Before the Atlanta Campaign? What would you even judge it by?For the Sherman experts, how would you evaluate his wartime record and exploits, BEFORE the Atlanta campaign? Did he have enormous battlefield success to justify the assignment? Or was he simply mediocre, but Grant trusted him?
You missed a comma.
Well, k-rap!You missed a comma.
The more I think about this question, the more I wonder why you would exclude the Atlanta Campaign? It seems the perfect campaign to highlight both his strengths and his limitations.For the Sherman experts, how would you evaluate his wartime record and exploits, BEFORE the Atlanta campaign? Did he have enormous battlefield success to justify the assignment? Or was he simply mediocre, but Grant trusted him?
Is that not enough of a reason? Grant was the most successful general in the war. Sherman was a subordinate he knew he could trust, and his senior subordinate.Reason I'm excluding Atlanta. Want to know if his record made him a very strong and logical candidate to lead the Atlanta campaign. Or if his record was actually pretty mediocre and the only reason he got it was because he was best friends with Grant.
As someone who, as the more I read, the less I like Sherman as a general and as a person, he was lucky to be in Grant's group of friends.Reason I'm excluding Atlanta. Want to know if his record made him a very strong and logical candidate to lead the Atlanta campaign. Or if his record was actually pretty mediocre and the only reason he got it was because he was best friends with Grant.
In spring of 1864 he was chosen to take operational command of a campaign, not really battlefield command.For the Sherman experts, how would you evaluate his wartime record and exploits, BEFORE the Atlanta campaign? Did he have enormous battlefield success to justify the assignment? Or was he simply mediocre, but Grant trusted him?
Sherman was quite poor at battlefield command. I'd say he did pretty well at Shiloh...after the battle started (before he had dismissed reports of enemy prescence). Chickasaw Bayou and Missionary Ridge are not his highlights. Shiloh I believe he did well mostly because he was on the defense rather than offense and was able to handle his command better.For the Sherman experts, how would you evaluate his wartime record and exploits, BEFORE the Atlanta campaign? Did he have enormous battlefield success to justify the assignment? Or was he simply mediocre, but Grant trusted him?
But he didn't. He was back working via Halleck in less than a monthHe fell to pieces in Kentucky during his first assignment, to the point where the newspapers reported that he had lost his mind.
Friends in Congress -- including his brother John of course.He was one of Grant's West Point buddies and also had friends in Congress, very helpful to his boss.
That any of his statues are still standing, given what came out of his mouth during the period and the current political environment, is beyond me.
It is what it is.
It was your Southern leaders that chose war against the United States and it was your Southern leaders including Lee, who chose to make Southern civilians an active extension of the Confederate army by demanding they take up arms against the United States military. You reap what you sow.Certainly not the finest American, in fact, if you composed a list of really prominent and great American leaders, where do you think you'd find Sherman's name? Down near the bottom, where he belongs. It boggles the mind how everyone (it seems) loves to villify Lee and all Confederate leaders. But the people who treated the opposition terribly; and of course we're speaking of Southern civilians and the American Indians, Grant, Sherman and Sheridan, they get a pass from the American public?