when in fact, Warren was trying to redirect General Crawford's division to the right position. Not to mention the fact that Warren's V Corps with Sheridan's cavalry made Five Forks the decisive Union victory that led to Appomattox about 10 days later. So Warren's relief would seem to be unjustified by the facts of the matter, and showed the spiteful side of Sheridan.
 
I voted no. The case of Warren and Sheridan has always intrigued me and probably has its roots in personality differences between the men. Warren was quite deliberative and often questioned superior orders during the Overland and Petersburg campaigns, a trait that bedeviled Grant to no end. In fact, Grant gave Sheridan permission to relieve Warren prior to the Five Forks engagement. Sheridan too, was a more emotional, highly aggressive commander who had little patience for those like Warren, who Sheridan perceived as being less than effective. But at Five Forks, Sheridan was plain wrong. He blamed Warren for failing to bring up his V Corps in a timely manner, when the order to Warren barely gave enough time to do so, and for being being unavailable when in fact, Warren was trying to redirect General Crawford's division to the right position. Not to mention the fact that Warren's V Corps with Sheridan's cavalry made Five Forks the decisive Union victory that led to Appomattox about 10 days later. So Warren's relief would seem to be unjustified by the facts of the matter, and showed the spiteful side of Sheridan.
It's my opinion that Grant's permission to relieve Warren was a subtle message that Sheridan interpreted correctly. Warren had worn out his welcome with Grant and Meade over the past 11 months. Grant could have overruled Sheridan - he didn't. Meade could have interceded with Grant to try to save Warren's position - he didn't.
 
It's my opinion that Grant's permission to relieve Warren was a subtle message that Sheridan interpreted correctly. Warren had worn out his welcome with Grant and Meade over the past 11 months. Grant could have overruled Sheridan - he didn't. Meade could have interceded with Grant to try to save Warren's position - he didn't.

Warren could be abrasive and would question orders when he thought that he knew better and by 1865, Grant's and Meade's patience with him had worn thin. I agree that Grant's order was meant for Sheridan to relieve Warren if there was any excuse at all to do so.

Ryan
 
It's my opinion that Grant's permission to relieve Warren was a subtle message that Sheridan interpreted correctly. Warren had worn out his welcome with Grant and Meade over the past 11 months. Grant could have overruled Sheridan - he didn't. Meade could have interceded with Grant to try to save Warren's position - he didn't.

There is no question that Grant gave him authority to do so. But Grant should have done it himself PRIOR to April 1. It was kind of cowardly of Grant to pass the buck. And there is no question that the specific reason given for Warren's relief by Little Phil the Pathological Liar was wrong and was an injustice.
 
There is no question that Grant gave him authority to do so. But Grant should have done it himself PRIOR to April 1. It was kind of cowardly of Grant to pass the buck. And there is no question that the specific reason given for Warren's relief by Little Phil the Pathological Liar was wrong and was an injustice.
That reminds me I have your book on Sheridan on the shelf. I'll have to finally read it!
 
There is no question that Grant gave him authority to do so. But Grant should have done it himself PRIOR to April 1. It was kind of cowardly of Grant to pass the buck. And there is no question that the specific reason given for Warren's relief by Little Phil the Pathological Liar was wrong and was an injustice.
I agree, but think that it conforms with some other choices Grant made.
 
I agree he should have been relieved long before five forks. Meade and Grant both talked each other out of it early on. Not one of Grants better days.
 
I believe Warren had worn out his welcome prior to 5 Forks but somehow keep hanging on till Sheridan nailed him with the idea of better late than never. Warren peaked way too early with his best performance at Gettysburg.
Regards
David
 
His real strength was as engineering officer as shown by his actions at Gettysburg. His historical reputation would have been much greater had he stayed in that position throughout the rest of the war.
 
I think everyone already nailed it and I will concur. He deserved to be relieved before Five Forks, but his actions at FF did not warrant his removal specifically for that.
 
Is there any sympathy for Warren? My understanding is that Grant/Meade got fed up largely because he was overly reflective and imposed some of his judgment to postpone attacks he thought would fail. But is that entirely a bad thing in a stage of the war where any attack on prepared positions was most likely to be a bloody disaster? Esp w/ the ANV who had gotten quite good at it bloodying Grant throughout the Overland Campaign, most painfully at Cold Harbor. If Warren had done the same thing and said no to Burnside at F-berg, wouldn't he be seen as a hero instead of a royal pain in Grant's side?
 
Back
Top