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.