Sheridan Philip Sheridan

[major bill]

Does General Sheridan get the credit he deserves for helping win the Civil War? Sheridan was a major American hero, but did his performance merit his hero status? He was a good general and seemed to usually win battles.

 

[major bill]

He was very impressive during the Appomattox campaign and helped being Lee to defeat.

 

[JeffBrooks]

I personally consider Sheridan highly overrated. He did okay during the Appomattox Campaign, but performed poorly during the Overland Campaign. In the Valley Campaign, he had 45,000 men against 15,000 and should have easily swept the floor with Early. Instead, it took months and many hard-fought battles, some of which Sheridan nearly lost. He also treated his own subordinates very poorly.

 

[Bruce Vail]

I personally consider Sheridan highly overrated. He did okay during the Appomattox Campaign, but performed poorly during the Overland Campaign. In the Valley Campaign, he had 45,000 men against 15,000 and should have easily swept the floor with Early. Instead, it took months and many hard-fought battles, some of which Sheridan nearly lost. He also treated his own subordinates very poorly.

Nobody thinks Sheridan showed any brilliance in the Valley Campaign of 1864, but it was a success from Grant's point of view. That's worth something...

 

[Carronade]

He seriously compromised the Union's chances during the Overland campaign by taking off on a private expedition, mostly to get out from under Meade's command and stay out as long as he could. His alleged motivation was to "whip Jeb Stuart", but when he had a chance to fight the Confederate cavalry on favorable terms at Beaver Dam Station he rode away. He only fought at Yellow Tavern because Stuart placed his command in Sheridan's path. He made no effort to assist the advance of the main army.

Grant in the Overland campaign tried repeatedly to get around Lee's flank, and was narrowly forestalled time after time. The lack of cavalry was a serious handicap to an army on the offensive. Sheridan - and Grant who let him go - may have forfeited an opportunity to defeat the ANV in May 1864.

 

[Rebforever]

Nobody thinks Sheridan showed any brilliance in the Valley Campaign of 1864, but it was a success from Grant's point of view. That's worth something...

General Lee was withdrawing units from General Early's army all the way up the Valley and used them at Petersburg. Sheridan was sloppy in not following up before he even got to Waynesboro.

 

[Eric Wittenberg]

Sheridan's record as commander of the AoP Cavalry Corps was a stellar 1-12-1. 'Nuff said.

 

[Aussie Billy Sherman]

I'd say he was overrated but he did take Stuart out within only a few months.

 

[dlofting]

I've always felt that he really didn't have a good reason to relieve Warren. I know that Grant sometimes got a bit frustrated with Warren, because he had a tendency to second guess his superiors, but when you compare him to the other 1864/65 corps commanders in the AOP he was adequate.

 

[Eric Wittenberg]

Just FYI: I published an entire book on this subject.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/1574883852/?tag=civilwartalkc-20

It's controversial because it's the one and only time in my historical career where I take sides and am not at all objective in my assessment. The book is very much written as a lawyer's brief.

 

[MaryDee]

Little Phil was not beloved during his time in the Indian Wars, either--not when I studied Wyoming history in school (a long time ago) and, to the best of my knowledge, not since, either. He did have a role in the Army's taking over Yellowstone Park to forestall the park's planned exploitation and commercialization by the railroads, so there's one redeeming feature. Out here in Oregon, he is remembered as the de facto commander of Forts Yamhill and Hoskins at various times. At that time he had an Indian "wife," who was conveniently forgotten when he proclaimed that the only good Indian he ever saw was dead (I'm paraphrasing here, sorry, Eric).

Of course Sheridan was not the only army officer to take an Indian bride; George Pickett (of Pig War fame) was another.

 

[wausaubob]

He was the perfect commander to help end the Civil War.
Applying the same methods in the West was disastrous.
The indigenous people were not enslaving anyone or trying to conquer anyone.

 

[cash]

Sheridan was a congenital liar, tactically deficient, a braggart, and a true jerk.

But his contributions went beyond battlefield wins and losses.

Bruce Catton, I think, captured it perfectly in A Stillness at Appomattox when talking about how Sheridan relieved Warren at Five Forks: "This was the first time in the history of the Army of the Potomac that a ranking commander had been summarily fired because his men had been put into action tardily and inexpertly. Sheridan had been cruel and unjust--and if that cruel and unjust insistence in driving, aggressive promptness had been the rule in this army from the beginning, the war probably would have been won two years earlier."

 

[Irishtom29]

I've always felt that he really didn't have a good reason to relieve Warren. I know that Grant sometimes got a bit frustrated with Warren, because he had a tendency to second guess his superiors, but when you compare him to the other 1864/65 corps commanders in the AOP he was adequate.

By Five Forks the Armies of the Potomac and James had all new corps commanders compared to May of 64 with the exception of Warren. And Ord was now in command of the Army of the James and Sheridan was made a general go to guy. The armies were being remade and Warren and his ways didn't fit in.

Was the army better off with or without Warren? I think better off without him. Griffin was a peppery guy and supplied the 5th Corps with a drive I doubt Warren would've given it. Who would've thought the 24th and 5th Corps would get ahead of the AoNV and block it's road west at Appomattox? Would the 5th Corps have won made that march under Warren?

 

[wausaubob]

Sheridan was a congenital liar, tactically deficient, a braggart, and a true jerk.

But his contributions went beyond battlefield wins and losses.

Bruce Catton, I think, captured it perfectly in A Stillness at Appomattox when talking about how Sheridan relieved Warren at Five Forks: "This was the first time in the history of the Army of the Potomac that a ranking commander had been summarily fired because his men had been put into action tardily and inexpertly. Sheridan had been cruel and unjust--and if that cruel and unjust insistence in driving, aggressive promptness had been the rule in this army from the beginning, the war probably would have been won two years earlier."

Probably true. And he saved many lives in fighting that way.

 

[dlofting]

By Five Forks the Armies of the Potomac and James had all new corps commanders compared to May of 64 with the exception of Warren. And Ord was now in command of the Army of the James and Sheridan was made a general go to guy. The armies were being remade and Warren and his ways didn't fit in.

Was the army better off with or without Warren? I think better off without him. Griffin was a peppery guy and supplied the 5th Corps with a drive I doubt Warren would've given it. Who would've thought the 24th and 5th Corps would get ahead of the AoNV and block it's road west at Appomattox? Would the 5th Corps have won made that march under Warren?

I generally agree with this. But Warren should have been replaced by Grant and moved to somewhere else where his skills could be used, not relieved of his command the way Sheridan did it.

 

[wausaubob]

Is that how we got George A. Custer?

 

[Bee]

Since I like to read about all things related to Grant, this has included Sherman, and more recently: Sheridan. This is the opening passage about Sheridan as seen by Grant, in Eric Wittenberg's Little Phil:

Settled history remembers Philip Henry Sheridan kindly. He is considered on eof the four great captains of the Union cause, along with Ulysses S. Grant, William T. Sherman, and George H. Thomas. Sheridan owed this lofty position to his great benefactor and friend, Grant. "As a soldier, as a commander of troops, as a man capable of doing all that is possible with any umber of men, there is no man living greater than Sheridan," crowed Grant. "I rank Sheridan with Napoleon and Frederick and the great commanders of history. No man ever had such a faculty of finding things out as Sheridan, or knowing all about the enemy," Grant claimed years after the Civil War. "Then he had that magnetic quality of swaying men which I wish that I had -- a rare quality in a general. I don't think anyone can give Sheridan too high praise". Eric J. Wittenberg, Little Phil [pgxv]
​

The passage goes on to explain that Grant overlooked Sheridan's many faults, as his temperament was thought to be free of Sherman's fury. Sheridan was lucky to have such a powerful advocate -- whether or not is was deserved...

 

[Buckeye Bill]

In my humble opinion, he was a pompous jackboot and he was the epitome of the "Napoleon Complex."

Sorry, not a fan......

Bill

 

[leftyhunter]

Sheridan's record as commander of the AoP Cavalry Corps was a stellar 1-12-1. 'Nuff said.

All I know about Sheridan is from Joshua Elisha Hunts book " All for the Union" when Hunt praised Sheridan' s Shenandoah Valley campaign as " brilliant".
Leftyhunter