Sherman Sherman was a hero

[Southland]

Found its part of a letter to Halleck
http://www.sewanee.edu/faculty/Willis/Civil_War/documents/ShermanHalleck.html

Hey, man. Thanks.

 

[Nathanb1]

Maybe another line of chamberpots?

 

[M E Wolf]

Wilber6150, sir;

I use AOL's as well as Google.

Then when I have two valid quotes that aren't buggered up, I check them in the O.R.'s.

Respectfully submitted,
M. E. Wolf

 

[larry_cockerham]

View attachment 1509Maybe another line of chamberpots?

Even I laughed at that one. This product perhaps has some current market. I can name several, but won't.

 

[Nathanb1]

Wonder if the original patent still exists (For all you who don't know, this is a photo of an original Civil-War era homage to Gen. Butler)

 

[unionblue]

OK. Thanks. Here is more about Sherman.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Who_is_General_Sherman

Southland,

Must be a member from the History Channel Civil War Forum, but certainly, not an actual historian.

You certainly did not expect this bit of personal drivel to be considered an actual historical source, not when M. E. Wolf can produce so many other sites that actually do contain facts, dates, and real, complete, sources, as have other members of this forum have done so upon your own request.

Being willing to critize a historical figure with one's personal opinion is one thing, actually digging through verifiable sources, documents, ORs, letters, diaries, you know, HISTORY, is so much more of a bother and actually might involve effort and work.

Too bad the author on the website you produced cannot do such.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

 

[Southland]

Southland,

Must be a member from the History Channel Civil War Forum, but certainly, not an actual historian.

Do you hang out over there? Are there real historians here?

You certainly did not expect this bit of personal drivel to be considered an actual historical source, not when M. E. Wolf can produce so many other sites that actually do contain facts, dates, and real, complete, sources, as have other members of this forum have done so upon your own request.

You seem to take everything I do personal. Maybe you would like to explain that to the forum. You surely never PM me to discuss differences.

Being willing to critize a historical figure with one's personal opinion is one thing, actually digging through verifiable sources, documents, ORs, letters, diaries, you know, HISTORY, is so much more of a bother and actually might involve effort and work.

Too bad the author on the website you produced cannot do such.

You post what others do and say and use them for opinions so why do you think no one else here should. Here again you have a personal problem and if you want, we can sure work this out with a PM. I have done nothing to you.
Sincerely,
Unionblue

You have a lot more knowledge than I do about some things of the Civil War and and I respect you for that. Perhaps if my name was Northland instead of what it is would change things some.

 

[RobertP]

He was a racist

Wow what a news flash! Him and everyone else were racists. It was the common attitude of the time. It is significant of what?

He was a racist in addition to being a lunatic, pyromanic, and a drunk. His only significant success came during the Atlanta campaign where he outmanuevered a defensive-minded Johnston, as every other Union General did, while having a 2:1 advantage. Wow. He marched to the Sea with 60,000 men against a handful of militia made up of old men and boys. Wow. Other than that, he was beaten at 1st Manassas, surprised at Shiloh, and humbled at Chickasaw Bayou. He did capture Jackson with his Corps against 6,000 defenders. I'll give you that.

 

[Elennsar]

Speaking for myself, the problem is not North or South, Union or Confederacy, but documented historical fact vs. ceaseless nonhistorical statements ranging from opinion to outright distortion, if not on your part than on the part of the places you quote from.

Sherman can be faulted on his own flaws, but to do by the distortions used - for instance, "Sherman was a racist! Nevermind that 90% of the country at the time would agree with him!"

And to continue with that - if someone quoted Lee's statements on blacks, and used then to indicate he was racist, those so pleased by the link you posted arguing that would be arguing fiercely that we shouldn't judge Lee by 20th or 21st century standards.

Inconsistent? To say the least.

 

[Elennsar]

He was a racist in addition to being a lunatic, pyromanic, and a drunk. His only significant success came during the Atlanta campaign where he outmanuevered a defensive-minded Johnston, as every other Union General did, while having a 2:1 advantage. Wow. He marched to the Sea with 60,000 men against a handful of militia made up of old men and boys. Wow. Other than that, he was beaten at 1st Manassas, surprised at Shiloh, and humbled at Chickasaw Bayou. He did capture Jackson with his Corps against 6,000 defenders. I'll give you that.

Are we discussing the historical Sherman, or the bogeyman Sherman? This is a classic of "magnify flaws, minimize good points, and generally paint a portrait looking like a funhouse mirror version".

Sherman generally had a 3:2 advantage vs. Johnston, not 2:1, for instance.

I don't admire Sherman as either a general or a human being, but when someone starts describing him as a "lunatic and a pyromaniac", its a pretty safe bet that the actual Sherman isn't nearly as important as the myth. Its like having a discussion on Lee that begins by describing him as of flawless moral character, only more so (since it allows for the possibility of him having made military mistakes being acknowledged).

But "Sherman the psycho"...I can only hope the intent of anyone arguing that is to get the subject changed as fast as possible.

 

[1SGDan]

He was a racist in addition to being a lunatic, pyromanic, and a drunk.

Personal attacks aside he was a commander that was fighting a resourceful and clever enemy. Ultimately he led his forces to victory which is the only true measure of military success.

 

[Nathanb1]

What say we back off into a discussion of tactics, management style or his later life, which most people know very little about. That will keep this thread going much longer than the current tone.

 

[1SGDan]

Nathanb1
On the subject of tactics I find it hard to understand the vitriol that surrounds Sherman. We laid waste to an entire continent in pusuit of victory during WWII and all consider it a great victory. Sherman did about the same thing and is cursed for it. The only real difference is the method of delivery for the destruction.
Dan

 

[larry_cockerham]

Anyone, even yankees and us grit eating Southerners, who reads Sherman's letters and memoirs will quickly discern that he was a pretty normal guy with a huge task before him. I highly recommend MARCHING THROUGH GEORGIA William T. Sherman's Personal Narrative of His March Through Georgia , edited by Mills Lane, pub. Arno Press NY 1978. [Yes, I do have books and have even read a few of them.]

 

[Elennsar]

The main thing I would say there is that Sherman knew logistics.

As a tactician, he was not so good. If wars were won solely by fighting battles, Sherman would be in the bottom half of the list for the Civil War.

But he serves as an excellent argument for the truth of "Amateurs study tactics, professionals study logistics".

He worked well with Thomas and Grant, though he seems to have had overly strong feelings on some issues (such as a preference for West Pointers and a disdain for volunteers).

But he doesn't seem to have been particularly hard to work under in the way that for instance Jackson and Bragg were.

And...um...that's all that comes to mind at the moment. I'm sure there's more to say to expand this and elaborate on details, but this seems to be a basis for looking into those things.

 

[1SGDan]

He also understood what it would take to win and was not afraid to go there.

 

[Nathanb1]

Nathanb1
On the subject of tactics I find it hard to understand the vitriol that surrounds Sherman. We laid waste to an entire continent in pusuit of victory during WWII and all consider it a great victory. Sherman did about the same thing and is cursed for it. The only real difference is the method of delivery for the destruction.
Dan

Possibly because you're not talking to Germans...Possibly because Hitler is a whole different ball game, and a vast number of Europeans wanted to be liberated.....possibly because unfortunately, in this discussion, there is an "us" and "them"....It's like comparing mangos to apples. It's fruit, but there is no comparison. Ask the Lakota or Cheyenne how much they like Custer. Hey, he was leading the U.S. Army to liberate territory and make the world safe for gold miners, wasn't he? Doesn't mean he was popular or that their descendants don't hate him to this day.....

I admit it's a weird thing--but let's just boil it down to some people don't like him very, very much because of who he was and what he did, and the other bunch does because of who he was and what he did. And not on this board, but there's a huge middle ground who doesn't even know who he was....

I just don't think we're gonna change anything with childish accusations and epithets flying back and forth. You have a point, but I don't think the folks on the other side are going to listen. When we won't listen, discussions (and I use the term loosely) like this occur.

 

[1SGDan]

The enemy is the enemy even if they happen to be Southern Americans. His job was to defeat the enemy and he did so.

 

[Baggage Handler #2]

You have a lot more knowledge than I do about some things of the Civil War and and I respect you for that. Perhaps if my name was Northland instead of what it is would change things some.

Nonsense.
It has nothing to do with where someone's from and everything to do with being diligent about our facts and sources.

If you like, I'll quote you out of context. It wouldn't be honest and you wouldn't like it. What exactly is the difficulty in giving the dead the same respect you give the living?

[edit: s/your/the/ ]

 

[M E Wolf]

As to Elennsar's comment about General W.T. Sherman's disdain for voluteers; as he was a West Point man; I can understand that mentality as in the Law Enforcement community, there is a distain for those 'wanna be cops' who fudge up crime scenes, get in the way or ruin the case so it can't be prosecuted. They mean well but--they hinder more than they help. That is on a small scale.

In addition, this feeling against volunteers came early in the A.C.W., as so many 'politicial' generals were appointed and here he was a grad from West Point with a rank of Colonel and in charge of a Brigade at First Battle of Bull Run/Manassas. So many political generals went in for their glory ...or votes. Many dropped out . When you are drilled into your head and walk as if in drill and sleep at attention throughout your academy days at West Point; order is appreciated and having a mob to lead instead of an army--well its no wonder that Sherman had such an attitude. Why bother with West Point? Things changed and his army was filled with volunteers. The Army made manuals for the volunteer as to melt into the Regular Army's practices. In modern terms "Army Manual for Dummies."

At First Battle of Bull Run/Manassas the many militias had their own styles of protocols and the like--so it was a royal mess and confusion. Luckily, so were the C.S.A.

However, one thing stands out about professional soldiers and professional officers -- even professional law enforcement officers --and that is to not let prejudices stand in the way of duty.

My duty is, to honestly seek, honestly validate, look at all facts of history of the Civil War with an open mind. To read all reports as to gain the facts that are agreed upon by all who are reporting, read sub-facts as supporting the principle facts which add to the the total picture or description reported. Both sides had a view of the same battlefield. The winners have the aftermath details to which are invaluable to my personal study of that portion of the War.

Just some thoughts.

Respectfully submitted for consideration,
M. E. Wolf