General James B McPherson

[SSVilla]

I have to share that historian Edwin C. Bearss on March 1986 expressed an opinion that I had never heard before of McPherson. He said he was one of the most overrated corps commanders in Grant's army and maybe the entire Union army! This surprised me, specially the entire Union army part… but on reconsideration it's a comparative opinion to the high regard he was held in, the operative word being overrated. Listen at minute 23:00. Does anyone else share this opinion?

I know he was a protégé first of Halleck and then of Grant. He had two powerful army godfathers to begin with. Sherman also esteemed him, though Sherman had apparently some criticism for him from the Atlanta campaign—of which a I know little tbh.

I had seen a lecture a few months back from Steven Woodworth on C-SPAN that praised him as a beloved, amiable and competent General. Everyone loved him, he had no enemies! No one hated him, not even those rivals for attention of the Army of the Cumberland who disliked Grant and Sherman because jealousy and reasons… probably having to do with Rosecrans in one case and Thomas on the other. McPherson provoked no jealousies and died a war hero. Who would mess with him after the war when the generals were battling out for reputation? He didn't live to the aftermath of the Civil War, who would slander him?

General James B. McPherson and the Army of the Tennessee

Steven Wordworth, author of [Nothing But Victory: The Army of the Tennessee, 1861 - 1865], talked about the life and career of Union Civil War General James B. McPherson, commander of the Army of Tennessee. He also described General McPherson's relationship with General Grant and his role in...

www.c-span.org

Possibly being overrated is based on the high esteem he was held by his superiors and expressions they made that he had the brightest future and would be the greatest hero of the war in the end. That was perhaps setting the bar too high, but Bearss was ready to give details and answer questions. Sounds like he had some meat to his claims…

 

[RedRover]

In his 2000's book "Fields of Honor" Mr. Bearse suggests at the Battle of Raymond, Mississippi in 1863, as a corps commander facing a small Confederate force, he was "cautious" if not "timid" in his handling of the situation. Though he does admit its one of his first actions in command.

Such comments, General John Schofield attributed in the late 19th Century to a later comment by General Sherman, that McPherson's attack at Resaca was "a little timid." Schofield opined of Sherman's conclusion:

General Sherman expressed some more satisfaction with McPherson's frontal assault at Kennesaw Mountain, though makes slight notice that it was not pressed so much as Thomas':

And from 10 May to 3 July, McPherson's Army of the Tennessee had suffered far less casualties than the other two armies of Sherman's Military Division of the Mississippi:

At the Battle of Atlanta on July 22, on the day of McPherson's death in action, General Black Jack Logan, one of McPherson's corps commanders, credits McPherson's circumspection, applied in a manner somewhat contrary to his standing orders, with defeating the plan of the Confederate surprise attack on his flank and rear. Many Confederates concluded the same afterward...

However, Sherman reported that Gen. McPherson, who was alone at the time of his death during the battle, had "incautiously" rode into the Confederate pickets and was killed during the battle...

Gen. Logan says, lacking any cavalry, Gen. McPherson had deployed most of his staff and orderlies as a mounted skirmish line to cover some exposed point by the time of his death, and thus his situation of being alone upon coming upon Confederates in some woods passing toward part of his army. I have seen some references there were some wounded soldiers near him where he fell, and died shortly after. Sherman himself admitted the battle was principally fought by McPherson's Army of the Tennessee, over a stretch of several miles.



Before active service under Sherman, he was acting as chief engineer for Grant in 1862-63, even while commanding troops.

Gen. Grant had sought McPherson's promotion in the regular army, to brigadier general, in return for his good services under him:

 

[Nathan Stuart]

From the little I've read about James McPherson, it appears he was held in high regard, even adored, by most of the people who knew him. Thought this was also evidenced by the extent of monuments and memorials that were dedicated to him postwar.

McPherson was certainly a bright individual, having finished 1/52 in the class of '53 at West Point.

From accounts viewed, he also seemed to be highly personable and amiable, as well as a decent person - personal qualities that endeared him to others.

Got the impression that why McPherson was so widely revered and celebrated had more to do with his character, rather than his military leadership abilities or feats.

In this sense, thought he was not overrated.

Furthermore. Thought the below photographic image of McPherson aptly reflects what a pleasant and likeable fellow that he was likely to have been. (Contrast it with the stern and harsh looks of other generals photographed at the time).

 

[jackt62]

I'm not surprised that Ed Bearss expressed the opinion that McPherson may have been one of the most over-rated corps commanders. McPherson was, undoubtedly, one of the bright engineering graduates of WP, with a winning personality that easily led to his becoming a protege of Grant and Sherman. But his elevation to corps, and finally army command, may have been too hasty to give him sufficient time to hone his leadership and tactical abilities to a level that is commensurate with the high acclaim he has been accorded in history. Grant and or Sherman may have treated McPherson with kid gloves for his moves at Raymond and Snake Creek Gap. Although McPherson's best decision was probably deducing the threat to the AoT's flank near Decatur and safeguarding that position in the nick of time from Hardee's flank attack. That, and his untimely death in battle, are what cemented his reputation and ends up being most remembered.

 

[Nathan Towne]

I have to share that historian Edwin C. Bearss on March 1986 expressed an opinion that I had never heard before of McPherson. He said he was one of the most overrated corps commanders in Grant's army and maybe the entire Union army! This surprised me, specially the entire Union army part… but on reconsideration it's a comparative opinion to the high regard he was held in, the operative word being overrated. Listen at minute 23:00. Does anyone else share this opinion?

I know he was a protégé first of Halleck and then of Grant. He had two powerful army godfathers to begin with. Sherman also esteemed him, though Sherman had apparently some criticism for him from the Atlanta campaign—of which a I know little tbh.

I had seen a lecture a few months back from Steven Woodworth on C-SPAN that praised him as a beloved, amiable and competent General. Everyone loved him, he had no enemies! No one hated him, not even those rivals for attention of the Army of the Cumberland who disliked Grant and Sherman because jealousy and reasons… probably having to do with Rosecrans in one case and Thomas on the other. McPherson provoked no jealousies and died a war hero. Who would mess with him after the war when the generals were battling out for reputation? He didn't live to the aftermath of the Civil War, who would slander him?

General James B. McPherson and the Army of the Tennessee

Steven Wordworth, author of [Nothing But Victory: The Army of the Tennessee, 1861 - 1865], talked about the life and career of Union Civil War General James B. McPherson, commander of the Army of Tennessee. He also described General McPherson's relationship with General Grant and his role in...

www.c-span.org

Possibly being overrated is based on the high esteem he was held by his superiors and expressions they made that he had the brightest future and would be the greatest hero of the war in the end. That was perhaps setting the bar too high, but Bearss was ready to give details and answer questions. Sounds like he had some meat to his claims…

Woodworth is interesting. He wrote a very fine book in Nothing But Victory, which has a lot of value. His Confederate Command in the West, from fifteen years earlier, is, in my view, a very weak book which contains some really dreadful scholarship.

 

[Nathan Towne]

In his 2000's book "Fields of Honor" Mr. Bearse suggests at the Battle of Raymond, Mississippi in 1863, as a corps commander facing a small Confederate force, he was "cautious" if not "timid" in his handling of the situation. Though he does admit its one of his first actions in command.

Such comments, General John Schofield attributed in the late 19th Century to a later comment by General Sherman, that McPherson's attack at Resaca was "a little timid." Schofield opined of Sherman's conclusion:

View attachment 522575
View attachment 522576

General Sherman expressed some more satisfaction with McPherson's frontal assault at Kennesaw Mountain, though makes slight notice that it was not pressed so much as Thomas':

View attachment 522577

And from 10 May to 3 July, McPherson's Army of the Tennessee had suffered far less casualties than the other two armies of Sherman's Military Division of the Mississippi:

View attachment 522578


At the Battle of Atlanta on July 22, on the day of McPherson's death in action, General Black Jack Logan, one of McPherson's corps commanders, credits McPherson's circumspection, applied in a manner somewhat contrary to his standing orders, with defeating the plan of the Confederate surprise attack on his flank and rear. Many Confederates concluded the same afterward...

View attachment 522581
View attachment 522582

However, Sherman reported that Gen. McPherson, who was alone at the time of his death during the battle, had "incautiously" rode into the Confederate pickets and was killed during the battle...

View attachment 522579
View attachment 522580

Gen. Logan says, lacking any cavalry, Gen. McPherson had deployed most of his staff and orderlies as a mounted skirmish line to cover some exposed point by the time of his death, and thus his situation of being alone upon coming upon Confederates in some woods passing toward part of his army. I have seen some references there were some wounded soldiers near him where he fell, and died shortly after. Sherman himself admitted the battle was principally fought by McPherson's Army of the Tennessee, over a stretch of several miles.



Before active service under Sherman, he was acting as chief engineer for Grant in 1862-63, even while commanding troops.

View attachment 522572

Gen. Grant had sought McPherson's promotion in the regular army, to brigadier general, in return for his good services under him:

View attachment 522573
View attachment 522574

Those casualty figures are well known to have been highly incomplete. They were preliminary returns which were not even close to actual. This is well established.

 

[RedRover]

Those casualty figures are well known to have been highly incomplete. They were preliminary returns which were not even close to actual. This is well established.

I'm sure they were.

 

[SSVilla]

From the little I've read about James McPherson, it appears he was held in high regard, even adored, by most of the people who knew him. Thought this was also evidenced by the extent of monuments and memorials that were dedicated to him postwar.

McPherson was certainly a bright individual, having finished 1/52 in the class of '53 at West Point.

From accounts viewed, he also seemed to be highly personable and amiable, as well as a decent person - personal qualities that endeared him to others.

Got the impression that why McPherson was so widely revered and celebrated had more to do with his character, rather than his military leadership abilities or feats.

In this sense, thought he was not overrated.

Furthermore. Thought the below photographic image of McPherson aptly reflects what a pleasant and likeable fellow that he was likely to have been. (Contrast it with the stern and harsh looks of other generals photographed at the time).

View attachment 522593

His eyes appear to be smiling! He looks happy, contented. I remember now that I read somewhere his administration at Vicksburg was very good and he was well regarded and appreciated by locals, which was not the same for everyone.

 

[tony_gunter]

I have to share that historian Edwin C. Bearss on March 1986 expressed an opinion that I had never heard before of McPherson. He said he was one of the most overrated corps commanders in Grant's army and maybe the entire Union army! This surprised me, specially the entire Union army part… but on reconsideration it's a comparative opinion to the high regard he was held in, the operative word being overrated. Listen at minute 23:00. Does anyone else share this opinion?

I know he was a protégé first of Halleck and then of Grant. He had two powerful army godfathers to begin with. Sherman also esteemed him, though Sherman had apparently some criticism for him from the Atlanta campaign—of which a I know little tbh.

I had seen a lecture a few months back from Steven Woodworth on C-SPAN that praised him as a beloved, amiable and competent General. Everyone loved him, he had no enemies! No one hated him, not even those rivals for attention of the Army of the Cumberland who disliked Grant and Sherman because jealousy and reasons… probably having to do with Rosecrans in one case and Thomas on the other. McPherson provoked no jealousies and died a war hero. Who would mess with him after the war when the generals were battling out for reputation? He didn't live to the aftermath of the Civil War, who would slander him?

General James B. McPherson and the Army of the Tennessee

Steven Wordworth, author of [Nothing But Victory: The Army of the Tennessee, 1861 - 1865], talked about the life and career of Union Civil War General James B. McPherson, commander of the Army of Tennessee. He also described General McPherson's relationship with General Grant and his role in...

www.c-span.org

Possibly being overrated is based on the high esteem he was held by his superiors and expressions they made that he had the brightest future and would be the greatest hero of the war in the end. That was perhaps setting the bar too high, but Bearss was ready to give details and answer questions. Sounds like he had some meat to his claims…

I don't think Bearss understood just how badass McPherson's performance in the Vicksburg Campaign really was, because McPherson didn't report on his badassery, therefore it doesn't show up in the OR and Bearss leans heavily on the OR.

McPherson basically single-handedly turned the Confederate position at Port Gibson, beat the Confederates to Grindstone Ford, cut the railroad at Crystal Springs (thereby taking Maxey off the board), lured Gregg into a costly fight at Raymond that turned into a running battle for Jackson, then crushed it at Champion Hill.

Hands down the best corps commander in the Army of the Tennessee.

 

[SSVilla]

I don't think Bearss understood just how badass McPherson's performance in the Vicksburg Campaign really was, because McPherson didn't report on his badassery, therefore it doesn't show up in the OR and Bearss leans heavily on the OR.

McPherson basically single-handedly turned the Confederate position at Port Gibson, beat the Confederates to Grindstone Ford, cut the railroad at Crystal Springs (thereby taking Maxey off the board), lured Gregg into a costly fight at Raymond that turned into a running battle for Jackson, then crushed it at Champion Hill.

Hands down the best corps commander in the Army of the Tennessee.

I have to ask how you figured all this out.

 

[Belfoured]

I have to ask how you figured all this out.

He's the guy who enlisted my ancestor in the US Engineers Battalion at Boston in October 1861, as a Captain. Who knew ...

 

[tony_gunter]

I have to ask how you figured all this out.

Primary sources. Although, it doesn't even take primary sources to figure out that Bearss is way out in left field about Raymond.

McPherson deployed an entire division right under the noses of the Confederates at Raymond and they had no idea. You can say he was being a little cautious if you want, but that's still pretty skillful, and it's all in the OR.

 

[RedRover]

As Schofield noted, some might prefer to take Sherman's "timid" comment at Resaca and extend it to a generality about McPherson. But this claim was made ten years after the war. During the war, Sherman also referred to McPherson on another occasion as "incautious." Might as well just call him "incautious" if one prefers. In any case, in 1883 General Sherman noted his memoir explains his reasoning during the war, and explain his own doings based thereon....

So he rather thought McPherson's movements on Resaca were "timid."


That said, besides General Schofield, General Boynton, the historian and Park Commissioner at Chickamauga, was himself somewhat offended at Sherman's choice of words relative to General McPherson, as they reflect upon him historically. In the 1870s he wrote a comparison of the official records, etc. with Sherman's post-war memoir, and concluded the statements of McPherson's timidity based on Sherman's post-war comment were questionable:

....

General Logan, one of McPherson's corps commanders, shares that it was the understanding that McPherson and his army were to act as whipper-snappers in the Atlanta campaign, while Thomas, etc. were to lay on... rather than the other way around...

But Sherman's statement being clear, and by his account what he felt of McPherson's application of his orders at the time, per his rationale, he presumed a timidity, and there the comment stands or falls.



Relative to Kennesaw, General Boynton observes that Gen. Sherman was quick to claim his commanders, including McPherson, were in agreement about the attempt... which was certainly not timid, nor does Sherman admit it was incautious, while others thought so.
General Boynton continues:

 

[tony_gunter]

As Schofield noted, some might prefer to take Sherman's "timid" comment at Resaca and extend it to a generality about McPherson. But this claim was made ten years after the war. During the war, Sherman also referred to McPherson on another occasion as "incautious." Might as well just call him "incautious" if one prefers. In any case, in 1883 General Sherman noted his memoir explains his reasoning during the war, and explain his own doings based thereon....

View attachment 522654

So he rather thought McPherson's movements on Resaca were "timid."


That said, besides General Schofield, General Boynton, the historian and Park Commissioner at Chickamauga, was himself somewhat offended at Sherman's choice of words relative to General McPherson, as they reflect upon him historically. In the 1870s he wrote a comparison of the official records, etc. with Sherman's post-war memoir, and concluded the statements of McPherson's timidity based on Sherman's post-war comment were questionable:


View attachment 522651

....

View attachment 522652


General Logan, one of McPherson's corps commanders, shares that it was the understanding that McPherson and his army were to act as whipper-snappers in the Atlanta campaign, while Thomas, etc. were to lay on... rather than the other way around...

View attachment 522653

But Sherman's statement being clear, and by his account what he felt of McPherson's application of his orders at the time, per his rationale, he presumed a timidity, and there the comment stands or falls.



Relative to Kennesaw, General Boynton observes that Gen. Sherman was quick to claim his commanders, including McPherson, were in agreement about the attempt... which was certainly not timid, nor does Sherman admit it was incautious, while others thought so.
General Boynton continues:


View attachment 522649

View attachment 522650

Dave Powell does a good job dispelling the Resaca "overly cautious" label. Sherman's orders were never to storm the town, it was to break the railroad and fall back to the gap and defend.

He does scratch his head at McPherson's caution at Dallas, to be explained in book 2 of the series if I understand correctly.

For what it's worth, these numbers are a little misleading. McPherson's and Schofields troop counts were really low. The Army of the Tennessee was little bigger than a full army corps at the start of the campaign.

 

[DanSBHawk]

That said, besides General Schofield, General Boynton, the historian and Park Commissioner at Chickamauga, was himself somewhat offended at Sherman's choice of words relative to General McPherson, as they reflect upon him historically. In the 1870s he wrote a comparison of the official records, etc. with Sherman's post-war memoir, and concluded the statements of McPherson's timidity based on Sherman's post-war comment were questionable:


View attachment 522651

....

View attachment 522652


General Logan, one of McPherson's corps commanders, shares that it was the understanding that McPherson and his army were to act as whipper-snappers in the Atlanta campaign, while Thomas, etc. were to lay on... rather than the other way around...

View attachment 522653

But Sherman's statement being clear, and by his account what he felt of McPherson's application of his orders at the time, per his rationale, he presumed a timidity, and there the comment stands or falls.



Relative to Kennesaw, General Boynton observes that Gen. Sherman was quick to claim his commanders, including McPherson, were in agreement about the attempt... which was certainly not timid, nor does Sherman admit it was incautious, while others thought so.
General Boynton continues:


View attachment 522649

View attachment 522650

Boynton and Sherman hated each other. Sherman was quoted in an 1880 interview saying that, "for a thousand dollars, (Boynton) would slander his own mother." Boynton then tried to get Sherman court-martialed for conduct unbecoming to an officer and a gentleman. Boynton's request was denied by President Hayes.

 

[SSVilla]

Sherman didn't have a filter, which I like. He said it like he thought it. His memoirs aren't a model of accuracy, nor does he pretend to that. I read them as he wrote: as a record of his motivations, what he thought and how he saw things. I disagree with his thinking sometimes. A very simple example: he overvalued Halleck at the beginning for example, thought he deserved the credit for the entire campaigns that started with Ft Henry, but how can we question that's how Sherman felt and saw the man at the time. That's a very obvious example. I wouldn't take it for the truth though.

My impression of McPherson is broadly based on the Woodworth lecture I shared, which was good. He did say McPherson started out cautious as he was inexperienced and sort of deferred, but eventually he developed what we'd call confidence in his own judgment. He greatly praised his management of affairs at Vicksburg.

Bearss shocked me a bit that's why I started the thread to see what others thought. I am not familiar with Bearss. That's the first time I hear a lecture from him. I haven't read anything from him either.

 

[RedRover]

Boynton and Sherman hated each other. Sherman was quoted in an 1880 interview saying that, "for a thousand dollars, (Boynton) would slander his own mother." Boynton then tried to get Sherman court-martialed for conduct unbecoming to an officer and a gentleman. Boynton's request was denied by President Hayes.

They certainly did share a considerable antipathy. And Boynton is ungenerous to Sherman, in claiming his "timidity" comment about McPherson in his memoir had any more meaning than Sherman's own opinion/rationale in 1864.

To Gen. Logan in 1883, who also disliked some of what Sherman put in his "memoir" (which is not an official report), Sherman replied that he was satisfied no man knew HIS motives and rationale better than he himself, good or bad, irrespective of its objective truth:

...

Gen. Boynton's work compares Sherman's official reports, with his explanation/rationale as given in the memoir; viz. Sherman against himself and everybody else. What McPherson's opinion of his actions at Resaca is not well known, as he died shortly after. Sherman himself admits McPherson's reasoning was then alien to him... so presumed a "timidity" where he laments in his memoir that Gen. M. did not take advantage of the situation before him, of which he many or may not have recognized.

But my only point is that some have been influenced by Boynton's statements, and others by Sherman's, relative to McPherson.

 

[SSVilla]

But my only point is that some have been influenced by Boynton's statements, and others by Sherman's, relative to McPherson.

That's a huge point! It can be boldened and emblazoned. It's the beginning of long standing debates that persist here among us not just between Sherman and Boynton, and about McPherson, but about everyone and everything. Depending on who we believe and who we credit, who we read, even who we like, things are going to look different. In some cases very different. It's the origin of debates that persist to this day.

Sherman himself couldn't have said it better:

"we all know that no three honest witnesses of a simple brawl can agree on all the details. How much more likely will be the difference in a great battle covering a vast space of broken ground, when each division, brigade, regiment, and even company, naturally and honestly believes that it was the focus of the whole affair! Each of them won the battle. None ever lost.That was the fate of the old man who unhappily commanded."

Excerpt From Memoirs of General William T. Sherman, William T. Sherman.

That reminded me of the debate about whether the sunken road at Shiloh was really the focus of confederate attacks. There's many little disagreements like that, specially because of glory seeking.

————

I read somewhere that McPherson was not a glory seeker and that's part of the reason he had no enemies… I can't recall where I read it.

General Hamilton did try to get him demoted or something though.

 

[Nathan Stuart]

His eyes appear to be smiling! He looks happy, contented.

That's an interesting specific observation of his eyes, which I didn't initially focus on, until you mentioned it. (I formed my impression after viewing his face holistically).

As they say, 'the eyes are the windows to the soul.'

 

[Nathan Stuart]

Thought that's an interesting comment by Sherman that was highlighted.

How often, and to what extent, are perceptions and assessments of CW generals during wartime influenced/shaped (positively or negatively) by a knowledge of their postwar life experiences?. James Longstreet is one example, that readily comes to mind.