Grant Not impressed with Grants performance

Last edited:
Sherman should have been a confederate general, then, like Wheeler, bad things done by troops under his command would be blamed on some Union general.

"By the end of the campaign Wheeler's cavalry was regarded by most Georgians who had made its acquaintance as more rapacious and destructive than the Yankees." [Lee Kennett, Marching Through Georgia: The Story of Soldiers & Civilians During Sherman's Campaign, p. 278]

"At least Madison's residents did not have to deal with Wheeler's men, a privilege denied those farther south. Writing to Jefferson Davis about a month after the events took place, a Griffin resident named P. A. Lawson explained, 'When General Sherman left Atlanta Wheeler's cavalry commenced their retreat before him, and but a handful of Sherman's men ran W[heeler's] whole command down to Griffin, and while S[herman's] army was marching through Fayette, Clayton, Henry, and Butts [counties], Wheeler's cavalry was burning up all the corn and fodder, driving off all the stock of the farmers for ten miles on each side of the railroad, all of from ten to twenty-five miles to the right and rear of Sherman's forces. Worse than all, the stock of mules and horses which General Wheeler's forces carried off, nine out of ten they have appropriated to their own use.' " [Noah Andre Trudeau, Southern Storm: Sherman's March to the Sea, pp. 112-113] At the town of Jackson, Georgia, "The first Federals to enter the town found the courthouse already smoldering, courtesy of Wheeler's departing cavalry." [Ibid., p. 115]

"Nurtured by this mythology, legends of Sherman's marches have spread like kudzu in the South. For fourteen years, University of Georgia folklorist Elissa R. Henken collected, analyzed, and categorized such legends from throughout the state. Aware that Sherman was considered a fiend incarnate whose army razed not only Georgia and the Carolinas but much of the South as well, Henken was surprised to find that legends detailing destruction were paradoxically outnumbered by 'stories about the places that Sherman did not destroy.' The tales revealed several motifs. Towns were reportedly spared because Sherman had a girlfriend living there during his antebellum stay in the South, or because of a Masonic tie between the general and a resident (despite the fact that Sherman was not a Mason), or because he found the place simply too beautiful to destroy. Many of the legends thrive in towns that Sherman never passed through. Henken considers them expressions of Lost Cause pride in which the ogre Sherman is tamed by the influence of southern civilization, most often by genteel but tough and wily women. In addition to preservation legends regarding towns, Henken recorded family legends about the saving of a single house or property. These tales also generally feature women, determined and fierce 'steel magnolias' who outwit, tame, or defeat Sherman and his men through cunning, defiance, or violence. Candid Southerners have acknowledged the unreliability of these legends. The inhabitants of Screven County, Georgia (through which the 154th New York passed), believed so strongly that the Yankees ransacked and burned every house, historian Dixon Hollingsworth wrote, 'that each family seemed to be compelled in later years to devise some explanation as to why its home was spared.' But Sherman's men did not wantonly burn houses, Hollingsworth observed, and usually left enough provisions on a farm to support a family for a few days. 'In fact they marched by hundreds of Screven County homes without even infringing on the privacy of the families.' " [Mark H. Dunkelman,Marching With Sherman: Through Georgia and the Carolinas with the 154th New York, pp. 11-12]

"Although three of Sherman's four corps crossed Screven County, residents reported that the resulting destruction was slight. … A Confederate colonel who was home on leave reported that only four or five houses were burned in all of Screven County. The Yankees had targeted certain homeowners–a man who hunted escaped union prisoners with bloodhounds, another who barricaded roads in the army's advance, and a foolhardy fellow who shot the first soldiers to approach his house. Sherman's men left the county's inhabitants with enough provisions to tide them over, the colonel maintained, had they not subsequently been overrun by Joseph Wheeler's Confederate cavalry. Wheeler lacked a supply system of his own and, like Sherman, depended on the land for sustenance. To the rebel colonel, Wheeler's men were worse than the Yankees; they 'filled the whole country with terror.' An unidentified refugee in Screven County commented on the depredations of Wheeler's cavalry in a letter to the Countryman. Widely reputed to be 'the greatest horse thieves in the country,' Wheeler's men 'never acted worse than they have recently.' While the Yankees were burning and destroying property in one part of the county, the writer alleged, Wheeler's troopers were stealing horses and mules in another. Remarking on this letter, Joseph Turner wrote, 'The whole land mourns, on account of Wheeler's cavalry. Here in middle Georgia, they are dreaded fully as much, if not more, than the yankees [sic].' " [Ibid., pp. 81-82]

"I am pretty sure Sherman should not be considered the 'bete noire' of Southern history, much less saluted as 'the Attila of the West,' the title H.L. Mencken accorded him. Much of Sherman's violence was verbal. He habitually used language that was vivid, emphatic and that tended toward exaggeration. Even E. Merton Coulter, the dean of Georgia historians a half-century ago, conceded that the general made many threats he did not carry out.

"Thus he told his subordinates in North Georgia that the way to keep trains from being blown up was to fill the cars wil local civilians and Confederate prisoners and then pull them 'by means of a long rope' across places where explosive charges were suspected. 'Of course the enemy can not complain of his own traps,' he reasoned. But my research produced no evidence that the scheme was ever carried out. Nor did he deport Southern hotheads and die-hards who fell into his hands to places like Honduras and Madagascar, a proposal actually approved by Secretary of War Edwin M. Stanton.

In fact, Sherman fought the war in Georgia pretty much by the book.

According to the British legal authority J.M. Spaight, he violated the rules of war only once in the Atlanta campaign: when he failed to give a 24-hour warning before bombarding the city on July 20, 1864."

[Lee Kennett, "General Sherman burned by history? Man that South loves to hate may not have been so bad," The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, August 31, 2001]

"There is a persistent tradition that Sherman's troops burned vast numbers of rural homes--'thousands' was the word used by Chaplain Bradley--and in the decades after the war any chimneys standing alone about the Georgia countryside got the lugubrious name 'Sherman's sentinels.' But what evidence there is indicates that only a minority of the houses along the army's path were fired by the Northern soldiers--probably a smaller proportion than during the evacuation of North Georgia. That is the impression to be gained from reading the more meticulous diarists; a house in the countryside going up in flames was noted. Henry Hitchcock was constantly on watch for them but did not note very many. Later studies of the areas the army passed through likewise show that the majority of the houses survived the holocaust of 1864. Using detailed maps prepared by one of Sherman's topographical engineers for the sixty-odd-mile stretch between Covington and Milledgeville, a geographer at the University of Georgia went back over the route in 1955 and discovered that many of the structures had survived not only Sherman's passage, but also accidental fires and termites, and were peacefully succumbing to dry rot. As for Milledgeville and the surrounding area, the author of another study found that 'the actual destruction of private dwellings ... was rare indeed, either in the town or along the route of march.'" [Lee Kennett, Marching Through Georgia: The Story of Soldiers & Civilians During Sherman's Campaign, pp. 275-276]
Very well answered. I've EMailed a copy of your response to a close South Carolina friend who has 'strong opinions' about Sherman, et al. I'm looking forward to his response....
 
Just to get back to Grant, he's actually one of the few Union commanders I have some respect for. I don't agree with everything he did or every decision he made (leaving the wounded lying on the ground at Cold Harbor because he didn't want to admit the battle had been lost stands out as a big error in judgment, something Grant would agree with), but overall he seems to have been a decent and honest individual. Several of his subordinates should have taken lessons from him.
I'm with you on the wounded at Cold Harbor. Chills my blood. Part of it, though, may have been not just Grant's own ego, but his extreme determination to not let the Union itself -- and its commander in chief, President Lincoln -- look like it had suffered a defeat. Grant was very savvy about the election politics, and knew that Lincoln's re-election was very much at risk -- and if Lincoln lost, there would be a negotiated peace with the South, with the CSA becoming a recognized, done deal. The way Grant saw it at the time, any acknowledged defeat on the battlefield endangered Lincoln's re-election, and that in turn endangered the whole thing.
 
Where was Hood's army? It was in Franklin making pointless attacks on the Union's prepared positions, in a battle far away from the line of Sherman's march, in a battle that could not affected anything.
Hood- like many others- thought a bold move through Tennessee would allow the army access to badly needed recruits. Further, if that bold expedition could reach the Ohio, its threat to the north would have relieved pressure on other fronts. Some even thought it might end the war.
But for the failure of his subordinates (or- if you like- for his failure to properly supervise them), he would have won a resounding victory at Spring Hill, capturing Schofield's army.
So why was there any fighting at all at that point?
What was achieved other than Jefferson Davis never had to admit the South was defeated?
"Hope springs eternal in the human breast". --- Alexander Pope.
Why do we encourage our children to never give up? Why do we admire sports teams that continue to compete to the very end of the game, even though they have little or no chance of winning?
I was just reading yesterday about a 1938 hockey game between Montreal and Detroit. The Canadiens rallied after trailing 8-5, scoring five straight goals in the final 10 minutes to win the game.....
 
The sources for comparing the destruction wrought by Sherman's men and Wheeler's men? White southerners from Georgia, it seems. People who were there.



More testimony from white Southerners who were there, including a real Confederate colonel.

Are folks telling me that white southerners are liars? That Confederate officers are liars?

May I remind you that this is Confederate History Month, when we are supposed to honor and revere all thngs Confederate? How dare those posters fond of the Confederate cause denigrate the testimony of true Southrons!

How disrespectful!

Just when I was feeling burnt out from debate I see this and everything turns around. Much appreciated.
 
I'm with you on the wounded at Cold Harbor. Chills my blood. Part of it, though, may have been not just Grant's own ego, but his extreme determination to not let the Union itself -- and its commander in chief, President Lincoln -- look like it had suffered a defeat. Grant was very savvy about the election politics, and knew that Lincoln's re-election was very much at risk -- and if Lincoln lost, there would be a negotiated peace with the South, with the CSA becoming a recognized, done deal. The way Grant saw it at the time, any acknowledged defeat on the battlefield endangered Lincoln's re-election, and that in turn endangered the whole thing.
Too often we look at Grant simply as a one-dimensional, regional commander, only interested in defeating the ANV. We forget his larger responsibility as a national general.
Did he want to defeat the ANV? Of course! But more importantly, he wanted to win the war....
 
COL! [chuckling out loud]
What is it about that darn Sherman? He just butts in and takes over everywhere, doesn't he? Ah, but that was why Grant liked him so much!
FWIW, I've noticed that Sherman appears in a lot more avatars (and monikers) around here than Grant does. (You know who you are, people....)
LOL!!!!!
 
Union deserters didn't fire on their former comrades Confederate deserters did. Yes I have given plenty of sources about that.
Leftyhunter

Do your sources indicate a reason for such an action? Was it sympathy for their former Union comrades' plight, or maybe too preoccupied planning their own departure.
 
Do your sources indicate a reason for such an action? Was it sympathy for their former Union comrades' plight, or maybe too preoccupied planning their own departure.
No Union deserters did not hate the Union cause enough to fight against it with very few exceptions. We should continue this discussion on my thread " how effective were Unionist Regiments" since we are both off topic.
Leftyhunter
 
No Union deserters did not hate the Union cause enough to fight against it with very few exceptions. We should continue this discussion on my thread " how effective were Unionist Regiments" since we are both off topic.
Leftyhunter

Their interest seemed to be more about getting home safely than fighting anybody. I responded to your post because it was here.
 
No Union deserters did not hate the Union cause enough to fight against it with very few exceptions. We should continue this discussion on my thread " how effective were Unionist Regiments" since we are both off topic.
Leftyhunter
I thought you and CSA were talking about Grant 's deserters.
 
I always liked Grant. I thought his ability to "balance" Washington on one hand, the army on the other and still fight with a clear eye on his goal with such bulldogged tenacity was what made him genius in the war. He is my favorite Union General while his buddy, Longstreet, is my favorite CSA General.
 
Thank heavens for the poor quality of the Union Troops and the incredibly long distance they had to grind their way from the Potomac River all the way to Richmond and Petersburg. :O o:

Those "poor quality" federals successfully destroyed the Confederacy and then tossed it's ruined corpse into history's rubbish pile, where it belonged.

I'd say they were good enough.
 

Learn About Us
About CivilWarTalk
Contact the Webmaster
Meet the Staff
Link to CivilWarTalk
Join Our Community
Register
Browse Forums
View Today's Discussions
Search the Forum
Get Help
FAQ
Student Guide
Forum Rules & Etiquette
Copyright / DMCA

     Contact Us CivilwarTalk on Facebook CivilWarTalk on YouTube CivilWarTalk on Twitter RSS Feed

Bringing the American Civil War and More to Life.
© 1999 - , CIVILWARTALK, LLC - Site Version 10.0

SlaveryTalk.com - SecessionTalk.com - CivilWarTalk.com - ReconstructionTalk.com
Back
Top