Major General William T. Sherman to Senator John Sherman, May 20, 1864

Lee was the better tactician. Sherman was the better strategist. As a strategist, Lee was not very impressive at all.
Hard to say as neither had final say on strategy.
In short Sherman was a much better tactician than he's given credit for and Grant was much worse than seems the popular opinion.
 
OK, Douglas Southhall Freeman's work is not terribly popular around here, but it contains, in four volumes, virtually zero reference to Willie Sherman.

General Lee did not care about or feel threatened by Willie.
I am intrigued to know the root of your distaste for Sherman. For you to ignore the results of the Atlanta Campaign and the March to the Sea shows deep seated hatred. Yes, he may not have faced off head to head against Lee, but to march that far behind enemy lines, and to take two of the Confederates major supply depots (Port in Savannah and Depot in Atlanta). Those accomplishments alone must mean something.
 
Major General William T. Sherman to Senator John Sherman, May 20, 1864

HEADQUARTERS MILITARY DIVISION OF THE MISSISSIPPI,
KINGSTON, GA., May 20, 1864.

So here's a novelty: a post about the actual letter in the OP. I looked this letter up in the William T. Sherman Papers (online) and found out that unlike the letterhead in the OP listed as May 20, 1864, the letter was actually penned at a later date: May 26, 1864. This gave me some grief whilst searching the archive, because May 20, turned up no result. I have the Simpson & Berlin Sherman's Civil War, which also includes this letter (with the date of May 26, 1864)


Capture21.JPG


Full document: https://www.loc.gov/resource/mss39800.008_0101_0443/?sp=66&r=-0.313,-0.028,1.667,0.833,0

Sherman.JPG


Brooks D Simpson & Jean Vance Berlin, Sherman's Civil War, [UNC Press p 640]
 
Last edited:
Who are the "good guys" that you are speaking of?
That would be the Confederates I am sure but it is a fair question. I have often wondered about some news accounts shared and why both sides did not filter such information even to family. I wonder when the military started to realize that this might be a bad idea when sharing correspondence.
 
Last edited:
That would be the Confederates I am sure but it is a fair question. I have often wondered about some news accounts shared and why both sided did not filter such information even to family. I wonder when the military started to realize that this might be a bad idea when sharing correspondence.

There were some notes from Halleck to Grant about having a loose HQ staff. Also, when Sherman marched to the sea, officials were angry that there were leaks of Shernan going to the Gulf instead.
 
Considering that my third book on some aspect of Sherman's Carolinas Campaign is about to come out, I feel somewhat qualified to weigh in on Cump as a general.

Years of study of the Carolinas Campaign tells me that as a strategist, he had no peer in the Civil War. His plan, particularly for South Carolina, was sheer brilliance.

At the same time, he was a wretched tactician. The fact that he permitted 8500 largely untested troops hold off fully half of his army for an entire day at Averasboro demonstrates that fact. His performance at Bentonville was not great, either--Johnston nearly defeated his army in detail.

Uncle Billy was beloved by the men he commanded. They would have followed him anywhere, and they would have done whatever he asked of them. But he left a great deal to be desired as a battlefield commander. Unfortunately, his tactical prowess did not come close to matching his unparalleled skills as a strategist.
 
Unfortunately, his tactical prowess did not come close to matching his unparalleled skills as a strategist.

I finally have this straight: Strategist-Tactician (a little seminar from a Navy Seal helped out :wink: )

Thank you for weighing in, Eric. It is always nice to see a thread get a boost of bona fides, when there is an awful lot of BS, otherwise :smile:
 
Back
Top