[.ca] Sherman: Soldier, Realist, American (ISBN 0306805073)

not up to Liddel Hart's usual level:
I will start by saying Liddel Hart is my favorite military historian/author and I own half a dozen books by him, and regard them as gospel. However I felt that Liddel Hart was not as well versed in this area as he is in European History. He lets his ingrained contrariness run away with him. He wants to create a "great captain" where there is none. He also, I believe, wants to convince the reader of the genius of the "inderect approach" which he expounds in his excellent book "Strategy". However I think considering Sherman's campaign as indirect is like calling D-Day indirect because the allies invaded Normandy as opposed to Calais. ( I must admit that I am biased because I am a Lee fan) Like every other book by Liddel hart though, it is a very quick and pleasant read. I would recommend his book on Scipio as a great intro to his work.

The Greatest Strategist of the Civil War:
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 \omoney\cto 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.

Indirection in strategy decides Civil War:
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.

How Sherman won the Civil War:
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.

An Excellent Work:
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.