Talk:William Tecumseh Sherman

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Featured article star William Tecumseh Sherman is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 7, 2007.
Peer review This History article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia. It has been rated FA-Class on the assessment scale (comments).
This article was selected on the the Ohio portal as one of Wikipedia's best biographies related to Ohio.
Archive
Archives
* Archive 1


Contents

[edit] WHICH SIDE?

This is a slightly poorly-written introduction. It doesn't even say which side the general was on during the Civil War, but goes on to introduce his "criticized policies" this early in the article? This is another example of why more and more people are avoiding Wikipedia for quick research. Complaint mode off.-DMCer 01:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

If this comment is serious, then allow me to point out that the second sentence and the Infobox state clearly that he served in the United States Army. Even if the reader were completely unfamiliar with the American Civil War, the second paragraph would suffice to establish that that was the side that fought against the Confederate States Army. - Eb.hoop 07:09, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry but DMCer is right. You need to say which side he was on. It's no good saying that he was in the US Army - that means nothing to a non-American in this context. It's correct that the second para states that he fought against the Confederates but information should not be provided by a process of elimination. Dr Spam (MD) 12:06, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

.....it does say what side he fought on, the US Army. What would you put, "He served as a general in the United States Army during the American Civil War (1861–65), fighting on the side of the United States Army" ? Would we also need to indicate what side a french general who was enlisted in the french army in WW1 was on? My god. 206.180.38.20 12:54, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

206.180.38.20, please be civil. Your point about the French Army is moot because WWI was not an internal/civil war in France. I think you will understand what Dr Spam and DMCer are trying to say. To a person not familiar with this era of US History, all states are part of the United States. Such a person might not yet understand the difference between the US Army and the CS Army. Perhaps the phrase "Union Army" might make this more clear. Arx Fortis 14:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Hah! Fine. Would we also need to indicate what side a spanish general who was enlisted in the Nationalist army in the Spanish Civil War was on? I mean, it's all Spain! Though now that I think about it, perhaps a person not familiar with this period of time would be confused as to why there was an american civil war in the first place, we should put in an explanation on the origins of the war in here. After all, they may not yet understand that a civil war took place. I mean, yeah, sure there's a link and everything but you have to click it. Vitriol aside, even the second sentence says he was a general of the United States Army who waged total war on the Confederate States of America. I don't see how you can get any more blatant without being insulting to the reader's intelligence.206.180.38.20 15:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Why not just replace united states army with union army, thus removing all confusion and removing any duplicated sentences. SGGH speak! 17:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

To clarify my position, while I think it is perfectly fine the way it is and that changing it because people may not understand what side he was on is dumb beyond all reason, making such a change (while dumb) won't hurt the quality of the article by any signficant amount. I really doubt anyone was fearing an edit war with me, but though I probably came off as very angry (I was) the most I'll do is shake my fist at my monitor. 206.180.38.20 17:51, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Well I've replaced it with Union army for now, as per above and because it links to a more specific article and more relevant article to the context than US Army. Any quibbles it can always be changed, but hopefully that solves that :) SGGH speak! 21:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Cool! And what is more if you look at the link to the Union Army it becomes immediately clear that the Union Army and the US Army cannot be equated since one was a sub-set of the other. The link to the US Army was not helpful.Dr Spam (MD) 11:48, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Breakdown and Shiloh

The paragraph below--

During his time in Louisville, Sherman became increasingly pessimistic about the outlook of the war and repeatedly made estimates of the strength of the rebel forces that proved exaggerated, causing the local press to describe him as "crazy." In the fall of 1861, Sherman experienced what would probably be described today as a nervous breakdown. He was put on leave and returned to Ohio to recuperate, being replaced in his command by Don Carlos Buell.

--is inaccurate and should be re-written and double checked for accuracy.

  • Sherman became increasingly pessimistic about the outlook of the war.
    • Not true. What he did note was that he was badly outnumbered, and all of the Union recruits and arms 1861 were going to Virginia and Missouri. He was also facing Generals who were natives of Kentucky, were popular with the locals and knew the topography.
  • Sherman repeatedly made estimate of the strength of the rebel forces that proved exaggerated
    • That sentence is so off-base, I don't know what do say about it. Its not cited, nor is it supported by anything in the Official Records. Sherman did not exaggerate the strength of the rebel forces. He actually presented the lower estimates, and even his most liberal estimate were still too low. What he DID state was that he believed a very large majority of the people of Kentucky were thoroughly devoted to the Union, and loyal to the Government, and that the Unionists embraced almost all the older and more substantial men in the State; but, unfortunately, there was no organization nor arms among the Union men; that the rebel minority, thoroughly vindictive in its sentiments, was organized and armed (this having been done in advance by their leaders), and, beyond the reach of the Federal forces, overawed and prevented the Union men from organizing; that, in his opinion, if Federal protection were extended throughout the State to the Union men, a large force could be raised for the service of the Government. This is corroborated by Generals Wood, G.H. Thomas, Rousseau, and Negley--four of his five subordinates, along with two neutral witnesses to the conversation between Sherman and Cameron/L. Thomas.
  • The local press described Sherman as crazy for requesting 200,000 troops for "the state's defense"
    • Sherman had actually requested 60,000 troops for the state's defense(he ended up getting 48,000 by 1862), and had mentioned to Secretary of War Cameron and Attorney General Lorenzo Thomas that 200,000 troops would be needed to subdue the deep south before the war's end (which turned out to be a low estimate)
  • Sherman was put on leave after a nervous breakdown
    • Totally false. Sherman reported directly to Halleck in Missouri. He had already known this was going to be his assignment before the "Crazy" story was printed in the papers. Don Carlos Buell did not replace Sherman. He was ALREADY in charge of Sherman's Dept. of the Cumberland, who had only taken temporary command after the resignation of Brig. Gen. Robert Anderson. Buell was in California and en route.
  • Sherman had a history of mental illness, so the papers were correct
    • The paragraph doesn't explicity state that—and it has been documented that Sherman did suffer from depression—however it has been proven that the "Crazy" story was a fabrication. Hugh Ewing, and his wife, Ellen Ewing-Sherman, personally lobbied the President to have Sherman reinstated to field command, and Lincoln praised Sherman's conduct and abilities publicly to a large number of officers in stark contrast of stories in the paper. Lorenzo Thomas was banished to the trans-mississippi theater. "Melancholy" and "insanity" are two very different things. I can believe that a depressed General became the #2 commander in the United States, but not a crazy one!
  • Sherman went from Lousville, to Ohio, to Missouri
    • No. Sherman went from commanding the Department of the Cumberland (when articles were printed he was crazy for requesting troops), to commanding the post at Sidalia, Missouri under Halleck (when more articles were printed, that he was reassigned for being crazy), to Ohio, to commanding Cairo, and division command under Grant. Right now the article insinuates he was sent home from Kentucky because he was crazy, when in fact he held another command first, and THEN went on leave for "health", which by some accounts (including his own) was a 20-day leave to escort his wife (who was concerned about his mental health after being lampooned in the press, not about the verity of the articles themselves) back home to Ohio.

Anyway, the sentences need to be changed ASAP. I am striking them for now and inserting sourced material that I believe more accurately describes Sherman in Kentucky in 1861. If I am wrong, please feel free to change it and contact me on my talk page. MrPrada 18:52, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I have just re-read the relevant pages in John F. Marszalek's biography (searchable on Amazon here: [1]). This is a modern mainstream book by a professional historian, and is generally sympathetic to Sherman. The author states that Sherman did claim his troops were outnumbered by as much as 5 to 1 in Kentucky, when in fact they were not outnumbered at all. Col. Thomas M. Key was dispatched to investigate and concluded that Sherman was on the verge of a breakdown and that his constant complaints to Washington about shortages were unjustified. Assistant Sec. of War Thomas W. Scott declared that Sherman was "gone in the head." Sherman himself admited later to his wife that he contemplated suicide at the time. Upon leaving Kentucky he declared that the war was irretrievably lost. (See in particular pages 161-3 in Marszalek's book). Also, Sherman's family did have a history of mental problems, as his wife knew well. (See, e.g., the article on his son). Some edits might be in order, but I've reverted your version because it does not reflect the common view of modern historians and because it seems to uncritically accept Sherman's account in his Memoirs, which cannot be expected to be completely reliable in this matter. In any case, please discuss this here in the talk page first before making such major edits to the article. - Eb.hoop 23:13, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dead external links found

One (1) link was detect as requiring assistance, William T. Sherman’s First Campaign of Destruction returns a HTTP 404 status message. —Dispenser 19:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] He is known by another name.

And on this note, I kid not, I'll see if I can find anything official (although I am in doubt). But in common reference throughout the southern United States any mention of General Sherman is often more countered with the title he seems to have received here in the south. From Chattanooga, TN to Charleston South Carolina I have always heard his official title as "That Bastard Sherman". Although I can't say for sure the relevance in that matter, it is pretty widespread down here. I'll see if I can find some semi official linkage, as it is probably nothing more than some obscure gone with the wind reference, but anyone who knows their history down here in the south will still refer to him by that name fullphaser 05:21, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] War is Hell

I would like to request that someone with access to the original text of the "War is Hell" speech upload it to wikisource. Thanks, User:Krator (t c) 13:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sherman's attitude against the Indians

The following text was erased because it needed "reliable sources", they said. Well, if somebody can demonstrate "enough reliable sources", please give truth a chance.


[edit] Sherman's attitude and "reliable sources

In July 1865, only three months after Robert E. Lee’s surrender at Appomattox, General WT Sherman was put in charge of the Military Division of the Missouri, which included every territory west of the Mississippi. Sherman's main concern as commanding general was to protect the construction and operation of the railroads from attack by hostile Indians, veiling corporate welfare in the form of eradicating the Indians of the West as the railroad industry heavily bankrolled the Republican party. In his campaigns against the Indian tribes, Sherman repeated his Civil War strategy by seeking not only to defeat the enemy's soldiers, but also to destroy the resources that allowed the enemy to sustain its warfare. The policies he implemented included the decimation of the buffalo, which were the primary source of food for the Plains Indians.[1]

The attitude of the American government against the native Americans is all in Sherman’s own words, as reported by the Independent Institute:

“ We are not going to let a few thieving, ragged Indians check and stop the progress of the railroads.... I regard the railroad as the most important element now in progress to facilitate the military interests of our Frontier

We must act with vindictive earnestness against the Sioux, even to their extermination, men, women and children. (The Sioux must) feel the superior power of the Government.

(Sherman vowed to remain in the West) till the Indians are all killed or taken to a country where they can be watched.

During an assault, the soldiers cannot pause to distinguish between male and female, or even discriminate as to age.[2]

 ”

In an 1867 letter to Grant, Sherman referred to his policy against the native Americans as “the final solution to the Indian problem,” the same senctence Hitler said some 70 years later.[3]

Despite his harsh treatment of the warring tribes, Sherman spoke out against speculators and government agents who treated the natives unfairly within the reservations.[4]

[edit] Birth Name

I am adding a direct reference to his birth name - the fact that "William" was added by his foster parents is buried partway down the article, and is confusing when it does come. As is the style with actors and others who change their names, I am adding it to the opening sentence. --Chancemichaels 14:39, 7 August 2007 (UTC)Chancemichaels

After having it removed, I am putting it back. Surely his birth name is significant, and it is consistent with the treatment of other entries. --Chancemichaels 14:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC)Chancemichaels

[edit] POV issue

"Some modern sympathizers of the Confederate cause have denounced Sherman's attitude as proto-totalitarian and as a harbinger of the inhumanity of the large-scale wars of the 20th century." This unfairly implies that those who criticize Sherman's attitude must be Confederate sympathizers. There seems to be no factual basis for this opinion.

This whole article seems to be pretty POV (pro-Sherman). Especially the decision to end the section on Total War with a quote by the controversial historian Dr.McPherson. This article makes it seem like Sherman is universally revered. Many in the American south, not just wacko neo-confederates or people who sympathize with the CSA, remember Sherman as a monster. Im surprised it made it through peer review and became a FA with such blatant POV. - 165.166.154.32 22:59, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
This whole god damn article is a statist shill, a masterpiece of apology, obfuscation, and deliberate ignorance of obvious truths as to the butchers true status in history. Citing Grimsely is not somethign I was surprised to see, or citing the war apologist McPherson. How about getting some source and fact in here about the mans OWN WORDS towards secessionists and the pleas from HIS OWN OFFICERS for him to cease with the endless slaughter of civilians.
This article explicitly states that the armies targeted chiefly property and not lives... oh yea? try this one on for size:
"To the petulant and persistent secessionists, why death is mercy, and the quicker he or she is disposed of the better . . . . Until we can repopulate Georgia, it is useless to occupy it, but the utter destruction of its roads, houses, and people will cripple their military resources"
or how about this little gem from this puritan descendant : "We will . . . take every life, every acre of land, every particle of property, everything that to us seems proper..."
and again: 1865 letter to General Grant: "We are not fighting against enemy armies but against an enemy people; both young and old, rich and poor must feel the iron hand of war..."
STOP the excuses for a very REAL slaughter damn it! :::--ThorsMitersaw March 31, 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.78.145.1 (talk) 16:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Native Americans

Someone in the know should add to his post-war service regarding Native American policies. was this the chap who said "the more we kill this year the less we have to kill next year"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.199.31.149 (talk) 11:03, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox Photo

Is there a reason that this featured picture isn't being used in the infobox? Besides being a FP, I feel like this gives a better feel for what he actually looked like. Any objections to my changing it? -Sarfa 16:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

That is actually a more famous photo. No objection from me. Hal Jespersen 17:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Made the change. Because the FP is from further away, though, I also slightly increased the thumb size in the infobox to compensate.-Sarfa 17:53, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Confused ranks

Sherman accepted a commission as a colonel May 14, 1861. Then he fought in First Battle of Bull Run on July 21, 1861. President Lincoln, however, promoted him to brigadier general of volunteers effective May 17, 1861. How does this work? Was he a general or a colonel in the First Battle of Bull Run? MoiAussie (talk) 19:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

He was a colonel during the battle. The dates can get confusing because they were routinely selected to affect seniority of officers. Sherman was nominated to be a brigadier general on August 2, confirmed on August 5, and appointed on August 7, but his date of rank (seniority) was set to be May 17. Hal Jespersen (talk) 21:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, a person could have up to 4 different ranks, a rank in the Volunteers, a brevet rank in Volunteers, a Regular Army rank and a Regular Army brevet rank. This, coupled with the date of rank issue caused great confusion both then and now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.105.72.67 (talk) 18:33, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

General Grant was not heading the Army of Potomac. The AoP was headed by General Meade from June 1863 through the end of the war. General Grant was in charge of all Union Armies and while he often traveled with the AoP, he never directly commanded the AoP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.105.72.67 (talk) 18:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Question re young Sherman portrait

Portrait of a young William T. Sherman in military uniform
Portrait of a young William T. Sherman in military uniform

Does anyone have any specific information about this image of "a young William T. Sherman in military uniform"? I assume it is actually an engraving based on a photo. It would be interesting to know when/where the photo was taken. This portrait apparently served as the basis for war-time engravings of Sherman, but it seems unlikely to me that this is what Sherman looked like in 1861. All of his war-time photos show a conventional beard. Thanks, Hartfelt (talk) 20:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)