Customer Reviews

Grant and Sherman: The Friendship That Won the Civil War

5 star:		(25)
4 star:		(10)
3 star:		(6)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Owning a rather extensive Civil War library, I tend to approach Civil War books with a certain skepticism; it's very difficult at this point for a book to avoid repeating historical information, and even emotional effects, that are already covered extensively in my collection.

But this latest by Charles Flood is a gem. The author has an exceptionally rare narrative gift. If you haven't read of these events before, you'll be in excellent hands discovering them here. And even if you have several times over, you'll find them delivered in a fresh and powerful way.

This book starts out as something like a dual biography, of Ulysses Grant and William Sherman. After fate brings these two men together, the narrative shifts to being about their relationship, about how each detected and reinforced the best qualities in the other, and how indispensable these two men together were to preventing the dissolution of the Union.

Flood presents many scenes that enable the reader to take the measure of Grant. Towards the beginning of the book he tells an oft-recounted story of Grant's laconic determination to persevere after a disastrous day at the battle of Shiloh, and what an impression this made on Sherman. (I'd re-tell it here, but it's much better in Flood's hands.)

Flood also gives wonderful glimpses of the touching lifelong romance between Grant and his beloved Julia. The story of her failure to get a surgical correction for her mis-aligned eyes, and of Grant's declaration of his love for her precisely as she was, will move all but the most callous readers.

At the same time, Flood doesn't shy away from the ugly sides of Grant or Sherman. Marvelously admirable though they are in most respects, they voice expressions of both racist and anti-semitic attitudes that must make the modern reader cringe.

Flood does a splendid job late in the book of detailing some delicate maneuvers in which Grant engaged, in order to rescue Sherman from some political difficulties others had created for him, and which Sherman's own irascible temperament had exacerbated.

The story of the death of Sherman's son, of the love the boy had inspired among the Federal troops, and the touching letter that Sherman wrote to those troops, who had made the late son an honorary officer, is also told with grace and eloquence.

So, too, are a few passages about Robert E. Lee. The moving surrender scene between Lee and Grant is encapsulated here, but there are also more obscure, but equally affecting, ones. One involves Lee's compassionate response, during the retreat from Gettysburg, to the taunts of a wounded Federal soldier.

The book works, in the end, because it's a can't miss story. You have two men, an odd couple, facing up to the most momentous challenge imaginable. You also have the appeal of their surprising and sudden ascents from seemingly failed lives -- inspiring enough with one such man, but present here with two. And you have the unfolding of a relationship of touching loyalty, in a world otherwise filled with intrigue. In a certain way, even these two fierce warriors were too good for their times, and the nation benefited.

But good as the material is, it's the treatment by the author that makes it a surpassing book. I flew through it without intending to. It's simply an irresistible read.

Highest recommendation.

The Grant-Sherman strategy for ending the Civil War was straightforward. In Sherman's words: "He was to go for Lee and I was to go for Joe Johnston."

When they did, starting in the Spring of 1864, it would all be over within a year.

The Grant-Sherman approach was in fact a fundamental shift in Union strategy. Bringing the South to submission, they realized, did not require gaining and holding territory. It entailed annihilating Confederate armies and decimating Southern resources and infrastructure.

The Grant-Sherman relationship was remarkably symbiotic, as author Charles Bracelen Ford makes plain, but not always in harmony. Lacking Sherman's vision, Grant initially argued against Sherman's March to the Sea. Lacking Grant's political acumen, Sherman went too soft when negotiating Johnston's surrender terms, only to have Grant make things right, deftly and without fanfare.

In April 1861, both men were clearly failures -- former Army officers struggling to find a niche in civilian life. One would be labeled a drunk; the other a madman. By April 1865, together with Lincoln, they had saved the Union.

This newly published book accomplishes what it set out to do - to examine the relationship between two great generals. It provides much information, but little of it new, on the two individuals. The prewar years, personal traits, battles, and other generals are given cursory coverage. More detailed and revealing is the description of each man's relationships with friends and family members, especially their wives.

The key point, which comes into clearer focus as the pages turn, is the synergy that existed between these generals' career advancement, thinking, strategy, and political dealings. The book clearly depicts Grant as the gifted commander and Sherman as the consumate subordinate who managed to achieve the ideal balance between loyalty and strong advice. It becomes clear that one would not have accomplished nearly as much without the other.

Despite a few factual errors, this is a book that needs to be read by anyone who wants to understand the formula for Union victory.

For the north especially, coming up with a winning strategy was seemingly impossible. At the very beginning of the war Gen. Winfield Scott came up with what was called the 'Anaconda Plan' --

1. Blockage the Southern Ports,
2. Capture the Mississippi River to split off the Trans-Mississippi states of Louisiana, Texas, and Arkansas,
3. Drive down from the mid-West to capture Atlanta and from there to the sea to split the South into smaller parts. This was of course rejected as it was going to be a short war.

With limited support and indeed the opposition of Haleck that's exactly what Grant and Sherman did. The two men, failures at everything they tried in civilian life, formed a friendship at Shiloh that lasted throughout the war.

When Grant became Commander in Chief, he had a general he could trust in charge of the Army of Tennessee. Grant provided the vision, the strategy for implementing Scott's plan, Sherman provided the tactical leadership.

Between them, Lincoln finally found what he needed to bring the war to a close.

This book does an excellent job of describing the personalities, the strengths and the weaknesses, the friendship and mutual respect of these two men.

Grant and Sherman: The Friendship That Won the Civil War by Charles Bracelen Flood examines the relationship between the two great generals. It provides much information, but little of it new, on the two individuals. It shows as Sherman is quoted, "that we are as brothers."

The book gives the background of each man and his family prior to the outbreak of the Civil War. I enjoyed the coverage given of Grant's and Sherman's relationships with friends, family members, and their wives. The book shows the chemistry and respect the two have for each other. The book shows Grant as the commander and Sherman as the subordinate who managed to achieve loyalty and mutual respect. Neither would have been as great or accomplished nearly as much without the other.

The book could have been titled from failure to success as it explains how each man came to his responsibilities in the US Army. I enjoyed seeing the relationship between the two develop. We see it grow as they had a nominal knowledge of each from their West Point days where Sherman was two years ahead of Grant to where Sherman's presence encourages Grant while he is writing his memoirs.

The book achieves its point of showing they had a friendship. I remember examples at Fort Henry where Sherman was supplying Grant with what he needed even though Sherman had date of rank on Grant. Sherman and Grant talking at Shiloh were Sherman was ready to retreat and regroup and Grant to advance on the second day. Sherman encourages Grant not to leave after Major General Halleck takes field command of the Army from Grant following Shiloh. The Corinth Campaign, Military governorship of Memphis, Vicksburg Campaign, Grant in charge of the entire US Army, Chattanooga, Knoxville, Atlanta, Savannah, Columbia, and on to Raleigh for Sherman as well as the Wilderness, Petersburg, fall of Richmond and finally Appomattox for Grant. Their clear strategy in Sherman's words: "He was to go for Lee and I was to go for Joe Johnston."

The chapter on Sherman in trouble was very interesting as it gave the most in depth record I personally have read of the controversy surrounding Johnston's surrender to Sherman. We see how Grant has Sherman's back and helps him through this time.

It is a relatively short work of just over 400 pages. It was an enjoyable read. Read and reviewed by Jimmie A. Kepler

US Grant (1822-1885) and WT Sherman (1820-1891) were one of the
greatest military teams in history! The South had Lee and Jackson but the Northern tandem of Grant and Sherman destroyed
the armies of Lee and Joe Johnston forging the cementing together of the United States and winning the Civil War.
Grant and Sherman fought the decisive battles and won the crucial campaigns in the Eastern and Western theatres of the War.
They met on a St. Louis street in pre-bellum days when Grant was selling firewood to survive and Sherman was down on his luck. At
the end of the Civil War, though, they were honored for their
great victories. Grant won fame in the West with victories at
Belmont, Fort Henry, Fort Donelson, Shiloh, the brilliant campaign and seizure of Vicksburg and Chattanooga. Grant was alos the victor over Robert E. Lee in the decisive eastern battles leading to Appomattox Court House on April 9, 1865
Sherman won his spurs as a military leader of renown in
the campaign of Atlanta, marched to the sea capturing Savannah and ended the war with victory over Johnston in North Carolina
These two men were both complex and brilliant. Some of the
similarities and differences pointed out by Flood include:
1. Both were buckeyes from Ohio.
2. Both were West Point graduates
3. Both were beloved by their troops.
4. Neither Grant or Sherman got along well with the press.
5. Grant had a happier marriage to Julia than Sherman did with
Ellen. Both men had large families.
6. Grant was friendlier in his attitude to African-Americans and Native Americans than was Sherman.
7. Grant and Sherman were fighters who would not let go or give up. It was their brilliant strategy and perseverance than led their Northern legions to victory.
8. Both Grant and Sherman venerated Abraham Lincoln.
9. Sherman was more often embroiled in controversy such as the time he offered Joe Johnston more lenient surrender terms than was ordered and had to be pulled out of the politcal soup by his friend Grant.
10, Grant and Sherman were excellent leaders who were tough and
relentless in their campaigning against the South they both loved. Sherman noted for his total war and refusal to be merciful to a land than would quit only when total defeat was reality.
Charles Bracelen Flood has written several books on a variety of topics. Civil War readers may wish to read his book on General Lee's final years. Flood writes in a popular style which is easy to read, anecdotal and keeps one flipping pages. The book is marred by several typos. "Marina Davis" instead of "Varina Davis"; "John Powell" instead of "Lewis Powell." The book needed a better editing job.
The book is well illustrated and the maps are adequate. If you want a detailed history of the campaigns of Grant and Sherman turn elsewhere. If, however, you want a look at the chemistry of genius between these two tough men then this is an excellent book for you. The book has little new information to impart but
Flood is good at getting us to think about this great team of
military genius whose cooperation and support carried them and
the troubled nation through the dark waters of water into the harbor of peace.

Good question, and especially if the material has been re-written and re-written and re-written about way too many times to cite since 1865.

To his credit, though, acclaimed historian ("The Darkest Days") Charles Bracelen Flood has written an engaging, easy-to-follow book that clearly illuminates the interesting relationship between the two pre-war neer-do-wells who were instrumental in forging the Union victory. As in "Team of Rivals", "Grant and Sherman" comes off best when Flood writes of the backgrounds of both men, when both chose to leave the army under not so pleasant (more so for Grant) circumstances after the Mexican War, and how they were almost NOT allowed to assume even regional command at the beginning of the war (both Henry Halleck and George McClellan did their utmost to prevent Grant from becoming the commander of the Union Army of the Tennessee).

There are some glaring weaknesses in this book. For example Flood provides only a scant narrative - about three paragraphs - about Sherman's pre-Atlanta campaign, the Meridian Raid in February-March 1864, yet attests to its importance in how Grant perceived it and decided that Sherman should lead the drive south into Georgia. The Meridian Raid is a fascinating sideshow that little has been really written about, save for Shelby Foote's writings, yet Flood doesn't provide much here either.

What Flood does provide for the Grant-Sherman specialist or even the novice is a balanced, one-short volume narrative of all of the personality issues that McNeely, Perrett and Smith covered in their bios of Grant, or Michael Fellman did in "Citizen Sherman".

Furthermore, when most Grant duo biographies associate him with Lee, this is the first one that associates him with his chief lieutenant and why they ticked. A good gift for Civil War buffs this holiday season.

Bracelen Flood's writing is at once engaging and entertaining. Even as he approaches serious topics, he continually draws in the reader to his book. Where other biographies could have been boring, this one interests. It is a truly beautiful piece of writing, matched only by Bracelen's personality. The author is a man who comes alive when talking about his subject, and his enthusiasm is evident in every word.

I really enjoyed this book. When you think about the gruff, bluff soldier that was Ulysses Grant, or the image of William Tecumseh Sherman, staring at you with that stony expression and his arms locked across his chest, a book that explores their connection together seems unlikely to warm your heart. Yet, it did mine.

Flood does a magnificent job of portraying Grant, Sherman, and their supporting cast, and blending their personal stories with the tumultuous scenes of the Civil War battles-Shiloh, Vicksburg, etc.-that made them famous. The author goes in-depth into each man without sacrificing the pace of the book. This is a rousing war story, and also a tale of the human heart and its foibles. It is a story of friendship and loyalty and the inexplicable liking that sometimes happens when two persons are thrown together by life. I especially appreciated the little tidbits Flood slipped in that embraced both sides of the conflict-like the anecdote that put a spotlight on the natural nobility of Robert E. Lee. If you are into the Civil War, or war stories in general, you should get this book.

Richard Salva--author of Soul Journey from Lincoln to Lindbergh [UNABRIDGED]

With so many books available about the Civil War, I usually sigh when I see another one. But Charles Bracelen Flood has surpassed the usual offerings with this fascinating account of Grant and Sherman, who's friendship would "win the Civil War." Well written and researched, Flood's narrative gives life and blood to these men, written off early as failures: US Grant--a drunk, and William T. Sherman--insane. Whatever their shortcomings might have been, the underlying combined genius of these men came together at the crucial times and places. A splendid book and a breath of fresh air to the genre of Civil War history.