Replies

You also overestimate Sherman's prowess as a military man. He was not the grand soldier so often depicted. It took him a very long time (considering the odds were so heavily stacked in his favor) to pound south to Atlanta, taking heavy casualties at several very bloody engagements such as Picket's Mill, Reseca, Kenesaw Mountain, etc. Of course, like Grant to the north, he suceeded by simply moving his much larger force around the flanks of the Confederate army. In his previous actions in which he commanded smaller forces, he had a very poor record-my favorite of which was at Tunnel Hill during the Battle of Missionary Ridge. Patrick Cleburne trounced his massively superior forces, and Sherman, no doubt incised that the day had been carried by other Union troops so excellently, prepared a whopper of a report in which he presented several boldfaced lies to explain his defeat at the hands of one division and an Irishman. His record at Shiloh (had it not been for Breckinridges reenforcements-which Grant and Sherman incredibly spurned after the battle!-the Union army would have collapsed) and Chickasaw Bluff, where he threw his command agaisnt one of the best defensive positions in the South-and failed miserably- are telling. He simply was not the military genius he is made out as. His burning of Georgia certainly didn't endear him either:)

And I think you underestimate Sherman. He wasn't the best general of the war to be sure but at least as far as the Atlanta campaign went he was better than anyone the confederates sent against him. His advance through northwest Georgia was methodical but at the same time it was relentless. He was advancing through a defenders dream. Hilly country with narrow valleys and numerous rivers against an army that was falling back on their line of supply, not extending it. Sherman fought when he had to and maneuvered Johnston out of his positions when he could. And there wasn't a damned thing Johnston could do about it. He never had the upper hand, never cam close to gaining the upper hand. He was dead meat from the day Sherman started south.

As for Forrest, I'll repeat that he was never a threat because Sherman wouldn't leave him alone long enough to be a threat. Sherman kept after Forrest throughout the campaign and if Forrest kept beating the Union cavalry sent against him it kept coming back. Forrest couldn't go after the Union supplies because he had to constantly worry about the next Union force that would come and a Bedford Forrest looking out for his own ass was a Bedford Forrest who didn't have time to worry Sherman. And when he did break free what did he do? Went to Memphis, of all places, hundreds of miles away from Sherman's supply lines. What good was he doing there?

John Bell Hood. Now there is a story. An absolutely brilliant division commander and an absolute disaster as an army commander. Hood's campaign was doomed from the start because even he didn't have the slightest idea of what he wanted to accomplish other than a vain hope of forcing Sherman to turn north to meet him. So he blundered around Tennessee until he ran into Schofield at Nashville. It didn't take a genius to beat Hood, I could have done it. Hood went out of his way to destroy his army and to beat himself.

BTW, I can recommend two books on the subject we have been discussing. "Decision in the West: The Atlanta Campaign of 1864" by Albert Castel is great and gives a balanced view of the leadership - North and South. "Shrouds of Glory From Atlanta to Nashville: The Last Great Campaign of the Civil War" by Winston Groom. Yeah, the guy who wrote "Forrest Gump" but it's a very readable, if short, book that gives a pretty good overview of Hood's highly divided army.