Sherman Sherman's Wartime Record

[David Moore]

Start another Grant/Washburne thread if that suits your fancy.

How about a Dana-Grant one? Dana turned on Grant over the pension.
Just amused at how some will dare not look deeply at the new Marble Man: USG.

 

[wausaubob]

How about a Dana-Grant one? Dana turned on Grant over the pension.
Just amused at how some will dare not look deeply at the new Marble Man: USG.

What does that have to do with Sherman?

 

[David Moore]

What does that have to do with Sherman?

Jumped into this rabbit hole only because of the use of the word "tiresome" in reference to Thomas. I recall when "sigh" was a common comment.
it seems the ultimate tool of the Grant-Sherman lobby on this site is dismissiveness.

 

[Josh The Lighthouse Guy]

He fell to pieces in Kentucky during his first assignment, to the point where the newspapers reported that he had lost his mind.

Ironically, part of his meltdown included an accurate appraisal of the real size and scope of the war.

Intuition being McPherson's strength, I would rather have seen McPherson in command with Sherman leading the Army of the Tennessee.

Yet McPherson's inexperience led him to several mistakes during the campaign.

Probably would have been better for McPherson to be Sherman's Chief of Staff, but (IIRC) he was chomping at the bit for field command.

 

[Josh The Lighthouse Guy]

The biggest question: if not Sherman who commands the western theater and the army group operating against Atlanta?

Washington isn't going to take the chance on Hooker and Rosecrans has been sent away so the only option I can see is Thomas.

Grant implicitly trusted Sherman. Even if Thomas was a better commander than Sherman (and he probably was), that trust carries a lot of weight.

If Thomas is given command instead of Sherman who commands the AotC? Logan? Hooker? I don't see Sherman or McPherson leaving the AotT for it. Would Sherman be willing to serve under Thomas? Not saying any of that makes Sherman "right" but such considerations must be made with realpolitik in mind.

 

[Irishtom29]

Jumped into this rabbit hole only because of the use of the word "tiresome" in reference to Thomas. I recall when "sigh" was a common comment.
it seems the ultimate tool of the Grant-Sherman lobby on this site is dismissiveness.

Thomas has been a hero to me since my childhood, for over 60 years. But I admire Sherman and Grant too---that is allowed you see. You don't need to tear anyone down to build Thomas up.

 

[DanSBHawk]

If Thomas is given command instead of Sherman who commands the AotC? Logan? Hooker? I don't see Sherman or McPherson leaving the AotT for it. Would Sherman be willing to serve under Thomas? Not saying any of that makes Sherman "right" but such considerations must be made with realpolitik in mind.

I remember a Sherman quote that (paraphrasing) said that he could have served under Thomas just as well as Thomas served under him.

 

[trice]

The biggest question: if not Sherman who commands the western theater and the army group operating against Atlanta?

Washington isn't going to take the chance on Hooker and Rosecrans has been sent away so the only option I can see is Thomas.

Grant implicitly trusted Sherman. Even if Thomas was a better commander than Sherman (and he probably was), that trust carries a lot of weight.

If Thomas is given command instead of Sherman who commands the AotC? Logan? Hooker? I don't see Sherman or McPherson leaving the AotT for it. Would Sherman be willing to serve under Thomas? Not saying any of that makes Sherman "right" but such considerations must be made with realpolitik in mind.

Clearly in 1864 the choice for a commander came down to Sherman or Thomas. Sherman told Grant it did not matter which one he picked. He and Thomas were friends, and either one would serve under the other. Sherman (graduated 6th) and Thomas(12th) had been roommates with Stewart Van Vliet (9th, QM Major General in Civil War, retired 1881 as Assistant Quartermaster General of the U.S. Army) in the class of 1840 at West Point. (heck of a set of roommates )

Grant picked Sherman.

 

[wausaubob]

Clearly in 1864 the choice for a commander came down to Sherman or Thomas. Sherman told Grant it did not matter which one he picked. He and Thomas were friends, and either one would serve under the other. Sherman (graduated 6th) and Thomas(12th) had been roommates with Stewart Van Vliet (9th, QM Major General in Civil War, retired 1881 as Assistant Quartermaster General of the U.S. Army) in the class of 1840 at West Point. (heck of a set of roommates )

Grant picked Sherman.

And either way, with Hooker, McPherson, and Schofield there, either had plenty of experience and a strong group of younger officers.

 

[Lubliner]

Ironically, part of his meltdown included an accurate appraisal of the real size and scope of the war.

There is a saying that goes something like, the ignorant are the truly blessed for they don't comprehend it. Looking at it from hindsight, if that generation foresaw as much as Sherman anticipated, maybe it would have been more imposing to them.
Lubliner.

 

[David Moore]

Thomas has been a hero to me since my childhood, for over 60 years. But I admire Sherman and Grant too---that is allowed you see. You don't need to tear anyone down to build Thomas up.

That's nice but it's not historical. Grant and Sherman are two of the most well known figures in American history Thomas and Rosecrans are all but unknown. This is because in the 20th century Grant was turned into one of the great military figures in history. In the 19th century hardly anyone - outside of those with a political investment in Grant- thought that was the case.
The key to Grant is Elihu Washburne. He knew,from his brother Cadwallader among others, that USG was in over his head but Washburne had too much invested in his home town guy Grant and used his considerable power to support Grant.
What caused me to post was the use of the word
"tiresome" as if there should be a limit on historical research and questioning.
The image of USG today is of a relentless fighter who learned from his mistakes and later became an advocate for social justice. The reality is something quite different. Whether one wants to discover that reality is up to each individual. That Washburne and Grant permanently broke their friendship in 1880 over the Republican presidential nomination they both coveted says much about the true nature of their relationship.

 

[wausaubob]

Cadwallader Washburne? Isn't he the guy that was captured in his night shirt by Nathan Forrest's command in Memphis?

 

[trice]

Cadwallader Washburne? Isn't he the guy that was captured in his night shirt by Nathan Forrest's command in Memphis?

Not captured. He escaped in his nightshirt to Fort Pickering. That's why there is a street named "General Washburn's Escape Alley" in Memphis.

 

[David Moore]

Cadwallader Washburne? Isn't he the guy that was captured in his night shirt by Nathan Forrest's command in Memphis?

Cadwallader Washburn was Elihu's brother. Elihu added an e to his surname. No doubt Congressman Elihu Washburne promoted and advanced his brother who served a term as Governor of Wisconsin after the war.

 

[DanSBHawk]

That's nice but it's not historical...
The key to Grant is Elihu Washburne. He knew,from his brother Cadwallader among others, that USG was in over his head but Washburne had too much invested in his home town guy Grant and used his considerable power to support Grant.

That's nice, but it leaves out the fact that neither of the Washburn brothers knew much about waging war.

Cadwallader had no military experience until becoming a colonel in early 1862, while Grant was already campaigning against Henry/Donelson. By the end of 1862, Cad was a major general.

So he went from Colonel to Major General in less than a year, without demonstrating any real ability in combat.

He didn't know anything about waging a war, and was nothing but an administrator. Certainly not a general whose opinion carried any weight. If anyone was in over his head it was Cadwallader.

I agree with the previous poster that the anti-Grant spin from AOTC fans get's tiresome.

 

[Lubliner]

It is hard to get tired from commentary by such points as illustrated above. I know how easy repetition can become annoying but for those of us that tune in, it is both insightful and rewarding. I appreciate the in-depth coverage from opposing views done here, and will remain until it peters out. Thank you.
Lubliner.

 

[NedBaldwin]

That's nice, but it leaves out the fact that neither of the Washburn brothers knew much about waging war.

Cadwallader had no military experience until becoming a colonel in early 1862, while Grant was already campaigning against Henry/Donelson. By the end of 1862, Cad was a major general.

So he went from Colonel to Major General in less than a year, without demonstrating any real ability in combat.

He didn't know anything about waging a war, and was nothing but an administrator...

He did command a brigade of cavalry under Curtis in Arkansas during the first half of 1862, so he was more than an administrator

 

[DanSBHawk]

He did command a brigade of cavalry under Curtis in Arkansas during the first half of 1862, so he was more than an administrator

My impression was that Cad didn't have a very notable combat record. After that incident of Cad Washburn escaping in his nightshirt from Forrest, there was a comment from Hurlbut complaining that Washburn couldn't even keep Forrest out of his own bedroom.

At any rate, Cad's bad-mouthing of Grant and predicting failure during the Vicksburg campaign, actually I think reflects worse on Cad Washburn than it does on Grant. His predictions ended up being wrong.

 

[NedBaldwin]

My impression was that Cad didn't have a very notable combat record. After that incident of Cad Washburn escaping in his nightshirt from Forrest, there was a comment from Hurlbut complaining that Washburn couldn't even keep Forrest out of his own bedroom.

At any rate, Cad's bad-mouthing of Grant and predicting failure during the Vicksburg campaign, actually I think reflects worse on Cad Washburn than it does on Grant. His predictions ended up being wrong.

Agreed that his combat record was not notable. All his actions up to that point were cavalry raid type things with little combat. But saying "He didn't know anything about waging a war, and was nothing but an administrator" is too much.

Of course Hurlbut would complain -- he was replaced in Memphis by Washburn becuase he hadnt dealt with Forrest and then Forest embarrassed Washburn too.

Grant's situation by early April 1863 had lots of people grumbling. For example Sherman proposed to Grant that they retreat to Memphis and start over. So Cad wasnt some isolated voice when he expressed concern. When Cad wrote "All Grant's schemes have failed. He knows that he has got to do something or off goes his head." he was saying what was a pretty standard, not wrong, statement of the situation. When Cad wrote "My impression is that he intends to attack in front." his impression/prediction was wrong; but Grant had actually given that impression to people -- saying he was considering doing that. Whether he actually thought about it or was just engaged in spreading false-intel becuase he knew it would leak is another story. When Cad wrote "Grant is a good fighter." I dont think his prediction was wrong. When Cad wrote "The fleet has backed out of the Yazoo Pass. That should have been an overwhelming success, and I am mortified and humiliated at its miscarriage" he was not wrong -- Yazoo Pass expedition did not go well. And when Cad wrote "I hear that he says he has a plan of his own which is yet to be tried in which he has great confidence." he was also not wrong.

As I see it, the main problem with Cad's letter is that he was writing this stuff from Memphis based on second hand info about what was going on down river and he had just arrived in Memphis from Helena with orders to assume command of cavalry but was clashing with Hurlbut (then in charge in Memphis) over his role

 

[DanSBHawk]

Agreed that his combat record was not notable. All his actions up to that point were cavalry raid type things with little combat. But saying "He didn't know anything about waging a war, and was nothing but an administrator" is too much.

Of course Hurlbut would complain -- he was replaced in Memphis by Washburn becuase he hadnt dealt with Forrest and then Forest embarrassed Washburn too.

Grant's situation by early April 1863 had lots of people grumbling. For example Sherman proposed to Grant that they retreat to Memphis and start over. So Cad wasnt some isolated voice when he expressed concern. When Cad wrote "All Grant's schemes have failed. He knows that he has got to do something or off goes his head." he was saying what was a pretty standard, not wrong, statement of the situation. When Cad wrote "My impression is that he intends to attack in front." his impression/prediction was wrong; but Grant had actually given that impression to people -- saying he was considering doing that. Whether he actually thought about it or was just engaged in spreading false-intel becuase he knew it would leak is another story. When Cad wrote "Grant is a good fighter." I dont think his prediction was wrong. When Cad wrote "The fleet has backed out of the Yazoo Pass. That should have been an overwhelming success, and I am mortified and humiliated at its miscarriage" he was not wrong -- Yazoo Pass expedition did not go well. And when Cad wrote "I hear that he says he has a plan of his own which is yet to be tried in which he has great confidence." he was also not wrong.

As I see it, the main problem with Cad's letter is that he was writing this stuff from Memphis based on second hand info about what was going on down river and he had just arrived in Memphis from Helena with orders to assume command of cavalry but was clashing with Hurlbut (then in charge in Memphis) over his role

Alright I stand corrected. He was more than solely an administrator. And I appreciate your informed take on his letter.

But I will add that, the wavering support of Grant during this period from both Washburn brothers shows they were fair-weather supporters. Grant's success always depended on his own performance and victorious outcomes, and not on unconditional support from politicians and political generals.