Rating: 
Summary: "The Most Magnificent Army in Existence"
Review: "What Dercyllidas said of the court of Persia may be applied to that of several European princes, that he saw there much splendor but little strength, and many servants but few soldiers." So Adam Smith (although it was not Dercyllidas but Antiochus). In an anecdote, he thereby captures the essence of classic small-r Republicanism: a society of individuals who are fit, self-sufficient -- and armed. It is the model that gives such sentimental appeal to the campaign for the right to bear arms.Was there ever such a society? Doubtful. But if you wanted to find one, you would have done well to show up on Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington D.C. a little after 9 a.m. on the morning of the 23d of April, 1865, to review the Army of the West in review formation behind its commander, William Tecumseh Sherman. Here, from his memoirs, is Sherman's own account. "When I reached the Treasury-building, and looked back, the sight was simply magnificent: The column was compact, and the glittering muskets looked like a solid mass of steel, moving with the regularity of a pendulum. . . . It was, in my judgment, the most magnificent army in existence - sixty-five thousand men, in splendid physique, who had just completed a march of nearly two thousand miles in a hostile country, in good drill, and who realized that they were being closely scrutinized by thousands of their fellow-countrymen and by foreigners. . . . The steadiness and firmness of the tread, the careful dress on the guides, the uniform intervals between the companies, all eyes directly to the front, and the tattered and bullet-riven flags, festooned with flowers, all attracted universal notice. Many good people, up to that time, had looked upon our Western Army as a sort of mob; but the world then saw, and recognized the fact, that it was an army kin the proper sense, well organized, well commanded and disciplined, and there was no wonder that it had swept through the South like a tornado." Sherman had reason to be proud. One assumes that his name still evokes bitter memories around Atlanta where he tore up and twisted so many miles of rail track. But Sherman was, ironically, the kind of general who is good for victor and vanquished alike. He had the temperament of a fighter, but he knew that the goal of fighting was not to shed blood, but only to win. His campaigns inflicted legendary damage but most of it was swift and highly focused. There was some pillage, but even the pillage seems to have been planned and organized and permitted only to the extent necessary for the campaign. In all the accounts that I have seen, there is little or no talk of rape. It is a commonplace that good soldiers make bad writers, but the evidence is not so clear. There is a reason why Caesar and Xenophon persist as staples of the classical curriculum. Ulysses Grant, who was said to write military orders so clear that they could not be misunderstood, himself produced a military memoir of great vigor and force. But it is hard to think of anything that will compare with Sherman's own account - particularly his narrative of the long march from Lookout Mountain across George and then up through the Carolinas to the Capital and the end of the war. If there ever was a time to be optimistic about the future of a free citizenry, surely the day of that great parade was the day.
Rating:
Summary: "The Most Magnificent Army in Existence"
Review: "What Dercyllidas said of the court of Persia may be applied to that of several European princes, that he saw there much splendor but little strength, and many servants but few soldiers." So Adam Smith (although it was not Dercyllidas but Antiochus). In an anecdote, he thereby captures the essence of classic small-r Republicanism: a society of individuals who are fit, self-sufficient -- and armed. It is the model that gives such sentimental appeal to the campaign for the right to bear arms. Was there ever such a society? Doubtful. But if you wanted to find one, you would have done well to show up on Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington D.C. a little after 9 a.m. on the morning of the 23d of April, 1865, to review the Army of the West in review formation behind its commander, William Tecumseh Sherman. Here, from his memoirs, is Sherman's own account. "When I reached the Treasury-building, and looked back, the sight was simply magnificent: The column was compact, and the glittering muskets looked like a solid mass of steel, moving with the regularity of a pendulum. . . . It was, in my judgment, the most magnificent army in existence - sixty-five thousand men, in splendid physique, who had just completed a march of nearly two thousand miles in a hostile country, in good drill, and who realized that they were being closely scrutinized by thousands of their fellow-countrymen and by foreigners. . . . The steadiness and firmness of the tread, the careful dress on the guides, the uniform intervals between the companies, all eyes directly to the front, and the tattered and bullet-riven flags, festooned with flowers, all attracted universal notice. Many good people, up to that time, had looked upon our Western Army as a sort of mob; but the world then saw, and recognized the fact, that it was an army kin the proper sense, well organized, well commanded and disciplined, and there was no wonder that it had swept through the South like a tornado." Sherman had reason to be proud. One assumes that his name still evokes bitter memories around Atlanta where he tore up and twisted so many miles of rail track. But Sherman was, ironically, the kind of general who is good for victor and vanquished alike. He had the temperament of a fighter, but he knew that the goal of fighting was not to shed blood, but only to win. His campaigns inflicted legendary damage but most of it was swift and highly focused. There was some pillage, but even the pillage seems to have been planned and organized and permitted only to the extent necessary for the campaign. In all the accounts that I have seen, there is little or no talk of rape. It is a commonplace that good soldiers make bad writers, but the evidence is not so clear. There is a reason why Caesar and Xenophon persist as staples of the classical curriculum. Ulysses Grant, who was said to write military orders so clear that they could not be misunderstood, himself produced a military memoir of great vigor and force. But it is hard to think of anything that will compare with Sherman's own account - particularly his narrative of the long march from Lookout Mountain across George and then up through the Carolinas to the Capital and the end of the war. If there ever was a time to be optimistic about the future of a free citizenry, surely the day of that great parade was the day.
Rating: 
Summary: Sherman's gives a clinical summary of his life
Review: After reading Shelby Foote's huge narrative of the civil war, I was fascinated about Sherman. This book did not live up to my expectations, partly because I wanted more feelings, and reasoning behind the actions. I wanted to get into his head. What you get instead is a real detailed account, obviously taken from journal entries and official correspondence. The only candid or in-depth portions of the book are when Sherman gives derrogatory accounts of the performance of some of the officers. Given that criticism, it is still fascinating, yet dry and long reading. His time in California during the Mexican War is fascinating. The real tragedy of the book is that it stops at the end of the civil war. I understand he did some interesting things after the war, but I guess you have to find another source for that.
Rating:
Summary: One of the most interesting characters of the Civil War
Review: After the Civil War, there were many public misunderstandings and misrepresentations about General William T. Sherman. Secretary of War Stanton had caused to be published certain opinions of his that Sherman had messed things up, and many supporters of General Grant gave him all the credit for Sherman's famous march to the sea and Atlanta campaign (which was entirely Sherman's idea). Partly to dispel popular misconceptions about him, and partly to provide future historians with a great primary resource (which intention he states in the opening pages of this work), General Sherman decided to undertake the writing of his memoirs, and this is the result.
The historical value of these memoirs is enormous. Sherman contributed a great deal to the war, and was partially responsible for the war ending when it did. He conducted one of the most brilliant military campaigns in modern history (actually, they were three campaigns--Atlanta, Savannah, and the Carolinas) and accomplished what many considered to be the impossible. His policy of total war, applied in the South, was utilized by Sheridan in the Shenandoah, and was later slightly modified to be used against the Indians. Thanks to his memoirs, we have a step-by-step account of how this policy developed.
Sherman's work is engaging and very to the point. He is meticulous almost to a fault in his quest for accuracy and detail. His writing is very, very good, and easy to read. Also, Sherman truly (I believe) endeavored to be completely objective in his evaluations, and accomplished this end better even than most modern historians. He is quick to give praise and slow to censure, but is not afraid to record the failures of his subordinates when necessary. He sometimes points out things they could have done better, but is never overly critical of them. He even admits that he made mistakes sometimes. In fact, I believe this is one of the most objective and fair autobiographies I have ever read. Sherman had much reason to dislike many people, but never, in reading this work, did I find a single instance of him trying to debunk the character of any man. Even Stanton, the man who falsely represented Sherman's actions, receives fair treatment at the general's hands.
William T. Sherman is a very colorful figure in Civil War history. He may well be one of the most complex and intriguing individuals of the war. To some, he is a barbarian; to others, a deliverer. He is immensely quotable, and was very opinionated and outspoken. If you're contemplating studying the Civil War, do not be put off by this book's length. Far from being a dry account of a man's recollections, this is a very engaging and very worthwhile autobiography, and any student of the war will profit by reading it.
Rating:
Summary: One of the most interesting characters of the Civil War
Review: After the Civil War, there were many public misunderstandings and misrepresentations about General William T. Sherman. Secretary of War Stanton had caused to be published certain opinions of his that Sherman had messed things up, and many supporters of General Grant gave him all the credit for Sherman's famous march to the sea and Atlanta campaign (which was entirely Sherman's idea). Partly to dispel popular misconceptions about him, and partly to provide future historians with a great primary resource (which intention he states in the opening pages of this work), General Sherman decided to undertake the writing of his memoirs, and this is the result.
The historical value of these memoirs is enormous. Sherman contributed a great deal to the war, and was partially responsible for the war ending when it did. He conducted one of the most brilliant military campaigns in modern history (actually, they were three campaigns--Atlanta, Savannah, and the Carolinas) and accomplished what many considered to be the impossible. His policy of total war, applied in the South, was utilized by Sheridan in the Shenandoah, and was later slightly modified to be used against the Indians. Thanks to his memoirs, we have a step-by-step account of how this policy developed.
Sherman's work is engaging and very to the point. He is meticulous almost to a fault in his quest for accuracy and detail. His writing is very, very good, and easy to read. Also, Sherman truly (I believe) endeavored to be completely objective in his evaluations, and accomplished this end better even than most modern historians. He is quick to give praise and slow to censure, but is not afraid to record the failures of his subordinates when necessary. He sometimes points out things they could have done better, but is never overly critical of them. He even admits that he made mistakes sometimes. In fact, I believe this is one of the most objective and fair autobiographies I have ever read. Sherman had much reason to dislike many people, but never, in reading this work, did I find a single instance of him trying to debunk the character of any man. Even Stanton, the man who falsely represented Sherman's actions, receives fair treatment at the general's hands.
William T. Sherman is a very colorful figure in Civil War history. He may well be one of the most complex and intriguing individuals of the war. To some, he is a barbarian; to others, a deliverer. He is immensely quotable, and was very opinionated and outspoken. If you're contemplating studying the Civil War, do not be put off by this book's length. Far from being a dry account of a man's recollections, this is a very engaging and very worthwhile autobiography, and any student of the war will profit by reading it.
Rating:
Summary: A General's Memoirs
Review: I am reviewing the Library of America edition of Sherman's Memoirs In 1875 General William Sherman published the first edition of his Memoirs. They were controversial. Eleven years later Sherman published his second edition, with two new chapters, and appendixes. To be sure the memoirs remained controversial. Even today there seems to be no middle ground. He is either a great general, or an overrated one. He is either "hailed as a prophet of modern war or condemned as a modern barbarism." There have been full scale biographies and books about his campaigns, but none are as rewarding as these memoirs. The chapters which interested me the most were the ones where Sherman is most emotionally involved. In Chapter 7 Sherman writes of his time at the Louisiana State Seminary of Learning and Military Academy. Sherman gives a "Clay Whig" description of that state's secession, and how hard he took it. Another chapter which I found thrilling is Chapter 19. On page 601 Sherman quotes a letter he wrote to Atlanta's Mayor James Calhoun and others: "You cannot qualify war in harsher terms than I will. War is cruelty, and you cannot refine it; and all those who brought war into our country deserve all the curses and maledictions a people can pour out." I recommend the Library of America edition of Sherman's Memoirs because it reprints the second edition. Make sure you buy a reprint of the second edition because the it includes information that was not included in the first edition.
Rating:
Summary: Amazing Story
Review: I have read numerous Civil War books, including the prominent Historical volumns by the leading scholars. These volumns led me to begin reading the memoirs and books of the significant people involved in the war - Grant, Longstreet, etc. I must admit, Sherman's memoirs have been the most facinating yet. He is a very powerful writer with flow and grace to his book. I have lived in California for over 50 years, a native, and his descriptions of early Calif. life were beautiful - too bad it is not still like that. I could not put this book down and finished it in about a week. After reading his memoirs, I do not agree that he was a failure in anything that he did. On the contrary, I think he led a full and fasciating life that would be difficult to duplicate in the present times, even with our transportation abilities. Sherman was a brilliant military leader and you feel as though you are with him throughout his many marches and campaigns. He includes many letters and orders in the book that I believe substantiate his writing and give proof that he was one of a kind.
Rating:
Summary: Sherman - A God of War
Review: Not only did I enjoy hearing about General Sherman's life, I enjoyed hearing it from the voice of such a great patriot. You cannot be more enthralled by any book but this.
Rating:
Summary: a great adventure
Review: Of all the books I know about american history this must be among the most entertaining. It is an adventure story of the kind in wich a young man climbs up in the world, meets famous people en is wittness to historical events. Through Shermans eyes we see a broad canvas of the nation as it becomes a political and economical world power, and we meet lots of the heroes and villains who make it happen.Sherman knows how to tell a good story.It is impossible to know how it really was between 1840 and 1865, but it's my guess that Sherman paints a pretty accurate and lively picture.
Rating:
Summary: Sherman being himself
Review: Probably the very best of the Civil War memoirs. Clear detail with ocassional sparks of pure joy that only Sherman would write.
|
