Member Review Little Phil

[wausaubob]

A Reassessment of the Civil War Leadership of Gen. Philip H. Sheridan
Eric J. Wittenberg Brassey's Inc., Washington, D.C. 2002
Phil Sheridan served 8 years as lowest of the low in Texas and Oregon. He had commanded regular soldiers. For people like Grant and George Thomas, he was one of their group.
He also did good work for Henry Halleck in Missouri when Halleck was trying to straighten out the mess left by Fremont. I expect Halleck never forgot the energy and honesty that Captain Sheridan applied to the project.
As to Wittenberg's criticisms of Sheridan, I don't find them compelling. Halleck, Sherman, Grant, Rosecrans and Thomas all respected him. There was something about his young man's energy level and attention to detail that commanders wanted.
As to Sheridan being an impulsive jerk at times, its pretty obvious that he grew up with a defensive temper. He was the son of Irish immigrant family after all.
Sheridan was a young unmarried man during the Civil War. He was expendable, And that is what Grant wanted at the head of the calvary.
Good book. Well written.
Eric skipped over the events of Chickamuage and Chattanooga very lightly. But I think there was more there. Thomas never penalized Sheridan or Wood for happened at Chickamauga. And by Chattanooga Sheridan was functionally a wing commander as Johnson was instructed to guide off the movements of Sheridan's division.
Grant spent considerable time with both Thomas and Sherman after the Chattanooga battle as Grant played tourist in Tennessee. I suspect there were discussions about Sheridan as a possible corp commander.

 

[wausaubob]

This man had an indigenous woman as a mistress in Oregon. Then he married a beautiful woman in Chicago, Miss Irene Rucker.
In between he was in war time St. Louis, Nashville and Washington, D.C. I speculate that there was another side to Sheridan that could be written about.

 

[danny]

A Reassessment of the Civil War Leadership of Gen. Philip H. Sheridan
Eric J. Wittenberg Brassey's Inc., Washington, D.C. 2002
Phil Sheridan served 8 years as lowest of the low in Texas and Oregon. He had commanded regular soldiers. For people like Grant and George Thomas, he was one of their group.
He also did good work for Henry Halleck in Missouri when Halleck was trying to straighten out the mess left by Fremont. I expect Halleck never forgot the energy and honesty that Captain Sheridan applied to the project.
As to Wittenberg's criticisms of Sheridan, I don't find them compelling. Halleck, Sherman, Grant, Rosecrans and Thomas all respected him. There was something about his young man's energy level and attention to detail that commanders wanted.
As to Sheridan being an impulsive jerk at times, its pretty obvious that he grew up with a defensive temper. He was the son of Irish immigrant family after all.
Sheridan was a young unmarried man during the Civil War. He was expendable, And that is what Grant wanted at the head of the calvary.
Good book. Well written.
Eric skipped over the events of Chickamuage and Chattanooga very lightly. But I think there was more there. Thomas never penalized Sheridan or Wood for happened at Chickamauga. And by Chattanooga Sheridan was functionally a wing commander as Johnson was instructed to guide off the movements of Sheridan's division.
Grant spent considerable time with both Thomas and Sherman after the Chattanooga battle as Grant played tourist in Tennessee. I suspect there were discussions about Sheridan as a possible corp commander.

I think Wittenberg got it right

 

[wausaubob]

I think Wittenberg got it right

The book was aimed at people like you.

 

[danny]

The book was aimed at people like you.

"People like me"

 

[wausaubob]

Why was Phil Sheridan so mean? Why did Early burn Chambersburg, PA and why was John Mosby fighting a campaign of guerilla warfare, hiding among civilians by day and raiding Yankee logistics by night?
Mr. Wittenberg left a few things out when he concentrated on 1864-65.

 

[wausaubob]

Phil Sheridan's life was a comedy, not a tragedy. He married well and died in a bed. His widow and his children lived long and prosperous lives after General Sheridan's death.

 

[Belfoured]

The book was aimed at people like you.

We may disagree here.

As I pointed out in another thread, this book is different from the author's other works because he makes it clear at the outset that he's "presenting a case" and not an objective analysis. In that vein, it's along the lines of a well-known work by another lawyer - Lee Considered. The intent is to provoke thought and discussion about an ACW figure who has been raised to a sort of iconic status in the popular mind based largely on his dramatic victories in the '64 Valley Campaign and the final pursuit of Lee in April 1865. As the book points out, there is more to look at - agree with the conclusions or not (and even in the foreword Wert states that he disagrees with some). That said, the author has some pretty persuasive conclusions in his column.

Sheridan's cavalry did not get its job done during the move to Spotsylvania May 7-8, allowing Lee to beat Grant to the spot by a thin margin. The raid Sheridan then persuaded Grant to let him depart for produced little in meaningful results (other than the fortuitous MW of Stuart) while leaving Grant without an effective cavalry screen for two critical weeks. Gordon Rhea has sharply criticized Sheridan for this. Shame on Grant for listening to Sheridan but that hardly gets Sheridan a good grade. Sheridan's erroneous assessment of Early and his capability in October 1864 led him to be exactly where he should not have been when Early hit his army at Cedar Creek. Hard-charging rides to reach the battlefield make for good poetry but better not to need that in the first place. As for his personal characteristics, and whatever you may think of Warren's competence, his treatment by Sheridan at Five Forks was petty and based on cooked "facts".

 

[wausaubob]

I think when Grant brought Sheridan and Wlison east and injected them into the cavalry corp, Grant knew that what he was trying to establish, and he also knew it was going to be difficult.
Despite what Meade thought, Grant intended to keep control of the cavalry in his own hands, and Sheridan was the means by which accomplished that. Sheridan's whole life was the army. He no other opportunities or interests. And Sheridan's advancement was heavily dependent on Grant and Sherman. But not only on Grant and Sherman, because Hallleck. Rosecrans and Thomas also liked Sheridan and relied upon him.
I think there is more to the Sheridan story. Its likely that his quartermaster and commissary work was excellent. It might have been the case that Sheridan's ideas about the Calvary Bureau worked. I think the cavalry corp troopers and officers trusted Sheridan, because they knew Grant had complete faith in General Sheridan.
I think there is another story involved with Sheridan that would include the errors, but still be much more majestic.
As Wittenberg wrote, there was something about Sheridan's quickness and attention to detail that men admired. How he was able to take the chances he took, without Sheridan getting killed like McPherson or Stuart, is amazing. Providence had Sheridan under its protection apparently.

 

[Belfoured]

I think when Grant brought Sheridan and Wlison east and injected them into the cavalry corp, Grant knew that what he was trying to establish, and he also knew it was going to be difficult.
Despite what Meade thought, Grant intended to keep control of the cavalry in his own hands, and Sheridan was the means by which accomplished that. Sheridan's whole life was the army. He no other opportunities or interests. And Sheridan's advancement was heavily dependent on Grant and Sherman. But not only on Grant and Sherman, because Hallleck. Rosecrans and Thomas also liked Sheridan and relied upon him.
I think there is more to the Sheridan story. Its likely that his quartermaster and commissary work was excellent. It might have been the case that Sheridan's ideas about the Calvary Bureau worked. I think the cavalry corp troopers and officers trusted Sheridan, because they knew Grant had complete faith in General Sheridan.
I think there is another story involved with Sheridan that would include the errors, but still be much more majestic.
As Wittenberg wrote, there was something about Sheridan's quickness and attention to detail that men admired. How he was able to take the chances he took, with Sheridan getting killed like McPherson or Stuart, is amazing. Providence had Sheridan under its protection apparently.

No doubt. I'm just drawing a distinction between the book - which I evaluate taking into account its purpose - and an objective assessment of Sheridan overall. None of these guys belongs on a pedestal that makes them immune to criticism, and taking that on is a good objective as long as the author is clear about what they're doing and invites push back. You make a good point at the end, although I don't weigh in on whether it's "Providence" or "Dumb Luck".

 

[wausaubob]

No doubt. I'm just drawing a distinction between the book - which I evaluate taking into account its purpose - and an objective assessment of Sheridan overall. None of these guys belongs on a pedestal that makes them immune to criticism, and taking that on is a good objective as long as the author is clear about what they're doing and invites push back. You make a good point at the end, although I don't weigh in on whether it's "Providence" or "Dumb Luck".

After all that Civil War stuff, and his time in Texas, and then his observation mission in Germany and France, Sheridan was accepted as 100% American and married his American princess. I think that was the most likely reason he claimed to have been born in Albany. Sheridan did not want to be Irish. He wanted to be American and fit in. But that's a story like Shakespeare's Henry V. That's not what Wittenberg wanted to write about.
Wittenberg did write that Sheridan might have been the last American general whose personal charisma affected the outcome of the battles.
Grant was a manager and operational expert. He seemed to have said that he admired Sheridan's ability to inspire people.

 

[jackt62]

The intent is to provoke thought and discussion about an ACW figure who has been raised to a sort of iconic status in the popular mind based largely on his dramatic victories in the '64 Valley Campaign and the final pursuit of Lee in April 1865. As the book points out, there is more to look at - agree with the conclusions or not (and even in the foreword Wert states that he disagrees with some). That said, the author has some pretty persuasive conclusions in his column.

The book certainly provokes thought and discussion; I for one, concur with Wittenberg's analysis and conclusions about Sheridan. In addition to the previously noted problems with Sheridan's command during the Overland Campaign and Cedar Creek, Sheridan's vindictiveness towards officers Averell, Crook, and Warren belie the notion that Sheridan exhibited superior leadership abilities.

 

[jackt62]

Much of Sheridan's popular legacy might be traced to the same type of hagiography that elevated Lee to "sainthood." Sheridan's famous "ride" from Winchester cemented his reputation and probably stifled objective analysis of his command performance for quite some time.

 

[wausaubob]

Grant fired or relieved many generals. Most of the time he did it directly. He also had Sheridan fire some of them. History wants toassert that these people were victims. I doubt it. The purpose of all the firings was to create Sherman's destroying army that could march through the deep south, and Sheridan's army that remorsely burned out the upper valley. It was a darn war, not a committee meeting. And without substantial cruelty it could have gone on for another entire1 Summer and ended in an armistice and a renewal later.
As I am reading Eric's brief I am thinking, "What a bunch of entitled brats!"

 

[danny]

Grant fired or relieved many generals. Most of the time he did it directly. He also had Sheridan fire some of them. History wants toassert that these people were victims. I doubt it. The purpose of all the firings was to create Sherman's + army that could march through the deep south, and Sheridan's army that remorsely burned out the upper valley. It was a darn war, not a committee meeting. And without substantial cruelty it could have gone on for another entire1 Summer and ended in an armistice and a renewal later.
As I am reading Eric's brief I am thinking, "What a bunch of entitled brats!"

We found agreement

 

[Belfoured]

Much of Sheridan's popular legacy might be traced to the same type of hagiography that elevated Lee to "sainthood." Sheridan's famous "ride" from Winchester cemented his reputation and probably stifled objective analysis of his command performance for quite some time.

As I posted earlier, the "ride" would have been unnecessary if he'd done his job instead of wrongly assuming that Early was finished. But for performance art it was great.

 

[wausaubob]

Much of Sheridan's popular legacy might be traced to the same type of hagiography that elevated Lee to "sainthood." Sheridan's famous "ride" from Winchester cemented his reputation and probably stifled objective analysis of his command performance for quite some time.

Probably a disservice to Phil Sheridan. He obviously had a terrible temper. But people liked him, wherever he was at. He did some great things for the US. He was right about the French, but wrong about Texas.

 

[Belfoured]

Grant fired or relieved many generals. Most of the time he did it directly. He also had Sheridan fire some of them. History wants toassert that these people were victims. I doubt it. The purpose of all the firings was to create Sherman's destroying army that could march through the deep south, and Sheridan's army that remorsely burned out the upper valley. It was a darn war, not a committee meeting. And without substantial cruelty it could have gone on for another entire1 Summer and ended in an armistice and a renewal later.
As I am reading Eric's brief I am thinking, "What a bunch of entitled brats!"

My own conclusion is that Phil should have sent a "thank you" note to Private John Huff, 5th Michigan, for at least salvaging something out of that otherwise failed raid in May 1864. I know - we have no firm evidence it was Huff who fired the shot. But it's the gesture that counts.

 

[wausaubob]

As I posted earlier, the "ride" would have been unnecessary if he'd done his job instead of wrongly assuming that Early was finished. But for performance art it was great.

Wittenberg allowed Sheridan to cover that. It was explained in his report that Stanton did want him to come to Washington. That suggests that there was something to discuss that Stanton did not want to go over the wires. The Confederacy had so many spies in the lower valley and in Washington, D.C. that Sheridan's movements were detected.
Sheridan may have been away, but I think Crook and Emory did get a little careless. I think scouts detected the Confe.derate movement at Cedar Creek, but I think the information was disregarded

 

[wausaubob]

My own conclusion is that Phil should have sent a "thank you" note to Private John Huff, 5th Michigan, for at least salvaging something out of that otherwise failed raid in May 1864. I know - we have no firm evidence it was Huff who fired the shot. But it's the gesture that counts.

I think Grant disagreed, because he ordered more raids and was willing to pay for them. And he stayed on it until the cavalry in the east and the west got it right.