Grant But For The Grace of Sherman, Goes Grant.

War Horse

Captain
Member of the Year
Regtl. Quartermaster Gettysburg 2017
Joined
Sep 4, 2014
Location
Lexington, SC
After victory's at Fort Henry and Fort Donaldson, Ulysses S. Grant had earned the respect of President Lincoln and General Halleck not to mention his men. Here was a true fighting man; finally. It seemed as though Grant could do no wrong. That was all about to change. The battle of Shiloh turned out to be a complete disaster. As quickly as Grant's reputation had been elevated it was now plummeting. Rumors were started that his old demans had returned and he was drinking again. Observers were sent to report to Washington what they saw. Halleck assumed command of the army and refused to pay any attention to anything Grant had to say. Grant's role was reduced in the Corinth campaign. Grant Slipped into a deep depression.

Grant and perhaps the Union itself may owe our gratitude to William Tecomsa Sherman. Sherman unlike practically everyone else refused to point fingers at Grant's Generalship following Shiloh and defended his friend. Sherman even went as far as to fend off the attacks of Benjamin Stanton who was blistering Grant's blundering stupidity and negligence at Shiloh. Sherman accused Stanton of Lying.

Grant had had enough. He put in for a 20 day leave for himself and a few other staff officers. Halleck approved the leaves. Sherman upon hearing this paid his friend a visit at headquarters. Sherman, feared Grant intended to resign from the army. Once he arrived he found his fears to be true. Sherman asked why? "Sherman you know, you know that I am in the way here. I have stood it as long as I can and can endure it no longer" Sherman responded by reminding Grant that the newspapers had once labeled him crazy. Shilo had given him new life and now he was in fine feather. If Grant left, he would drop out of the contest: If he stayed, "some happy accident might restore him to favor and his true place." Grant agreed to wait a few days and then informed his friend that he had decided not to leave the army.

Could the entire destiny of the war have been changed at that meeting? Without Grant, who would have lead the Union forces on the Overland campaign? Could he have been replaced? Could his leaving the army actually have effected the outcome of the war?

This friendship or bond between these two men had a profound effect on the outcome of the war on the field and off.

http://books.google.de/books?id=PYy...onepage&q=sherman talking grant leave&f=false
 
Last edited:
"Grant and Sherman: The Friendship That Won The Civil War" by Charles Bracelen Flood is an excellent study of this relationship. Sherman had approached Grant with the intention of discussing a retreat, but something else came out his mouth! Who knows why - Sherman didn't. But, had he talked of retreat at that critical moment, he would have cemented what Grant was already feeling. Set it in stone and fixed his determination to leave. I'd say Sherman was never more in the place where he was needed most in his entire life.
 
Could the entire destiny of the war have been changed at that meeting? Without Grant, who would have lead the Union forces on the Overland campaign? Could he have been replaced? Could his leaving the army actually have effected the outcome of the war?

This friendship or bond between these two men had a profound effect on the outcome of the war on the field and off.

Unanswerable questions, but testimony to how significant a single conversation can prove to be. (Something for us to remember in our own daily encounters...) That story and the one diane cites from the first night of Shiloh are some of my favorite anecdotes.
"Well, Grant, we've had the devil's own day, haven't we?"
"Yes. Lick 'em tomorrow though."


The Flood book is indeed an excellent read.
 
I haven't read the Flood book, so I'm commenting based on my reading in general: I'm not sure Grant was irreplacable, but a Union without Grant would miss him.

And having Sherman's backing had to count as weighing the scales towards "Okay Ulysses, you can take this." in his head even if not "the thing that made it happen".

Good on Cump.
 
Unanswerable questions, but testimony to how significant a single conversation can prove to be. (Something for us to remember in our own daily encounters...) That story and the one diane cites from the first night of Shiloh are some of my favorite anecdotes.
"Well, Grant, we've had the devil's own day, haven't we?"
"Yes. Lick 'em tomorrow though."


The Flood book is indeed an excellent read.

Pat, you are so right. Words may be the most powerful weapon of all!
 
I haven't read the Flood book, so I'm commenting based on my reading in general: I'm not sure Grant was irreplacable, but a Union without Grant would miss him.

And having Sherman's backing had to count as weighing the scales towards "Okay Ulysses, you can take this." in his head even if not "the thing that made it happen".

Good on Cump.
The things I have read about Lee and Grant are some of the similarities between the two. Lee and Grant alike knew that war in and of itself was a costly business. The occasional empty chair was to be expected. They both were very determined and would not turn and lick their wounds In a relative safe haven. I had not seen that in any other Union officer so far in my studies. Perhaps it existed and I have not found it yet.
This leads me to wonder if not Grant then who? Mead may have had it inside of him and we just had not seen it yet. None of the other Union commanders up until Grant seemed to have it. What ever it was.
 
I have found a quote where Sherman recalls these eventful days. In this quote Sherman speaks of a thirty days' leave, but the duration does not matter, I think.
I like especially the letter provided at the end of this quote, Shermans's answer when he learned that Grant was about to return. That letter shows the affection between these two men who were real friends.

From: Memoirs of General Sherman, chapter XI:
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/4361/4361-h/4361-h.htm#ch11

A short time before leaving Corinth I rode from my camp to General Halleck's headquarters, then in tents just outside of the town, where we sat and gossiped for some time, when he mentioned to me casually that General Grant was going away the next morning. I inquired the cause, and he said that he did not know, but that Grant had applied for a thirty days' leave, which had been given him. Of course we all knew that he was chafing under the slights of his anomalous position, and I determined to see him on my way back. His camp was a short distance off the Monterey road, in the woods, and consisted of four or five tents, with a sapling railing around the front. As I rode up, Majors Rawlins, Lagow, and Hilyer, were in front of the camp, and piled up near them were the usual office and camp chests, all ready for a start in the morning. I inquired for the general, and was shown to his tent, where I found him seated on a camp-stool, with papers on a rude camp-table; he seemed to be employed in assorting letters, and tying them up with red tape into convenient bundles. After passing the usual compliments, I inquired if it were true that he was going away. He said, "Yes." I then inquired the reason, and he said "Sherman, you know. You know that I am in the way here. I have stood it as long as I can, and can endure it no longer." I inquired where he was going to, and he said, "St. Louis." I then asked if he had any business there, and he said, "Not a bit." I then begged him to stay, illustrating his case by my own.
Before the battle of Shiloh, I had been cast down by a mere newspaper assertion of "crazy;" but that single battle had given me new life, and now I was in high feather; and I argued with him that, if he went away, events would go right along, and he would be left out; whereas, if he remained, some happy accident might restore him to favor and his true place. He certainly appreciated my friendly advice, and promised to wait awhile; at all events, not to go without seeing me again, or communicating with me. Very soon after this, I was ordered to Chewalla, where, on the 6th of June, I received a note from him, saying that he had reconsidered his intention, and would remain. I cannot find the note, but my answer I have kept:


Chewalla, Jane 6, 1862.
Major-General GRANT.
My DEAR SIR: I have just received your note, and am rejoiced at your conclusion to remain; for you could not be quiet at home for a week when armies were moving, and rest could not relieve your mind of the gnawing sensation that injustice had been done you.
 
The things I have read about Lee and Grant are some of the similarities between the two. Lee and Grant alike knew that war in and of itself was a costly business. The occasional empty chair was to be expected. They both were very determined and would not turn and lick their wounds In a relative safe haven. I had not seen that in any other Union officer so far in my studies. Perhaps it existed and I have not found it yet.
This leads me to wonder if not Grant then who? Mead may have had it inside of him and we just had not seen it yet. None of the other Union commanders up until Grant seemed to have it. What ever it was.

When considering who, at that time, might have replaced Grant, or Sherman for that matter, I come up with a big shrug. Lincoln would probably have just closed his eyes and thrown a dart at the generals' list! That's when I think about generals past - those promising men who bit the dust early. We'll never know about them but I would bet real money at least one of them was a genius like Grant. I'm reminded of something JFK said. Can't remember exactly but it was along the lines of whenever this country was in trouble and teetering on catastrophe, a great man appeared. That was undeniably the case with Lincoln, and I also think it was true with Grant.
 
To mention once again J.F.C. Fuller's book on Grant I recently finished-- Fuller classed Sherman as imaginative, Grant as relatively unimaginative-- Grant as a strategist, Sherman not so much-- he noted that Sherman's mostly-successful outmaneuvering of Johnston in northwest Georgia is what Grant would have preferred to do to Lee, but that (A) the terrain and relatively constricted nature of the theater hampered it, and (B) his primary goal was to occupy as much of Lee's army as possible to prevent detachments that could potentially be used against Sherman, etc., so the last thing he wanted to do was break or loosen contact for very long.

The Sherman-Grant team seems to have been a winner with Grant in the higher position; Fuller does not appear to believe that it would have worked the other way around.
 
The things I have read about Lee and Grant are some of the similarities between the two. Lee and Grant alike knew that war in and of itself was a costly business. The occasional empty chair was to be expected. They both were very determined and would not turn and lick their wounds In a relative safe haven. I had not seen that in any other Union officer so far in my studies. Perhaps it existed and I have not found it yet.
This leads me to wonder if not Grant then who? Mead may have had it inside of him and we just had not seen it yet. None of the other Union commanders up until Grant seemed to have it. What ever it was.

I think Meade and Thomas had the good stuff, but both were considerably less likely to jump into danger than Grant. Emphasis on jump - Grant and Lee were bold, Meade and Thomas and Longstreet were "steady".

And judging Meade independently of Grant runs into the fact the Overland Campaign has Grant looming over him (even if not intending to create that effect) on him, and the post-Gettysburg stuff has him working with a badly hurt army.

Thomas, I leave to his defenders to explain. But I think Meade in 1864 had the stuff to take a punch like the Wilderness was historically, and keep advancing.
 
Back
Top