"What if? Grant/Sherman" Topic

Grant often said he would have been happy to serve under Sherman instead of vice versa. I wonder how that would have worked out. Sherman's best talents were in the realm of strategy/operations; he wasn't all that great as a battlefield commander. Grant was good at both. Any opinions?

Interesting question. Somehow I don't think it would have been as effective a combination as what really happened.

Nor I. Sherman didn't have the iron nerve of Grant. I don't think he would have withstood the political pressure from Washington as well as Grant. Did he have the chops to come up with the full-court press strategy like Grant's?

I think Grant was more of a Big Picture guy, while Sherman was more detail-oriented. They complimented each other very well in their historical relationship.

Sherman did quite well for himself in '64 and '65 without being under direct command of Grant. I think this is an interesting question that is probably a lot harder to answer than it appears.

I think vtsaogames hit the important point head on, Sherman would have self destructed under political pressure – not by bowing to any of it but by exploding in a spectacular fit of rage.

Sherman would have self destructed under political pressure – not by bowing to any of it but by exploding in a spectacular fit of rage.

Why? He was probably an intense and serious individual. I don't think he had a temper though. Just because he eschewed politics does not mean he would have buckled under political pressure.

By the time Grant came east he had earned a reputation and a certain amount of respect from most of the key figures in Washington, which probably allowed him greater lattitude than, for example, Meade might have. Sherman was left in the west where he was able to confront in Johnston and Hood commanders who were inferior to Lee. This in turn allowed Sherman to gain sufficient respect from the key figures in Washington to act as he felt best.

Changing things up earlier in the war introduces a number of variables. Grant didn't earn respect by coming up with brilliant plans. He won it by winning battles and achieving objectives. If Sherman was tops the plans might have been better, but that does not mean the results would have been better, or even as good.

To me the more interesting scenario is that Grant brings Sherman east with him, and then lets Sherman play the role of Meade in the 1864 campaign.

From what I have read, I don't think Sherman would have developed the operations that Grant used to befuddle and then outflank Pemberton. Sherman was actually against Grant's march down the right bank of the Mississippi to cross below Vicksburg and then advance northeast through Mississippi. But Grant knew that he could trust Sherman to keep Pemberton occupied while his other two corps went into the "blue" so to speak.

As far as bringing Sherman east, who then was Grant going to leave in command in the west? Thomas, who he didn't like, considering him too slow? McPherson? Ord? I think Grant made the best decision by leaving Sherman in the west since he didn't trust Thomas. But unfortunately that prolonged the campaign against Johnston and Atlanta since Thomas would have trapped Johnston and the Army of Tennessee right at the beginning.

Jim

> Why? He was probably an intense and serious individual. I don't think he had a temper though. Just because he eschewed politics does not mean he would have buckled under political pressure.

Grant shielded Sherman from the political shenanigans in DC, having to handle them head on as the commander of the Union would have forced Sherman to deal with them and he would not have put up with their political crap. Which would have cost him his job and perhaps his freedom. He would not have been the first to be put in jail on trumped up charges.

Why? He was probably an intense and serious individual. I don't think he had a temper though

Do recall when he buckled under the pressure from Albert Sidney Johnston early in the war and had to be sent home with his wife. He didn't have Grant's iron nerve.

Sherman's brother. Wasn't he a Senator?
And there's a reason he made the very first "Shermanesque" declaration.

Also, when Grant first set out on his risky march on Jackson, during the Vicksburg campaign, Sherman wrote a formal letter to Grant laying out his serious reservations and opposition to the plan. When Grant's army arrived over the Chickasaw Bluffs near the end of the campaign, Sherman said he finally understood the plan and it was genius.

Sherman would take this approach and refine it later, but the initial idea (and the considerable guts to execute it) came from Grant.

Grant kept Sherman's letter out of his correspondence file to ensure it could not be used against his friend.

Sherman's execution of the plan never captured an enemy army. Johnston surrendered because he divined the war was over, not because Sherman had cornered him. On the other hand, Pemberton had no choice once Grant penned him into Vicksburg. Three Confederate armies were captured during the war. All three surrendered to Grant.