Sherman Sherman was a hero

[Nathanb1]

He did his job very well. No one can dispute that. Did it make him popular among those people? Heck no. Is there a rule you have to like the people who defeat you? Heck, no. Use the sports team analogy if you want:

I love the "Gray" team. They're my alma mater. My husband played for them and my kids attended. My grandkids plan to attend. I wear their color all the time and I love our local stadium. Our coach is an older man, and we think of him with something akin to hero worship. We used to win every game, but the other team is starting to become stronger and more dominant.

Here comes the "Blue" team. They're from far away. I don't know anyone who likes them. They're obnoxious. They cut in line at the beer stand and trash out our stadium. Word is they're gonna win the national championship. They're loud and they sit outside of the visitors section because there are too many of them. They probably pay the refs. This season, they kick our rears every game, then after the game they vandalize the stadium and take home stuff as souvenirs--only a few fans do this, but they're with the "Blue." Their coach and assistant coach are buddies. Coach isn't so bad, but he lets that assistant coach run up the score every time. I've read the assistant ain't that bad a guy, he disapproves of the bad stuff they do, but he lets them, and he sure acts like it's okay with him in public. He's even from a town near here, but I hear he's not too popular there anymore.

After a few years, the assistant moves on to another team that we've always liked or at least tolerated. Are we going to start worshiping the ground he walks and cheering for that team instead of ours just because he moved? What do you think? Gimme a break.

 

[wilber6150]

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.

Sherman lost first Manassas? Didn't know he was in command, from the reports of that battle he handled his men quite well for green troops with their baptism of fire.. Yupp he was surprised at Shiloh, and so was Grant, but gee they turned that battle around and who ended up winning? And again reports show him being stead fast under fire and doing a commendable job during the battle..Chicksaw Bayou had impressive defenses and would have inflicted heavy losses on any troops under any commander who assaulted them..

 

[Southland]

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/ ]

You are entitled to your opinion of how I post. I guess I am just assuming too much to expect all posters have the OR's.

 

[larry_cockerham]

Sherman lost first Manassas? Didn't know he was in command, from the reports of that battle he handled his men quite well for green troops with their baptism of fire.. Yupp he was surprised at Shiloh, and so was Grant, but gee they turned that battle around and who ended up winning? And again reports show him being stead fast under fire and doing a commendable job during the battle..Chicksaw Bayou had impressive defenses and would have inflicted heavy losses on any troops under any commander who assaulted them..

Wouldn't you say the folks (Union) at Shiloh simply showed up with several thousand fresh troops rather than "turned that battle around"?

 

[Nathanb1]

You are entitled to your opinion of how I post. I guess I am just assuming too much to expect all posters have the OR's.

Well, in a word, yes you are.

 

[wilber6150]

Wouldn't you say the folks (Union) at Shiloh simply showed up with several thousand fresh troops rather than "turned that battle around"?

No I would say the defensive line that they set up on the first day with their existing troops let them survive to the second day and the fresh troops allowed them to counter attack on the second...If I remember correctly a large amount of Union reenforcements on the first day took the wrong road and which negated any help they could give as it took them out of the battle for several hours.. If the Confederates hadn't been held back by these original troops there woudlnt have been a Union army left for these new troops to support. Granted though, Grant has a lot to thank for the starving Rebs stopping to plunder the Union camps for food for his survival..

 

[larry_cockerham]

No I would say the defensive line that they set up on the first day with their existing troops let them survive to the second day and the fresh troops allowed them to counter attack on the second...If I remember correctly a large amount of Union reenforcements on the first day took the wrong road and which negated any help they could give as it took them out of the battle for several hours.. If the Confederates hadn't been held back by these original troops there woudlnt have been a Union army left for these new troops to support. Granted though, Grant has a lot to thank for the starving Rebs stopping to plunder the Union camps for food for his survival..

I can accept your response. I've seen many a yankee come through here lost during the 32 years I've been in Tennessee. (It still happens occasionally.) It seems the Confederates on many occasions, whether from lack of enthusiastic leadership (as Forrest perceived with Bragg at Chickamauga) or just being 'out of gas', simply failed to drive home the fatal blow. I've often wondered if Divine Providence wasn't a factor in some of the outcomes of these events. We may never know.

 

[Elennsar]

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."

Respectfully, Sherman retaining this bias after the volunteers have become trained and experienced and their leaders able to fight and lead and organize seems more than just a professional minding amateurs mucking things up. Sherman considered volunteers amateurs that would muck things up whether or not they were any good, and a regular superior on the basis of being a regular - is Howard really worth promoting over John Palmer (if I'm remembering who was passed over) because he attended West Point? Has he really demonstrated that he knows the trade better?

I'm all for a partiality to the people who have the knowledge, but from all of what I can tell, Sherman never acknowledged or accepted that volunteer officers learned anything.

He did his job very well. No one can dispute that. Did it make him popular among those people? Heck no. Is there a rule you have to like the people who defeat you? Heck, no. Use the sports team analogy if you want:

The problem with the analogy (assuming its a good analogy for the sake of discussion) is that the gray team did plenty of lamentable stuff too.

Having a problem with guys who cut in line for the beer is a good thing, but the attitude that the gray team never did any such things and the blue team regularly did is not altogether fair or accurate.

 

[Baggage Handler #2]

You are entitled to your opinion of how I post. I guess I am just assuming too much to expect all posters have the OR's.

If I were to pare that down to "Southland says he 'guesses too much,'" you'd be very correct to call me on the point. It would be wrong to post that, and not very honest.

Sourcing quotes from places that deliberately and consistently mauls the substance is very nearly the same thing. It happens, but if someone brings it to your attention, make it right and don't use that source again unless you can confirm the same quote from another independent source.

No big deal.

 

[K Hale]

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.

He carried on with a gal about half his age, who sculpted the Lincoln statue in the Capitol. Vinnie Ream.

 

[K Hale]

Respectfully, Sherman retaining this bias after the volunteers have become trained and experienced and their leaders able to fight and lead and organize seems more than just a professional minding amateurs mucking things up.

All West Pointers preferred other West Pointers. I never heard of one who preferred otherwise.

Sherman considered volunteers amateurs that would muck things up whether or not they were any good, and a regular superior on the basis of being a regular - is Howard really worth promoting over John Palmer (if I'm remembering who was passed over) because he attended West Point? Has he really demonstrated that he knows the trade better?

John Logan. Yeah, IMO that was a weird choice.

 

[Elennsar]

All West Pointers preferred other West Pointers. I never heard of one who preferred otherwise.

Thomas seems to have been relatively neutral, at least for those who had proven themselves. Early on, I think he might have been more intent on having professionals. But his reorganization of the Army of the Cumberland post-Chickamauga has a rough balance of West Pointers and volunteers, if memory serves (and as indicated by mixing up who Sherman passed over to promote Howard, it might not).

Sherman was to volunteers as Extra Billy was about West Pointers, only without it being witty. And more so. That's the problem. A preference for trained people is one thing. Sherman seems to have been firmly entrenched on the idea that there was no such thing as a good volunteer officer. You would never see him doing what Lee did in regards to leaving Gordon in command of 2nd Corps and quietly dropping Early.

Lee was okay with volunteers, as was Grant.

Buell, McClellan, Halleck (as a field commander), I'm not sure.

Bragg doesn't seem to have specifically minded volunteer officers (his problem with That Guy was that he was a only a "partisan", not that he wasn't a West Pointer).

Kirby-Smith seems to have been okay with either, though its hard to say (someone who knows more about the Trans-Mississippi can probably correct or confirm this).

That's all I can think of offhand from the army commanders.

John Logan. Yeah, IMO that was a weird choice.

I know Palmer was upset enough to resign over something involving Sherman, but I must be muddling incidents.

Still, same problem whichever John it was.

 

[Southland]

If I were to pare that down to "Southland says he 'guesses too much,'" you'd be very correct to call me on the point. It would be wrong to post that, and not very honest.

Sourcing quotes from places that deliberately and consistently mauls the substance is very nearly the same thing. It happens, but if someone brings it to your attention, make it right and don't use that source again unless you can confirm the same quote from another independent source.

No big deal.

It is always a big deal when one poster tries to tell another poster what and how to post if there is something there that they don't like.

You are right, though. No big deal.

 

[wilber6150]

It is always a big deal when one poster tries to tell another poster what and how to post if there is something there that they don't like.

You are right, though. No big deal.

I don't think the issue is whether one poster doesn't like what someone else posts.. Its the source they use and whether its based on opinion or documented fact or whether a quote describes correctly the point that someone is trying to make or is it merely a "sound bite" if you will.. For example, I personally enjoyed the examples you gave of blacks being seen in action on the side of the Confederacy, though to me it doesn't actually prove that they were an official enlisted man, Im not going to say that people didn't see what they wrote.. Im going to take it on face value until more evidence on either side of the argument surfaces..

 

[wilber6150]

I can accept your response. I've seen many a yankee come through here lost during the 32 years I've been in Tennessee. (It still happens occasionally.) It seems the Confederates on many occasions, whether from lack of enthusiastic leadership (as Forrest perceived with Bragg at Chickamauga) or just being 'out of gas', simply failed to drive home the fatal blow. I've often wondered if Divine Providence wasn't a factor in some of the outcomes of these events. We may never know.

You know I had the same thought about Divine Providence.. The number of times that the Union dodged the bullet of total disaster in a battle certainly makes one think..

 

[Elennsar]

You know I had the same thought about Divine Providence.. The number of times that the Union dodged the bullet of total disaster in a battle certainly makes one think..

I think if there was a divine force acting in the Civil War - and this is with the images Glorybound's comment in another thread inspired - is that said force was interested in continuing the carnage until it could not be continued, and for either side to win "early" would ruin its fun.

I'm hoping this is just me feeling morbidly negative, but it ought to be noted as the other possibility from the idea of providence's favor shining on anyone.

 

[larry_cockerham]

I think if there was a divine force acting in the Civil War - and this is with the images Glorybound's comment in another thread inspired - is that said force was interested in continuing the carnage until it could not be continued, and for either side to win "early" would ruin its fun.

I'm hoping this is just me feeling morbidly negative, but it ought to be noted as the other possibility from the idea of providence's favor shining on anyone.

I can agree with most all this except the term 'fun'. That was likely 'none of the above'.

 

[Elennsar]

Well, if said divine being - call it the Devil for the sake of having a name - wanted to prolong the carnage until it could not be continued, I think its pretty safe to say it was having fun.

No one else may have been, but such a being would just regard that as more enjoyable.

 

[Nathanb1]

He carried on with a gal about half his age, who sculpted the Lincoln statue in the Capitol. Vinnie Ream.

Now, see! That's something interesting! How many people knew that??? (I kinda meant career-wise, but that'll do)

 

[wilber6150]

Well, if said divine being - call it the Devil for the sake of having a name - wanted to prolong the carnage until it could not be continued, I think its pretty safe to say it was having fun.

No one else may have been, but such a being would just regard that as more enjoyable.

Well then Im thinking the Devil lost cause the war could have lasted years with non-stop guerrilla warfare...