Customer Reviews

Sherman: Soldier, Realist, American

5 star:		(8)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

When I first began to read this book I was concerned that it might be outdated. However, I found much of the subject matter to be quite timely. Of particular interest was the impact that Sherman's successful (albeit violent) trek through Georgia had on the 1864 elections. I never realized how close the Copperhead (Peace) Democrats came to winning that election and perhaps bringing the Civil War to a far differnet conclusion . Hart bring Sherman to life. He also vividly illustrates the behind the scene politics that almost prevented Sherman (not to mention Grant) from their historic roles in the Civil War. Don't be put off by the subject matter or the age of the book. It's worth the read.

Dispite having read most of major accounts of the American Civil War, I had not fully understood the central role played by Sherman until I read Hart's book. Hart makes it clear that Sherman's appreciation of the futility of attacking entrenched positions and his consequently developed strategy and tactics turned the tide for the North, salvaged the 1864 election for Lincoln, and saved perhaps tens of thousands of Union and Rebel lives. He also points out that the same insight accounts for most of Lee's success, i.e., Lee won battles in which he entised the North to attack entrenched positions (e.g. Fredricksburg) and lost when he attacked entrenched positions himself (e.g. Gettysburg). Hart fully disposes of the popular prejudice held widely in the South that Sherman's approach to war was more inhumane than the alternative of massive blood letting which was by virtually every other Civil War general. It is rare to find a historical account containing so much insight.

Sherman was both the most original genius of the Civil War, and "the typical American". His career provides lessons to the modern world and to modern warfare. It was his conscious exploitation of the economic and psychological factors of war in his "March through Georgia" which helped to end the Civil War. The long and expensive battles in Northern Virginia were replayed on the battlefields of France in the Great War.

The Union attempted to take Richmond by the shortest and most direct route; but this way was blocked with natural obstacles. If the Confederates fell back they would be closer to their reserves, supplies, and reinforcements. These facts favored the entrenched defenders.

The western campaign ended in the capture of Vicksburg and control of the Mississippi from St. Louis to New Orleans. Liddell Hart contrasts the maneuvers here to the stalemate back east. But the conditions, or politics, did not allow a wide flanking invasion through West Virginia or North Carolina. The threat to Richmond kept Confederate troops there. Longstreet proposed an invasion of Kentucky, a far flanking attack, but was turned down by Lee.

It explains how Sherman out-maneuvered Johnston from Chattanooga to Atlanta. By threatening to outflank Johnston, the Confederates fell back. His replacement by Hood did not prevent the capture of Atlanta. This revived the hope of victory for the North, and helped to re-elect Lincoln.

Sherman then abandoned his supply and communication lines (vulnerable to attack) and marched on to Savannah and the ocean. His army lived off the land. This enabled his army to be resupplied by the Navy. He then marched north, seeming to attack other cities, but passed between and continued to destroy railroads and bridges.

The end came soon after this, as other armies invaded the South. Sherman designed an armistice and amnesty where the Confederates would be disbanded, and their arms turned over to the states. The latter would allow repression of bandits and guerillas. He was criticized for this.

Sherman was a man of modest habits. When admirers raised [money]to buy him a house, he refused to accept unless he received bonds that would pay the taxes! He lived within his means. The resisting power of a state depends more on the strength of popular will than on the strength of its armies, and this depends on economic and social security (p.429).

Liddell Hart gave preference to contemporaneous correspondence rather than Official Reports (which are written for history to justify a policy). Some of the ideas in this 72-year old book may not coincide with more recent history.

This biography of Sherman is a study of the man Liddell Hart believes to be the great strategic thinker of the American Civil War. It is more a study of his psychology, much of it derived from original sources such as telegraphic messages, than an account of battles. Sherman was a complex man with a background in banking and commerce that served him well in planning his campaigns in the Confederacy. At the outbreak of hostilities, he was headmaster of a military academy in Louisiana and the local people tried to induce him to stay in spite of his open Union sympathies. He was offered a positon as Assistant Secretary of War but declined to seek a military command. His contempt for politicians was later expressed in his famous refusal to accept a nomination for the Presidency. He was the most intellectual general of the war and Liddell Hart is very interested in his thinking. This is a valuable book for those interested in leadership.

This is a classic written by Liddell Hart in highly readable compact detail. Hart, an English veteran of WWI, was a 20th century military expert who had a great appreciation for Sherman's strategic ability and understanding of an enemy morale. In contrast to what Hart calls a game of "shuttle cock" in the east, Sherman's strategic maneuvers and splitting of command out frequently force Johnson to give up ground while shedding very little blood. Hart notes that he does not spend too much analytical detail on where every "man stood" in reference to regimental history but Hart provides the reader the necessary detail to appreciate the battles and over all campaign. Hart's appreciation of Sherman's ability to take the war to the Deep South, live off the land and take a great risk of literally disappearing from his line of communications is well detailed here as Sherman's penetration through three states eventually undermines Lee's great efforts in Virginia. Hart, the veteran of the stalemate battle of trenches that featured great loss appreciates Sherman's successful plan of warfare. Of course, there are many historians who believe that General Joe Johnston's propensity to retreat may have made him a weak opponent but Johnston did keep a strong army in the field until Hood decimated the Army of Tennessee. This is a great book written by a man who not only lived through "The Great War" but was highly capable of writing about a war that was very similar in the eastern theater by late 1864.

B.H Lidell Hart has written a wonderful biography on William Tecumseh Sherman. Hart believed Sherman was the most relevant general of the Civil War and backed up his theory of the indirect approach with Sherman's campaigns. Sherman would maneuver the Confederates out of strong defensive positions and attack the enemies base of supplies, a perfect example of the indirect approach. B.H. Lidell Hart again proves why he is the Clausewitz of the 20th century and why Sherman is the greatest Union commander of the Civil War.

Liddell Hart shows Sherman clearly understanding the dreadful realities of war and how his actions shorten the destruction caused by the U.S. Civil War. The author gives a clear and concise picture of Sherman and his military career.

Although I have not studied the American Civil War extensively I have always wanted to know more of General Sherman. In the popular mind Sherman has the repute of being nothing more than the guy who rampaged through the South burning everything in his path. The facts are quite at odds with that perception. Not only did Sherman have a deep appreciation of Southern culture, he was also a grand strategist who possessed the ability to see the ramifications of his, and the Union's actions. The person who is presented here is one of deep thought, a classical education and deeply engrained values, who harbored no illusions as to the horrors of war. Since this book was written while there were still living veterans of the war, you are also presented with history that has much more immediacy to it. All in all it is well worth the purchase.

The details of battles from Vicksburg to Savannah provides the reader with a case study beyond the brutal details that often get associated with Sherman. The history of Sherman's boyhood does bog the story in the beginning and doesn't answer how he developed his strategy for cutting across the south. It is possible that the swamps and rivers, along with the strength of the Southern army...might have been the determining factors in Sherman's indirect approach to reaching the sea.

Excellent look at the other Civil War General. Especially like the use of Sherman's own letters.