Sherman Tells Us How to Make a Great Army

[@pshehan1]

Sherman's observations on civilians and volunteers is interesting in the context of the WWI Australian Imperial Force and its eventual commander General Sir John Monash. Australia had a very small army in 1914, having federated into a single nation in 1901. It was something of a frontier society with a strong streak of individualism, like the US in the 19th century. Monash was an engineer by profession. After the war he constructed the electricity supply infrastructure for the state of Victoria. I worked at Monash University. He is on the $100 note. The five Australian infantry divisions were combined into the Australian corps in early 1918,withMonash as their commander. The AIF was an all volunteer force. They provided the shock troops for British offensives, most notably, along with the Canadian Corps, at the Battle of Amiens on August 8 1918, which Ludendorff called the Black day of the German Army in the war. Many, including the later Field Marshal Montgomery considered Monash the best General among the British armies. Some suggest that had he not been an amateur, a colonial, and a Jew, he would have replaced Haig.

[@andywindes4968]

As much as I liked Grant’s memoirs, Sherman’s were on a whole other level. His writing holds up very well.

[@noapologizes2018]

The structure, William Tecumseh Sherman spoke of, is in practice today. Their should be no flaw in this system of organization. However, as we see today, if a corrupt governing administration is in control, the descending chain of command can and will be compromised, all the way down to the company commanding level. This is evident in today's military, as a whole.

[@daltonadams4672]

What corruption do you identify in the present administration?

[@kevinverduci7600]

​@daltonadams4672 the fact they are didscussing global warming instead of battle tactics, the fact they talk about white rage, lower standards , diversity picks over merit. I can go on and on

[@noapologizes2018]

@@daltonadams4672 If you don't see what's going on, no-one can help you.

[@noapologizes2018]

@@daltonadams4672 If you can't see what's going on in our governing body, then no-one can help you.

[@owensomers8572]

@@noapologizes2018 If everyone thinks you're Cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs, maybe it's you?

[@oldgeezerproductions]

Having available just what you need, a person with specialized education and training, is most desirable, but many times, to fill the need in critical operations and processes, intelligent people who have the capacity to learn "on the job" are necessary and sometimes even make outstanding contributions. I have certainly seen it at work where a cross-trained engineer will use his/her outside experiences, inventiveness and drive to exceed other engineers in his/her department who were formally trained in a specific field. If I may say so, I consider myself one. One weakness with the "Top Down" approach, integral with the military, is that the wrong, the very most wrong person achieves rank simply by being "in grade" longer than anybody else, then, through flaws in character, narcissism, malice and stupidity proceeds to make it miserable for those under them. I certainly noticed the more pernicious aspect of this system when I was in the Navy and this was the major reason I wanted out as soon as my time was up. It would be great if, at every level, the NCOs, the junior officers - to senior officers would or could personally appoint those under them based purely on merit and suitability, but the system of military promotion does not allow that. Then too, people that are in authority and that have the moral rectitude to avoid favoritism are rare and favoritism is the worst.

[@derjaeger3321]

I have never been in the military but have ran several small governments as a City Manager. In my opinion, personnel selection is the utmost priority - if you have poor people you will have poor results. Good people in a lousy organization may over come it and succeed; but lousy people in a lousy organization guarantees poor performance. You must lead, treat your people well and insist on good, reliable performance. Expect mistakes they are learning experiences, but do not accept stupidity, lack of caring, or sloth. Also, as I understand it, war plans evaporate once the shooting starts, so smart, adaptable, dedicated, flexible leaders are needed. And as the Captain of the “Alabama” in the movie Crimson Tide said “we are here to protect democracy… not to practice it.” We thank all of our service people - past and present - for their service.

[@jerroldbates355]

You said he and she referring to commanders, from Sherman's memoir. No way Sherman would have referred to a woman in Army command. 😮

[@lifeonthecivilwarresearchtrail]

That's my addition, as part of a reference to today's army.

[@stephenkennedy8305]

Actually listen again, he says "and now a day, she"

[@lifeonthecivilwarresearchtrail]

Thanks. Definitely me error. I had intended to reference modern times.

[@kevenpinder7025]

I came across a quote from Sherman that seemed especially penetrating. Ive never been able to find it again, so i can only try to paraphrase it. It concerned the fundamental wrongheadedness of secession. "The great flaw of secession is the misguided notion that, as citizens, living on a specific bit of land or making use of a particular body of water, confers upon them some kind of superior claim, above that of any other fellow national citizen."

[@amadeusamwater]

Getting officers straight from civilian life can cut both ways. Compare Daniel Sickles and Joshua Chamberlain.

[@aaronfleming9426]

Good point.

[@darbyheavey406]

The WWII experience might be a better example. Many of our best officers were civilians- Dick Winters had a degree in economics and was an outstanding officer. The officer corps today is corrupted by careerism. The experience in the Afghan Campaign was a failure of our officer corps. Col. David Hackworth preferred draftees for their lack of careerism and few officers had as much experience as he.

[@Blogdorf]

Careerism is one of the huge problems we have. “Ticket punching” is what Hackworth called it. My dad was a WWII veteran who was recalled to the service in 1947 and told me “it’s not the same military”.

[@amadeusamwater]

@@darbyheavey406 A lot depends on how much training those civilians had. During WWII, most of them either had some prior training at the state level or at least went thru a training course after joining. During the Civil War, you got your commission and you were off to the war.

[@DaylonU]

He should ask Lee, he could tell him.

[@douglasturner6153]

"Commander's, he or She".... I doubt very much Sherman said that. He didn't even want black soldier's in his army 😂

[@lifeonthecivilwarresearchtrail]

That's my addition, as part of a reference to today's army.

[@WilliamStahl-qp4vm]

Do you know why Sherman did not want ANY blacks in his "marching Army" during his "March to the Sea?" He had already stripped his Army down to a basic unit of march - 60,000 "PROFESSIONAL" soldiers....hardened by warfare. He originally had an army of 125,000 men....but only wanted the "creme of the crop." Blacks were not "the cream of the crop" during this time frame. As Sherman marched East....he found himself being confronted by thousands of freed slaves....and he had neither the time or resources to feed or tend to their needs. His objective and mission was to reach the Georgia coast....Savannah being the primary focus point. Sherman did use some of them as engineers....digging trenches and cutting trees that impeded his march to the sea. General Sherman was certainly one of America's greatest generals. Grant and Sherman made a magnificent combination that defined modern day warfare.

[@jamcam2760]

He also knows a lot about how to commit War Crimes. He admitted post-war that much of what was done in his March to the Sea(raping and pillaging his way across Georgia), did in fact constitute War Crimes as was defined by the U.S. Military Academy at Westpoint.

[@thescarletandgrey2505]

Like the southern leaders were all peaches and mint juleps.

[@jamcam2760]

@@thescarletandgrey2505 No one said that,but there were no comparable acts of barbarity by the Southern Armies to what Sherman did in Georgia, a 60 mile wide swath of total destruction of CIVILIAN property. When Lee went into PA he issued strict orders to his Corps Commanders that no pillaging or theft would be tolerated. A few violations happened and were met with arrest by the Provost Guard.

[@gerarddelmonte8776]

I doubt very much that Sherman sanctioned rape. What I do not doubt is that he was right about what needed to be done to break the Confederacy, and if that meant a scorched earth policy 60 miles wide through Georgia, so be it. As he famously noted, war is cruelty, and you cannot refine it.

[@jesterboykins2899]

The only two things that made that army “successful”. Was the industrial might of the north, and the unending supply of men. Easy

[@jesterboykins2899]

Correction, 3 things. Also the bad politics of the south regarding enlistment and volunteers and organization of its resources

[@aaronfleming9426]

All the guns and all the men don't mean a thing without leadership.

[@jesterboykins2899]

@@aaronfleming9426 🤦🏼‍♂️

[@Sodbusterrod]

So before that industrial might could come to bear, the Confederacy sent Sidney Johnston to capture St. Louis and threatened Chicago while Joseph Johnston was taking Washington D.C. and Baltimore after Bull Run?

[@stephenkennedy8305]

Also avoiding the myth that the south had the best generals. At Gettysburg the south should have left, they were in a terrible. Pickett's charge was a stupid, yes stupid decision, to charge over a one mile field under cannon fire. Jackson only victories were in the Valley campaign. Otherwise he was responsible for two tragic setbacks near Richmond, because he did not go where Lee directed him. Hard to name one decent general on the western front. Plus read history McCellen should have won in the first year but Pinkerton agent kept over estimating southern force to twice what they were.

[@bradleydurbin6784]

General Trump LOL

[@winstonsmith8482]

Sherman wouldn't know what makes a great army, his army only fought&defeated women and children and civillians. When Sherman tried to fight actual armies, he got whipped, like at Chickasaw Bayou, and Kennesaw Mountain.

[@owensomers8572]

So you are saying the Federal strategy was ineffective, and the stalwart Confederates won the war.

[@aaronfleming9426]

Have to agree here. Sherman's record when faced with real opposition is pretty poor.

[@aaronfleming9426]

@@owensomers8572 Not at all. The Federal strategy won, the OP is merely pointing out (correctly, in my opinion) that Sherman didn't have much to do with the Federal victory...at least as far as actually defeating enemy armies. Sun Tzu famously said, "In the practical art of war, the best thing of all is to take the enemy's country whole and intact; to shatter and destroy it is not so good." By that measure, even Sherman's March to the Sea doesn't look so great. I think it's high time we started reevaluating Sherman and asking how much his March helped, or whether it merely coincided with various other Union victories around the country.

[@owensomers8572]

@@aaronfleming9426 When things "coincide with various other victories", it is a reflection of a successful strategy. Hurt feelings because Mee-maw claimed she knew someone who heard that someone else's cousin's Uncle had their feelings hurt by someone in Sherman's outfit is hardly a metric to evaluate his abilities to accomplish his mission.

[@aaronfleming9426]

@@owensomers8572 Would you argue similarly that Nathan Banks' Red River campaign contributed to a successful strategy just because there were coincidental successes in other theaters? Of course not. Success was occurring elsewhere *in spite of Banks*. (I mean, you could argue that Banks was pinning down rebel resources or something, but the fact remains, Banks was an awful general.) I'm challenging the notion that "total war" was necessary to successfully prosecute the war. Of course denying key infrastructure to the rebels was strategically necessary, but the rebellion ended when southern armies surrendered, not when some mystical level of war weariness was achieved. Sherman had a long pattern of combat ineffectiveness and an inability to achieve decisive results, despite multiple opportunities, perhaps most notably at Snake Creek Gap and Jonesboro. (At Snake Creek he realized that a "once in a career opportunity" had been missed, although in typical Sherman style he blamed the gaffe on someone else.) Sherman's failure at Jonesboro was related directly to his obsession with tearing up railroads instead of striking directly at vulnerable armies. I argue that we ought to be considering his March to the Sea in the same light: while he could have been strikingly swiftly toward Virginia and the destruction of Lee's army, he took a languid but destructive stroll through Georgia. Mee-maw's overblown complaints about murder and rape and war crimes are generally unfounded. But U.S. war strategy was to reintegrate Georgia into the Union, and leaving the state shattered does not seem to me like best practices.