Sherman What Credit Does Sherman deserve?

Like anyone else he deserves credit for the work he did, that work being pretty well known--an able and energetic division and corps commander and commander of the Great Army of the West that destroyed the Rebellion in the West and the Carolinas. Everybody knows that, right?
 
Alright, this is NOT meant to be a Sherman bashing thread or a discussion of whether or not Sherman was evil or ate kids for breakfast.

Lately, I've been thinking about Sherman and the oft-repeated claim that he was one of the best, if not THE best general the Union had to offer. He is often credited with defining and carrying out modern total warfare, with much success. It's fairly common to assume that Lincoln would not have been re-elected had Sherman's March to the Sea not shown real progress, and he's often credited as an inventive strategist.

On the other hand, he wasn't a very good tactician: he didn't perform to the utmost ability when faced with commanding battles (Kennesaw Mountain for prime example, though are definitely others). Could it be argued that total war was something already being used by guerrillas in the war, and Sherman just had the good luck to define it? Does he deserve the credit given for strategizing and conceptualizing the March to the Sea: his observations were echoed by other Union generals like Grant and even Pope earlier in the war.

Again, not attempting to "bash" Sherman, just wondering what everyone thinks of his skills in general and where he stands a commander.

The policy of hard war was not a Sherman policy but the policy of the Lincoln Administration. Sherman showed skill in carrying out the policy in a way that led to the intended result - the unconditional surrender of the Confederacy.

It wasn't pretty and it sure wasn't very elegant.
 
He proved he could run an army after its adversary had been reduced to a shadow of its former self. That's about it.

It was doing all right until Hood made the really big mistake of leaving Sherman alone and going north to fight Thomas and company. It made sense to Hood at the time but he seriously misunderstood (and underestimated) Sherman. The AoT didn't fight Sherman again after the Atlanta campaign until what was left of it arrived in NC under A P Stewart just in time to watch the signing of the surrender at Bentonville. Poor Stewart - nobody remembers he was the last commander of the AoT.
 
The policy of hard war was not a Sherman policy but the policy of the Lincoln Administration. Sherman showed skill in carrying out the policy in a way that led to the intended result - the unconditional surrender of the Confederacy.

It wasn't pretty and it sure wasn't very elegant.

That's really so - Lincoln knew hard war was the key. Sherman, however, did an interesting thing with his Houdini disappearing act. If his actions proved to be excessive, or the press set up a howl, or Congress became upset, or something else, both Lincoln and Grant could truthfully say they didn't know what that rogue general had gotten up to!
 
That's really so - Lincoln knew hard war was the key. Sherman, however, did an interesting thing with his Houdini disappearing act. If his actions proved to be excessive, or the press set up a howl, or Congress became upset, or something else, both Lincoln and Grant could truthfully say they didn't know what that rogue general had gotten up to!

It's significant that the March to the Sea was not commenced until Nov. 15th, after the election was concluded. At that point, Lincoln felt he had a clear mandate to finish the war in the way that had been successful during 1864 -- that is to say a 'hard war' to the bitter end.
 
my Grandmother could lead an army of 60K through Georgia to Savannah facing virtually no opposition.

... especially if she didn't care what they did, or how they went about it.

Where do you think the missing army went?

Grant's crushing victory at Vicksburg convinced Lincoln that Grant's considerable talents were at that time best used against Lee, who still had an effective army. Union supremacy in the west was never again threatened.
 
... especially if she didn't care what they did, or how they went about it.



Grant's crushing victory at Vicksburg convinced Lincoln that Grant's considerable talents were at that time best used against Lee, who still had an effective army. Union supremacy in the west was never again threatened.

Sherman led a Corps during the Vicksburg campaign so yes he had something to do with the victory there.
 
He proved he could run an army after its adversary had been reduced to a shadow of its former self. That's about it.

This is rather unfair. Remember the goal of the March to the Sea was always that Sherman's 60,000 men would proceed to Virginia, where they would join the 'mother of all battles' for the final destruction of Lee's army. The goal was not a jaunt through the countryside.
 
Remember the goal of the March to the Sea was always that Sherman's 60,000 men would proceed to Virginia, where they would join the 'mother of all battles' for the final destruction of Lee's army.

So what? It didn't happen. Grant didn't need him. And if the two had joined forces again, the combined army would have been under Grant's direct command.

I've never understood why so many people want to shift credit from Grant to Sherman. Maybe they like Sherman's heartless approach. Regardless of that, Grant got the job done. Twist the story however you like, but Lee never in his life surrendered to anybody but Grant, and that's the bottom line. It's hard to argue with results. Nobody but Grant could even last a year fighting Lee, and the war could not end until Lee was finished.
 
Grant's crushing victory at Vicksburg convinced Lincoln that Grant's considerable talents were at that time best used against Lee, who still had an effective army. Union supremacy in the west was never again threatened.

You forget Chickamauga. And it was after Grant pulled that fat out of the fire at Chattanooga that Washington decided Grant should be given supreme command.
 
So what? It didn't happen. Grant didn't need him. And if the two had joined forces again, the combined army would have been under Grant's direct command.

I've never understood why so many people want to shift credit from Grant to Sherman. Maybe they like Sherman's heartless approach. Regardless of that, Grant got the job done. Twist the story however you like, but Lee never in his life surrendered to anybody but Grant, and that's the bottom line. It's hard to argue with results. Nobody but Grant could even last a year fighting Lee, and the war could not end until Lee was finished.

I guess I misunderstood your point. I wasn't trying to shift 'credit' anywhere, merely to point out that the March to the Sea was not a military objective in itself. but part of broader plan to crush Lee's army and end the war.
 
Okay, so we have some interesting discussion going on! I sort of meant for this to be a broader (poorly titled) discussion of Sherman's flaws and strengths as a commander. He definitely has some inconsistencies on his record, and I wanted to be able to discuss that without getting into the whole "was he a war criminal, was he not?" thing.

So far, I've got some fascinating answers. Thanks everyone!
 
Okay, so we have some interesting discussion going on! I sort of meant for this to be a broader (poorly titled) discussion of Sherman's flaws and strengths as a commander. He definitely has some inconsistencies on his record, and I wanted to be able to discuss that without getting into the whole "was he a war criminal, was he not?" thing.

So far, I've got some fascinating answers. Thanks everyone!

I would say strategy was his greatest strength he was pretty brilliant. He had vision and the drive to accomplish his goals. At the maneuvering/operational level I would give him a mixed grade, he could be effective but did miss some opportunities. Tactically I would have trouble rating him more than average, Chickasaw Bayou/Kennesaw Mountain were pretty bad.

The more I read about Sherman the more fascinating I find him too be. He's very hard to pin down. One minute he is avoiding battle to save the lives of his men the next he is launching bloody frontal assaults Chickasaw Bayou/Kennesaw Mountain. I suppose that might have to do with the somewhat erratic nature of his personality.
 
Sherman's destruction of Atlanta and subsequent march eastward to the Atlantic broke the spirit of the South. Plain & simple. By splitting his force into two columns, the Confederates were unable to determine where Sherman was really heading and what his actual objectives were. All the rebels could do was harass him, for the most part. The swath he fashioned was, by some, estimated at 60 miles wide. Lots of sweet potatoes and pigs gathered along the way. All in all, a devastating stroke, by my estimate. To point-out any flaws, is nitpicking.
 
I would say strategy was his greatest strength he was pretty brilliant. He had vision and the drive to accomplish his goals. At the maneuvering/operational level I would give him a mixed grade, he could be effective but did miss some opportunities. Tactically I would have trouble rating him more than average, Chickasaw Bayou/Kennesaw Mountain were pretty bad.

The more I read about Sherman the more fascinating I find him too be. He's very hard to pin down. One minute he is avoiding battle to save the lives of his men the next he is launching bloody frontal assaults Chickasaw Bayou/Kennesaw Mountain. I suppose that might have to do with the somewhat erratic nature of his personality.

That's why I like biographies so much - really like to find out who these generals were, and that gives a good idea of why they fought battles as they did. Sherman lived a great deal in the awesome shadow of his powerful foster father/father-in-law, always having to prove himself in some way to that person. Marrying the guy's daughter just added to it! None of that stabilized his naturally mercurial temperament.
 
Back
Top