After reading the article "Why The North Won and The South Lost", I kind of disagree with the way that the Union generals were ranked in order of contribution to the war effort. I think that William T. Sherman should have been ranked number 5 and Phillip Sheridan ranked number 4. The article even said that during the first three years of the war, Sherman's contribution to the Union was very minor and negative and he didn't even achieve success until the Atlanta Campaign in 1864, where he only directed because he was tight with Grant. Also, he had never won an offensive battle during his career.
Unlike Sherman, Phillip Sheridan's contributions to the Union victory in Virginia's Shenandoah Valley when he demolished Lieutenant General Jubal Early's army and at Five Forks, Virginia where he seized a vital road junction that compelled Lee to evacuate Richmond and begin what ended with his surrender at Appomattox.
So, what do you think? Is Sheridan better than Sherman? Is Sherman all hype?
-Brittany
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I tend to disagree with you. I think Sherman should be ranked higher than Sheridan because even though the article made Sherman's contrabutions insignificant, it's important to known that it was Sherman taking Atlanta that allowed for Lincoln to get re-elected and the Union to eventually win the War. All Sherman did cause massive infrastructural problems in the South with his march to the Sea.
MIKE
Bashar: I disagree with Brit’s take on Philip Sheridan and William T. Sherman. I wouldn’t be so quick to dismiss Sherman’s contribution to the war effort. Remember that Sherman was the only Union general who clearly defined “hard war”. He said “I’ll make Georgia howl…” and, “we’ll make war to terrible, so hard, that…”. The south could have won the war had he not made it “hell”. They could have dug trenches and fought the Yankees forever. But Sherman broke their spirit and their will to fight and I believe he encouraged other Union generals to do so as well. Sherman didn’t achieve success until 1864 in Atlanta because it was his first chance (and in his first chance, he had success) and he was tight with Grant because Grant knew what type of General he was. Grant knew Sherman could be counted upon to get the job done and he did. I don’t think Sherman is all hype and I don’t think he’s over-rated. If he had been in the war from the beginning, he would have accomplished a lot. If you were to rank the Union Generals by who accomplished the most in the time, opportunity, and resources they had, Sherman would undoubtedly be ranked number one.
Bashar Dimitry
I also think Sherman should be rated higher, and perhaps one of the highest, just because he did win it. No matter what is said about Grant, it was Sherman's March that definitely decided the outcome. That alone, whether people agree with the tactics or not, makes him a great general.
Post a Comment