Sherman Sherman was a hero

[unionblue]

I half way agree with y'all yankees. He was a brilliant commander...he was also a racist but that is a different bone to pick for a different day.

Indeed, as racism and wishing to preserve slavery are two different topics, but as you said, for another day.

I believe that the Union saw that they could not break us unless our homes and industries were gone and Sherman's troops did that well and a victory by whatever means is still a victory so i do tip my hat to him to helping quell the rebellion.

Indeed, a good thing, when you consider the alternative.

That being said the southern forces were treating the yankee property with respect and even payed (in confederate note) for any property they took.

I'm afraid there would be those who would very much disagree with you, especially Unionists who lived in the South and the Border States. As for Confederate notes, being paid in that script was about as much as being paid in toilet paper.

When Lee was in Maryland or Pennsylvanian had he comprised the unwritten rules of war and waged war on homes that were defended by elderly men and young boys then he would have been labeled as a butcher and not as a "hero" (although many still don't think that he is), but he might have been able to bring the war to an end by braking the Union's will.

Chambersburg, PA, comes to mind, plus the idea that Lee did not go into PA on a harmless sight-seeing trip. As a matter of fact, he was bringing war to the North wth the intent of breaking the Union's will, that and plus steal all the livestock, foodstuffs, and round up as many ex-slaves and freedmen as his men wished to do.

On the first page Ole wrote and said "Personally, I can't see the reasoning behind it, but then, I was not raised there, nor were my antecedents. The destruction is considerably overblown, although there certainly was destruction.At the time, and continuing into today, I will never understand how a people who start a war can complain about how it is conducted."

Well Ole your right, you were not from here and those were not your people.

And I doubt very much that you were alive at that time either and it would be hard to call them your people, what with almost 150 years between you and them. You can claim the South as the region you live in, even claim the heritage of your ancestors, but all the real "Yankees" and "Rebels" are long gone.

However the destruction is not over blown Atlanta-Burnt, Jackson, MS- Burnt Four times (twice were under Grant but Sherman was under Grant) Sherman practice his march to the sea through Central Mississippi (Vicksburg to Meridian) and his men tore up every inch of train track, left the countryside bare of every scrap of food, "burnt" (confiscated and sold on the black market) only God knows how many bells of cotton, and the good Lord knows how many pictures were slashed, how much furniture was stolen and broken. His men used private homes as stables forcing the families out. There is a Church in Bovina, MS that was used as a stable for the union, the Church's cornerstone was used as target practice, the church itself was used as a butcher shop (the cutting was done on the alter...just saying) a dance hall...then it was burnt.

As you said, its called war and a war on property, meant to break the will of those supporting it, is far more desirable than wholesale slaughter of civilians.

How can you call the man that authorized this destruction and mayhem a hero?

Easy. He was. He did exactly what you said he did, broke the will of the Confederacy and its citizens, shortened the war, and put down the rebellion.

Granted they saved the Union and made our country a stronger better country that it was before...

You continue to praise him for the results, but disaprove of his methods?

but how can we glamorize a man that would do that to people of a country he was trying to protect and reunite.

This is the same man who told Southerners that the day they stopped fighting in the rebellion, he would offer his hand and help in friendship.

If this is the NEW definition of a hero then GOD HELP THE FUTURE!!

No, this was the definition of a man tasked to wage war who found a way to do so without inflicting needless deaths on his army or the enemy population. Property over people, and it worked.

I was always taught that a hero is someone worth idolizing, whose deeds were just and pure.

You could do worse than Sherman, trust me.

Maybe I am a young, naive, southerner whose vision is blurred by magnolias and a sense of honor that is dieing out with each generation, but their are some people who don't need to be honored in the class of "hero" William T. Sherman is one of them. My mentor told me this "People do Sherman just like they do with a steak...they cut away the fat give it to the dog or the trash...but they keep the good part for themselves."

And I say you need to read a bit more of unbiased history and listen less to people on how to prepare and eat a good steak.

Sorry if i rambled again sorry if you are offended that i used the term yankee,

GCBond

No problem, rants are OK, and happen quite often here.

Until our next post,
Unionblue

 

[larry_cockerham]

No problem, rants are OK, and happen quite often here.

Until our next post,
Unionblue

I heartedly disagree with a portion of your previous post, Mr. Blue, Sir. Toilet paper is worth FAR more than Confederate script.

 

[wilber6150]

I heartedly disagree with a portion of your previous post, Mr. Blue, Sir. Toilet paper is worth FAR more than Confederate script.

Chuckles this early in the morning thank you sir

 

[RobertP]

"You could do worse than Sherman, trust me." UB

 

[Old Bay]

Where do the people who are neither fans or...um...of different persausion fit?

I can't be the only one with mixed feelings.

This is pretty much where I fall.

 

[brass napoleon]

I don't think anyone is arguing with that. I know I'm not.

What troubles me (and this is about all "army in enemy territory" scenarios):

Its one thing to be unable to catch each and every rotter. But something has gone wrong when the ordinarily decent soldier is acting badly.

In war you do what you have to do, no matter how distasteful you might find it. Lincoln, Grant and Sherman all did what they had to do. I believe Lincoln and Grant found it distasteful. I'm not so sure about Sherman.

 

[wilber6150]

I half way agree with y'all yankees. He was a brilliant commander...he was also a racist but that is a different bone to pick for a different day.

Most white people in the era were also racist so not sure of your point

That being said the southern forces were treating the yankee property with respect and even payed (in confederate note) for any property they took. When Lee was in Maryland or Pennsylvanian had he comprised the unwritten rules of war and waged war on homes that were defended by elderly men and young boys then he would have been labeled as a butcher and not as a "hero" (although many still don't think that he is), but he might have been able to bring the war to an end by braking the Union's will.

There are many accounts of private property being stolen and citizens being robbed during the Gettysburg campaign as well..In addition, whole towns were coerced into giving money on threat of their towns being burnt down. With the army under Hood heading in the opposite direction of Sherman and another force sitting in Macon, whose fault is it that there was only emergency militia made up of the very young and old to face Sherman.. How can you blame him for the type of force that opposed him?

Well Ole your right, you were not from here and those were not your people. However the destruction is not over blown Atlanta-Burnt, Jackson, MS- Burnt Four times (twice were under Grant but Sherman was under Grant) Sherman practice his march to the sea through Central Mississippi (Vicksburg to Meridian) and his men tore up every inch of train track, left the countryside bare of every scrap of food, "burnt" (confiscated and sold on the black market) only God knows how many bells of cotton, and the good Lord knows how many pictures were slashed, how much furniture was stolen and broken. His men used private homes as stables forcing the families out.

The sale of the bales of cotton would go into supporting the Confederacy along with the surplus food and were legitmate targets of war..And the railroads definitly a target.. The citizens of these states were overjoyed and estatic with the fantasy of the grand war against the Union, but now the realitly of what the war was actually like strikes home.. One of the main goals of the march was to prove that the Confederate government was powerless to protect them and the best course was to sue for peace..

Oddly enough, with as much destruction that was being done to the state of Georgia, Shermans overtures for that state making a separte peace weren't quickly turned down...

You reap what you sow..

 

[wilber6150]

In war you do what you have to do, no matter how distasteful you might find it. Lincoln, Grant and Sherman all did what they had to do. I believe Lincoln and Grant found it distasteful. I'm not so sure about Sherman.

I dont think Sherman did, his philsophy seemed to be that the people wanted the war, so now they should feel the effects of that desire...

 

[Elennsar]

In war you do what you have to do, no matter how distasteful you might find it. Lincoln, Grant and Sherman all did what they had to do. I believe Lincoln and Grant found it distasteful. I'm not so sure about Sherman.

That is the problem.

As is whether or not what was done was what had to be done, but that's a question we're unfortunately without any basis for answering one way or another.

I generally trust Grant. Since he thought it was justified, I'm erring on the side of assuming he was right.

 

[trice]

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.

In the 1860, the average American attitude was that any good man could do anything if he applied himself. It is nice to have a positive attitude, but some jobs take experience and training as well as apptitude. You could probably take a good man and make him into a decent Lieutenant or Captain in an infantry unit with a few months training *if* you have experienced people around to teach him the basics and save him from himself (particularly good, experienced NCOs) You'd need more time than that to make good staff and command officers, majors, colonels and generals -- a lot more. Anything to do with logistics or equipment or communications or intel requires specialized backgrounds and experience, and takes a long time to raise up an organization of people who can handle it.

Different branches take longer as well. Training an infantryman was relatively quick (months), while training a cavalryman took a year or two (Europeans considered it took two years to train a Lancer from scratch, but hopefully that recruit came with a background that involved using a lance from horseback to hunt, like the Poles).

A diverse military background meant a great deal. I don't think it is a coincidence that the triumverate of top commanders who won the war for the Union (Grant, Sherman, Sheridan) all showed a tremendous command of logistics and supply. Grant had been a regimental QM in Mexico under both Taylor and Scott in addition to his combat experience there, then was a QM on the West Coast. Sheridan had seen action against the Indians in the Northwest as well as being a QM there, then was used a a QM in Missouri after the war started. Sherman missed the combat of the Mexican War, but had extensive experience organizing California 1848-53. Look at their records in the Civil War and you can see their success is based on a sure handling of all matters of command, especially logistics: they could always be sure their armies could do what they wanted them to do. Other than someone like Forrest, you'll find few "amateurs" who can handle that type of work early in the war on either side.

It is clear enough the Banks and Butlers and Pillows and Floyds of the day were disasters-waiting-to-happen in the field. In early 1861, many "amateurs" had nothing to recommend them for anything above a company command. Soldiers died in droves through their mismanagement, simply because they did not have the knowledge, the training, and the experience to do better. (Plenty of "professionals" who flopped as well at high command and staff jobs, but no one knows how to set up a camp for a few thousand men without having some experience at it, or how to manage a field maneuver by a brigade, etc.)

Sherman and others treated the pressure to use "amateurs" in positions they were clearly unqualified for with a rolling of the eyes, if not vehement protest. Some never got over it, and there was certainly an "old boys club" in the Army -- but at the same time, they were generally right that the "amateurs" were in over their heads.

By 1864, there were a lot of "amateurs" with 2-3 years of hard-earned, often blood-soaked experience in how to get things done. The Union staff and support organizations were clearly better and stronger, but even some of the Confederate ones were becoming pretty efficient (see Longstreet's Corps). Given the French Army mobilization fiascos in Italy (1859) and during the Austro-Prussian War (1866) and the Franco-Prussian War (1870), I'd say by 1864 Union Army staffs and support organizations were more efficient than the French Army (considered the best in the world at the time).

Oh, yeah -- on Forrest, take note of how many West Point officers he attracted, along with any military school graduate he could lay hands on. Forrest was a hard-driving, efficient businessman who knew how to run a large organization by attracting good people and taking advantage of their skills. His successes were based on that, along with advance planning, good intel, and a preference for artillery late in the war. This "amateur" succeeded because he acted as a good "professional" would.

If we looked, we'd find that Sherman's army of 60,000 men moving through GA and the Carolinas was overwhelmingly made up of "amateurs". He culled the troops at Atlanta before starting, picking specific units, sending those sick or injured or weak back with Thomas. He had few stragglers because he had very few men likely to straggle. In one study of 25 regiments, about 85% were in service since 1862; about 50% had re-upped their enlistments to finish the war. Virtually all officers in those regiments fit that profile of long-term service. These men were "amateurs" in the sense they were not in the pre-war Army or West Point grads, but after 3 years of war they were really "professionals" in all but name.

Sherman was very proud of these men, and very loyal to them. It is only in the very highest posts that you see the preponderance of West Pointers people point to, and those types of posts take many years of experience to master.

Tim

 

[K Hale]

A diverse military background meant a great deal. I don't think it is a coincidence that the triumverate of top commanders who won the war for the Union (Grant, Sherman, Sheridan) all showed a tremendous command of logistics and supply. Grant had been a regimental QM in Mexico under both Taylor and Scott in addition to his combat experience there, then was a QM on the West Coast. Sheridan had seen action against the Indians in the Northwest as well as being a QM there, then was used a a QM in Missouri after the war started. Sherman missed the combat of the Mexican War, but had extensive experience organizing California 1848-53. Look at their records in the Civil War and you can see their success is based on a sure handling of all matters of command, especially logistics: they could always be sure their armies could do what they wanted them to do.

Hmm. Stuart had also been a quartermaster in Kansas, as was Hancock in California. You are onto something.

 

[Elennsar]

Sherman and others treated the pressure to use "amateurs" in positions they were clearly unqualified for with a rolling of the eyes, if not vehement protest. Some never got over it, and there was certainly an "old boys club" in the Army -- but at the same time, they were generally right that the "amateurs" were in over their heads.

Sherman was seems to be one of those who never got over it. The difference between the wet-behind-the-ears volunteer officer in 1861 and the "amateurs" of 1864 does not seem to have influenced him.

I'm not saying that there's something wrong with a preference for professionals. But Sherman was more like "professionals are capable by definition, nonprofessionals are incompetent by definition". If he ever promoted a nonWest Pointer over a West Pointer, or praised the former as superior to the latter, I can't think of any examples.

Sherman was very proud of these men, and very loyal to them. It is only in the very highest posts that you see the preponderance of West Pointers people point to, and those types of posts take many years of experience to master.

The problem:
No one in 1861 had any experience managing a corps or division besides a few men too old to serve. Not many more even knew about brigades or regiments. While the basics might be there for the West Pointers, actually learning to manage 10-25,000 men is a new level of responsibility - with plenty of West Pointers falling short. Samuel P. Heintzelman, Erasmus D. Keyes, Irwin McDowell, Ambrose Burnside, Dixon Miles (looking at the guys at First Bull Run). All West Pointers. All unable to do it. Orlando Wilcox doesn't seem to be particularly special, though I'm not familiar with his career.

To use the example given earlier (of Sherman's bias), Howard had been in the army for two years (not counting teaching mathematics at West Point).

This is not exactly long years of experience. Nor has his war record indicated any great ability.

Sherman gives him command of the Army of the Tennessee over Logan, whose war record has been consistently better than Howard's.

Minding men like Floyd and Butler is one thing, and there were certainly a few too many of them. Assuming anyone who didn't go to West Point is like them is not an accurate representation of the volunteer officers, just as assuming that all West Pointers are like Thomas or Grant (to use the two most successful Union generals) is inaccurate.

 

[K Hale]

Other than the Howard/Logan thing, are you thinking of anything else when it comes to Sherman's preference for West P'inters late in the war?

 

[Elennsar]

Other than the Howard/Logan thing, are you thinking of anything else when it comes to Sherman's preference for West P'inters late in the war?

Possibly temporally putting Schofield over Palmer (both are equally senior as major generals, Scofield is senior as a brigadier by date of commission, and he technically counted as an "army commander"...an army of all of one corps, the 23rd), but that may have involved coordinating things rather than favoring Schofield.

Text in () paraphrased from Generals in Blue.

But Sherman picking the medicore Howard is quite obnoxious enough, speaking as someone who is usually a West P'inter fan. And while I'm not sure who was available as an alternate (not an area I've studied), I'm not sure an equal "d--m fool" (Sherman's term, not mine) to Kilpatrick who wasn't a West Pointer would have been appointed.

 

[ole]

I half way agree with y'all yankees. He was a brilliant commander...he was also a racist but that is a different bone to pick for a different day.

The claims Sherman being racist are considerably overblown and not entirely accurate. His objection to colored soldiers was primarily based on the not-uncommon belief that the effects of generations of bondage rendered them unfit for service until that disadvantage was erased. If you'll recall, early in the war, he held the same belief about volunteers.

Sherman apparently objected to blacks, not because they were lesser persons, but because they would need extra training to bring them up to his standards for soldiers. That's a bunch different than considering them savages or sub-human primates.

However the destruction is not over blown. Atlanta-Burnt, Jackson, MS- Burnt Four times (twice were under Grant but Sherman was under Grant) Sherman practice his march to the sea through Central Mississippi (Vicksburg to Meridian) and his men tore up every inch of train track, left the countryside bare of every scrap of food, "burnt" (confiscated and sold on the black market) only God knows how many bells of cotton, and the good Lord knows how many pictures were slashed, how much furniture was stolen and broken. His men used private homes as stables forcing the families out. There is a Church in Bovina, MS that was used as a stable for the union, the Church's cornerstone was used as target practice, the church itself was used as a butcher shop (the cutting was done on the alter...just saying) a dance hall...then it was burnt.

But it is overblown. About 1/3 of Atlanta was burned and much of that was done when Hood fired his ammunition rail-cars. Jackson was a legitimate military target: so long as Johnston was there he posed a threat to Grant's rear. To keep Johnston from reforming there, the rails and factories were destroyed.

The swath of destruction across Georgia took out about 1/3 of the state's production and, although it seems greater, I'll suspect that South Carolina's statistics were about the same.

It is amusing that today's outrage is directed to property damage rather than loss of life, but property damage was the point. Every animal taken was an animal that couldn't serve or feed several Rebs. Every gin burned guaranteed fewer bales of cotton to be sold to buy equipment or food for several Rebs. Every bushel of grain or hayrick destroyed represented the same hardship for a Reb.

And then we have the lament that he could have at least set aside a portion to get the unfortunate through the winter. Hah! What Sherman's bummers missed, Wheeler's didn't. Y'all are aware that Wheeler's orders were to destroy everything that might be useful to Sherman's troops? And, of course, Wheeler's people also had to live off the land.

 

[ole]

But Sherman picking the medicore Howard is quite obnoxious enough, speaking as someone who is usually a West P'inter fan.

Mediocre? Sherman picked Slocum and Howard because they could be trusted to follow orders efficiently,exactly and timely. The timing and delicacy of the March required commanders who didn't think overmuch on their own.

 

[K Hale]

Sherman apparently objected to blacks, not because they were lesser persons, but because they would need extra training to bring them up to his standards for soldiers. That's a bunch different than considering them savages or sub-human primates.

"I like n*****s well enough as n*****s, but when fools & idiots try & make n*****s better than ourselves I have an opinion."

 

[Elennsar]

For some reason, the only thing I can think of to say is that Sherman would make a great internet troll.

I'm not saying that he was like that all the time, just that he had a real knack for that kind of statement.

 

[K Hale]

At least he was honest about what he thought. You have to give him that. He was completely unembarrassed about being politically incorrect (even by the standards of his day, which is why Stanton and Halleck were chiding him).

Of course, the fact that he was pretty much politically untouchable may have had something to do with that...

 

[Elennsar]

At least he was honest about what he thought. You have to give him that. He was completely unembarrassed about being politically incorrect (even by the standards of his day, which is why Stanton and Halleck were chiding him).

Of course, the fact that he was pretty much politically untouchable may have had something to do with that...

There is that (his honesty). Whatever else is true about Sherman, he was candid past the point of blunt.

But I think a part of his brain enjoyed being viciously blunt whether it was necessary (let alone appropriate) or not, so I stand by my troll comment.

Not saying that was all there was to him, just that there was that side to his personality.