Grant or Lee?

[vogtmurr]

I've never understood why Sherman is rated highly, or anyone would use him as the poster boy for Union sentiment. He was Grant's confidante and supporter, but after capturing Atlanta - practicing total war on a (by now) practically defenseless state doesn't make him a great general in my opinion. That was his modus operandi in the Indian Wars over the next 15 years. Sherman wrote Grant that "we must act with vindictive earnestness against the Sioux, even to their extermination, men, women and children." Kind of makes his middle name a touch of irony.

 

[Dreadnought]

I've never understood why Sherman is rated highly, or anyone would use him as the poster boy for Union sentiment. He was Grant's confidante and supporter, but after capturing Atlanta - practicing total war on a (by now) practically defenseless state doesn't make him a great general in my opinion. That was his modus operandi in the Indian Wars over the next 15 years. Sherman wrote Grant that "we must act with vindictive earnestness against the Sioux, even to their extermination, men, women and children." Kind of makes his middle name a touch of irony.

His campaign against Atlanta was nothing short of brilliant. While Grant was taking a "throw tactics to the wind and obtain victory through sheer numbers" approach in Virginia (which, understandably, is one way to win a war) Sherman showed that, in a similar situation, one could use maneuver and threats, rather than assaults, to force an enemy out of strongly entrenched positions. The Confederate defensive lines north of Atlanta were extremely strong; Sherman knew this and was still able to achieve strategic victory en route to Atlanta.

Besides, he was the man that won the war; had he not taken Atlanta, Lincoln would have no crutch for his reelection campaign.

 

[LightSpectra]

I've never understood why Sherman is rated highly, or anyone would use him as the poster boy for Union sentiment. He was Grant's confidante and supporter, but after capturing Atlanta - practicing total war on a (by now) practically defenseless state doesn't make him a great general in my opinion. That was his modus operandi in the Indian Wars over the next 15 years. Sherman wrote Grant that "we must act with vindictive earnestness against the Sioux, even to their extermination, men, women and children." Kind of makes his middle name a touch of irony.

He was a brilliant strategist, and also an amoral commander. Such things are not mutually exclusive.

 

[aelf]

I've never understood why Sherman is rated highly, or anyone would use him as the poster boy for Union sentiment. He was Grant's confidante and supporter, but after capturing Atlanta - practicing total war on a (by now) practically defenseless state doesn't make him a great general in my opinion. That was his modus operandi in the Indian Wars over the next 15 years. Sherman wrote Grant that "we must act with vindictive earnestness against the Sioux, even to their extermination, men, women and children." Kind of makes his middle name a touch of irony.

This is not a fair and balanced assessment of Sherman as a general. He might have done some questionable things, but he also achieved much and, especially back then, many generals also did questionable things.

 

[vogtmurr]

He was a brilliant strategist, and also an amoral commander. Such things are not mutually exclusive.

Being amoral is like someone who drinks too much and is a philanderer, not someone who practices warfare like a hellfire-breathing minister. Cromwell then, was amoral, and most certainly brilliant. Maybe I don't know the subtleties of the Atlanta campaign, but I think Sherman is stretching the definition a bit. The south was on its back, no besieged city was going to survive, and it was Gen. Thomas who set up the key victories on that front, before and after Atlanta.

This is not a fair and balanced assessment of Sherman as a general. He might have done some questionable things, but he also achieved much and, especially back then, many generals also did questionable things.

This display of sarcasm is inconsistent with your stated disregard for being detached and impartial, even when judging an entire nation. Who are you trying to win points with ? We are judging an individual's actions, not a nation.

 

[LightSpectra]

Being amoral is like someone who drinks too much and is a philanderer, not someone who practices warfare like a hellfire-breathing minister. Cromwell then, was amoral, and most certainly brilliant.

Cromwell was a terrible commander compared to Sherman; and Cromwell was much more evil, whose policies were essentially genocidal.

Maybe I don't know the subtleties of the Atlanta campaign, but I think Sherman is stretching the definition a bit. The south was on its back, no besieged city was going to survive, and it was Gen. Thomas who set up the key victories on that front, before and after Atlanta.

Er, why do you think the South was basically incapable of putting up resistance at that point? Sherman's maneuvering was one of the most impressive in American military history; second only, I suppose, to Patton's.

This display of sarcasm is inconsistent with your stated disregard for being detached and impartial, even when judging an entire nation. Who are you trying to win points with ? We are judging an individual's actions, not a nation.

I don't think he was being sarcastic.

 

[aelf]

This display of sarcasm is inconsistent with your stated disregard for being detached and impartial, even when judging an entire nation. Who are you trying to win points with ? We are judging an individual's actions, not a nation.

We are judging Sherman qua Sherman the Civil War General. He did stuff he judged in his professional capacity to be conducive to winning the war, yes? I think there's even more reason to actually believe that than to believe that an entire nation 'did what it had to do' by occupying foreign territories. In one case, there is no actual mission or goal that had to be acted on. Guess which one that is?

 

[vogtmurr]

Cromwell was a terrible commander compared to Sherman; and Cromwell was much more evil, whose policies were essentially genocidal.
.

Cromwell was a terrible commander ? Wow, by what admittedly subjective scale do we reach that conclusion. Anyway we digress - how are Cromwell's policies essentially genocidal, and Sherman's weren't ?

 

[ParkCungHee]

Deporting and enslaving men, women children to forced labor in the West Indies, deliberately killing women and children in a city with no significant value to the Irish War effort, systematically driving people off the inhabited land, destroying crops, and oh yeah, given his son the nod when he talked about actually killing or deporting every last Irishman.

 

[vogtmurr]

Deporting and enslaving men, women children to forced labor in the West Indies, deliberately killing women and children in a city with no significant value to the Irish War effort, systematically driving people off the inhabited land, destroying crops, and oh yeah, given his son the nod when he talked about actually killing or deporting every last Irishman.

You are preaching to the converted and you missed the point. How was Sherman's policy in the west different. ?

 

[ParkCungHee]

Because Sherman did not fight in the west in the ACW. The west saw very limited action.

 

[vogtmurr]

Because Sherman did not fight in the west in the ACW. The west saw very limited action.

better go back and read the last few posts

 

[LightSpectra]

Sherman's actually a self-contradictory figure in that regard, assuming you're talking about the Native Americans. He wanted to treat the Natives fairly and not unjustly knock them off reservations, but in a time of war, he advocated warring with them with no restraint. That's not sociopathy, that's just valuing American lives higher than Native lives (which I don't think is right, but it's not quite the same thing as Cromwell treating the Irish like irritating fleshbags that should be thrown in the furnace).

 

[ParkCungHee]

better go back and read the last few posts

Oh I know what you were trying to say. You'd better go back and read a few posts more.

 

[vogtmurr]

Oh I know what you were trying to say. You'd better go back and read a few posts more.

then why don't you enlighten me what I was "trying to say" ? So far I don't see you acknowledging that Sherman was responsible for overkill in the civil war (a good part of which he commanded on what has been termed the "western front"), or practiced genocide in the Indian Wars. I compared him to Cromwell, but whether he was as brilliant and well rounded a military commander I'll let others debate.

 

[ParkCungHee]

then why don't you enlighten me what I was "trying to say" ? So far I don't see you acknowledging that Sherman was responsible for overkill in the civil war (a good part of which he commanded on what has been termed the "western front"),

So your argument against Sherman being good at organized murder is that he killed too many people?

or practiced genocide in the Indian Wars.

That largely irrelevant to whether he was a good General in the American Civil War. To use your analogy of Cromwell, it would be stupid to bring up Drogheda and the land settlement in the context of the English Civil War.

 

[RebelYeller]

Thus says the Lost Causers who want to pretend that southerners were better fighters, lovers and gentlemen than northerners.

Ah so we're worser fighters, lovers and gentlemen? Is that it!?

 

[ParkCungHee]

You're objectively worse fighters, everything else seems pretty true also.

 

[godfreycrusader]

grant was good but lee was far better. grant only won because he had way more suplies

 

[NiRv4n4]

I think we can all learn something about Grant by his tenure as US President, therefore, Robert E Lee gets my vote.