Customer Reviews

Phil Sheridan and His Army

5 star:		(5)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

Phil Sheridan lacks a worthy biography, but this is the best around. It focuses on the post-Civil War period but ( I think)
could have done more to save the General's reputation from that of a 'bigot and Indian hater'.

For example, the unfair ascription of the so-called proverb 'The only good Indian is a dead Indian' is not challenged, I wonder when it ever will be. From my own limited research, I have found the first recorded public use of this phrase by a Montana politician in 1868, one year before Sheridan is supposed to have uttered similar words. Further, Sheridan's brother Mike also traces the phrase to Montana, saying 'some fool' ascribed the words to Sheridan. Finally, we only have the hearsay evidence
of a single witness (ie someone told someone else who wrote it down), written down 20 years later, that Sheridan used the words at all.

There is of course the larger accusation, that whatever Sheridan said, this is how he felt. Hutton effectively refutes that charge, I only wish he had come out and roundly stated it somewhere in the book. Sheridan shared the objectives of his contemporary humanitarian critics - he wanted Indians to settle down on reservations and adopt white ways, or just live of the bounty of the government. Where he differed was how he treated 'hostiles' or recalcritant Indians. Sheridan believed in waging war on the Indians just as he had made war in the Shenandoah Valley - devastate the enemy's resources, limit his power to make war by depriving him of supplies, with the added extra of rounding up families to be taken to where they white soldiers could watch them.

In essence, Sheridan was given a dirty job, and did in the only way he knew. But he had no especial hate for the Indians - he was not a Himmler figure, as some have made him out. He was fair to Indians who kept the peace. For example, he adjudicated in a dispute between Indians and cattlemen who had leased reservation land. Despite his personal feeling about development, he came down firmly on the Indian side, and thanks to him, the cattlemen were given 3 months to remove their herds, which humbered hundreds of thousands head of cattle.

Sheridan also sponsored early efforts to study Indian lore and customs, and was instrumental in preserving Yellowstone National Park for the nation.

In short this man was not a saint. He had glaring defects - for example, he aggressively defended subordinates even when they were in the wrong, he looked after cronies in the Army and outside. But he was totally uncorrupt in a corrupt age (his personal fortune was quite small at the end of his days, even though he could undoubtedly had many opportunities to enrich himself illicitly). Also, one feels that someone who said "If I owned Hell and Texas, I'd live in Hell and rent out Texas" can't be all bad! Right or wrong, he had a certain spirit, that Little Phil!

Prof Hutton does an excellent job with the story of "Little Phil" Sheridan and the Army on the post-Civil War plains. This is well written and brings the reader along like a good historical novel -- Hutton is a good historian and a great writer.

If anyone wonders how Custer could have been so driven to relentless pursue Sioux and Cheyenne to the Little Big Horn one must understand his mentor Phil Sheridan. As Hutton points out, Sheridan aggressiveness from his men and he could inspire them to such great lengths that one Union Soldier at the battle of Five Forks shot through the primary artery in the neck starts to seek medical help only to be blistered by Sheridan. Although mortally wounded, the young man turns to continue to attack and then immediately collapses to his death. The picture of the angular red haired cadet Sheridan at West Point looks just like the devil and his temper was evident there as he almost bayonets an upper classman that chews him out on parade. Sheridan applies his aggressive nature to the Indian campaigns such that if he is unable to capture the Indians (typical), he systematically destroyed their way of life by eradicating anything they needed to exist. Whether its buffalo, horses or village food stuffs, Sheridan essentially does to the Indians what he did to the Virginia Shenandoah valley during the Civil War where he or Grant made the comment that "a crow would have to carry rations if it flew over the valley" after Sheridan got through. Sheridan's effective Indian campaigns were often fought in the winter when the Indians had less food and were less mobile. Custer and Terry's campaign was desperate from the start since it started in the summer when the opposite was true. Hutton demonstrates Sheridan's black and white side and his Victorian views when Sheridan refuses to trade six horses for a captured white woman because he imagined her to be too sullied by the Indian braves and thus unfit for civilization. Hutton states in his introduction that he hopes that his daughter never has to meet a man like Sheridan which if he were your enemy it would be a relentless challenge without rules of war.

It is time we had books that celebrate the great HEROES of freedom like Grant Sherman Sheridan ect instead of the cowadly likes of Quantrill and his gutless backshooting ilk who would have run from a Blue Coat drummer boy or a Federal Army nurse!
It is about time that Americans honored those who stood and fought for freedom and WON. This book is a fine start.

This book focuses on the United States Army under the control of Phil Sheridan. Actually, the period covered in this book is primarily when Sherman was the head of the whole army, but Sheridan was the commander of essentially everything west of the Mississippi River. But little of Sheridan's career during the Civil War is considered, and even less concerning his service in the reconstruction of Louisiana and Texas. Indeed, this is not even really a strict biography on Sheridan, but rather, literally, a biography of Phil Sheridan and His Army. In fact, there are times in this work when the focus leaves Sheridan almost completely, and instead concentrates on another important event which took place under his command. This, however, does not detract from the overall effect of the book, which is to analyze the development of the army under Sheridan's guidance.

The book is well written and is far more scholarly and well-researched than many other books on the subject. This is not a very well known work, but, considering the shortage of biographical information on Sheridan, it is a very important one.

No. 3 in the postwar Union Army pantheon after Grant and Sherman, Sheridan gets an in-depth review here.

The man who said, "The only good Indians I ever saw were dead ones" would become Commander in Chief of the Army during the height of the western Indian wars. Read this book for further insight about his attitude toward Indians, as well as earlier post-Civil War service as a Reconstruction department commander in New Orleans.

This book is detailed and well researched. It covers Sheridan's entire career and and is not boring or over detailed. If you like to read about Indian Wars on the Great Plains, this book will please your quest for good reading.

I read this book several years ago and have nothing but fond memories. I recall it being informative and well-told, altogether an easy read.

As for the claim in another review that has Hutton making an erroneous statement that Sheridan never visited Custer Battlefield, just take a look at pages 328-329 and then eat your words. Also, the New Orleans riot was 1866 (July 30th based on the information I found on the Internet), so your inference here was also incorrect.

Anyway, I can unhesitatingly recommend this book.

I have been reading about the Civil War and Indian Fighting Generals for over half a century. There is absolutely nothing new here. Any bright High School kid could have written this book in a good library.

In addituion to this criticism, I find a combined error and omission that is typical of academic authors who try to write about everything and everybody. This author states that General Sheridan never got to the scene of the 1876 Indian War. On the contrary read Willert as to exactly where and when he did. Furthermore, related to this is the fact that Sheridan arrived belately because of the riots in New Orleans that took him there. Hutton missed this and its significance, which could have lent the added ingredient to his work that would have made it significant. Sheridan in the earlier Indian War on the Southern Plains cooped up the reservation Indians so they couldn't join the hostiles in the field. He would undoubtedly have done the same (in time - he did it belatedly at War Bonnet Creek) and prevented one of the key elements of Custer's disaster (i.e. too damned many Indians).

Big reputations are made on this sort of actually superficial copying, partly because of an old boy netword, one suspects. The victims are fundamentally ignorant readers. There is little that can be done about this before the fact, which is what reviews are for.

Phil Sheridan was a sociopath who wanted to murder the battered remnants of Lee's army just before the surrender. His bloodlust was later satisfied when he was turned loose on the American Indian. Pure genocide. I'm not sure we have ever produced uglier little man in our 400 years in this hemisphere.