DOCSLIB.ORG

William Tecumseh Sherman 1820–1891

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
William Tecumseh Sherman 1820–1891 Activities: Guided Reading/Secondary William Tecumseh Sherman 1820–1891 William Tecumseh (W.T.) Sherman was regarded as one of the most competent and effective military leaders of the Union army during the Civil War. He was born in Lancaster, Ohio, on February 8, 1820. After his father died at an early age, Sherman’s mother split the family. Sherman was sent to live with Thomas Ewing, a lifelong family friend. Sherman later married Ewing’s daughter Ellen. Sherman attended the United States Military Academy at West Point, graduated in 1840 and was on active duty during the Mexican War. He reported to duty in San Francisco, California. Sherman, however, grew weary of battle and combat, and he resigned his position, but remained in the area. In time, Sherman entered the banking industry, and he became business partners with several individuals in different ventures. He then left San Francisco to become superintendent of the Louisiana State Seminary and Military Academy, located in Alexandria. Sherman eventually left this job and relocated his family to St. Louis, Missouri. Here he was president of the Fifth Street Railroad. When the nation moved toward the Civil War in 1861, Sherman contacted the Secretary of War. He offered three years of military service to the nation, while the norm was only three months. Sherman became a colonel in the Thirteenth Regular Infantry, working closely with the First Division of General Irvin McDowell’s army and General Daniel Tyler. He saw action in the Civil War during the First Battle of Bull Run where, due to their use of cannon fire, the Confederate forces defeated him. Still, Sherman was promoted to brigadier-general a few months later. CICERO © 2010 1 Activities: Guided Reading/Secondary His commanding officer was General Robert Anderson under whom Sherman had previously served. Anderson admired Sherman’s strong, no-nonsense work ethic, and the men shared a mutual respect. When Anderson stepped down, Sherman was promoted. Sherman eventually took control of a post in Paducah, Kentucky. He also took over the Fifth Division of the Army of Tennessee in 1862. Here he observed the inexperience of the troops under his command. At the Battle of Shiloh, for example, troops eventually regrouped and pushed out Confederate forces but only after reinforcements arrived. Sherman supported General Ulysses S. Grant in the conquest of Vicksburg in 1863. Sherman also was given control of the entire Tennessee Army. More unsuccessful military campaigns, however, followed. Sherman’s troops once again fell to cannon fire in the Battles of Missionary Ridge and Chattanooga. Grant once again aided Sherman with advice before beginning the battle in Atlanta. Grant said to “create havoc and destruction of all resources that would be beneficial to the enemy.” Sherman had a powerful force of close to 100,000 troops to confront the Confederate forces of General Joe Johnston. The Confederates were able to hold their ground at Resaca, but they could not stop the massive Union army. They were forced to retreat from Sherman’s onslaught. Confederate President Jefferson Davis grew tired of Johnston’s feeble attempts of keeping the army in one place. He relieved Johnston of his job. John B. Hood took over, but he proved to be equally unsuccessful. His troops fell to Sherman. The Union took control of Atlanta in 1864. Both Hood and Sherman worked together to make sure the city’s citizens were out of harm’s way. When this was complete, the Union army carefully guarded the city. Hood aggressively tried to make his way back into Atlanta, but his numerous attempts failed. Sherman’s main goal was to divide the Confederate army in two. This was the objective of his March to the Sea when his massive army moved from Atlanta toward Savannah. Before leaving Atlanta, he intended to ravage anything that could provide military support to the Confederacy. The fires, however, raged out of control, and most of the city burned to the ground. On his march to Savannah, Sherman destroyed everything in his path, including crops, livestock, bridges and railroads. It was now impossible for the South to regain footing in this area. After General Robert E. Lee surrendered on April 9, 1865, Johnston (who faced Sherman again) surrendered eight days later in Raleigh, North Carolina. Sherman was given control of the Union army when Grant was elected United States President. Sherman enjoyed an exceptional stint in command before he retired in 1883. CICERO © 2010 2 Activities: Guided Reading/Secondary Name: ________________________________ Date: ____________________ William Tecumseh Sherman 1820–1891 Discussion Questions: 1. Describe the early life of William T. Sherman. What caused his mother to split up the family when Sherman was young? Who was the predominant father- figure in his life? 2. In what military institute did Sherman enroll? Following his graduation, where was he stationed, and did his early military life last a long time? 3. Why was Sherman’s request to the secretary of war in 1861 unique? 4. Describe Sherman’s first battles in the Union army. Did he achieve notable success? What were the results of these battles? CICERO © 2010 3 Activities: Guided Reading/Secondary 5. Cite Sherman’s successes and failures leading the Army of Tennessee. 6. What was the advice Sherman received from General Ulysses S. Grant? How did Sherman act on Grant’s advice? 7. What unintended damage was done to Atlanta? CICERO © 2010 4 .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Our Position Was Finely Adapted to Its Use...”
    "...Our Position Was Finely Adapted To Its Use...” The Guns of Cemetery Hill Bert H. Barnett During the late afternoon of July 1, 1863, retiring Federals of the battered 1st and 11th corps withdrew south through Gettysburg toward Cemetery Hill and began to steady themselves upon it. Following the difficult experiences of the first day of battle, many officers and men were looking to that solid piece of ground, seeking all available advantages. A number of factors made this location attractive. Chief among them was a broad, fairly flat crest that rose approximately eighty feet above the center of Gettysburg, which lay roughly three-quarters of a mile to the north. Cemetery Hill commanded the approaches to the town from the south, and the town in turn served as a defensive bulwark against organized attack from that quarter. To the west and southwest of the hill, gradually descending open slopes were capable of being swept by artillery fire. The easterly side of the hill was slightly lower in height than the primary crest. Extending north of the Baltimore pike, it possessed a steeper slope that overlooked low ground, cleared fields, and a small stream. Field guns placed on this position would also permit an effective defense. It was clear that this new position possessed outstanding features. General Oliver Otis Howard, commanding the Union 11th Corps, pronounced it “the only tenable position” for the army.1 As the shadows began to lengthen on July 1, it became apparent that Federal occupation of the hill was not going to be challenged in any significant manner this day.
    [Show full text]
  • Civil War Generals Buried in Spring Grove Cemetery by James Barnett
    Spring Grove Cemetery, once characterized as blending "the elegance of a park with the pensive beauty of a burial-place," is the final resting- place of forty Cincinnatians who were generals during the Civil War. Forty For the Union: Civil War Generals Buried in Spring Grove Cemetery by James Barnett f the forty Civil War generals who are buried in Spring Grove Cemetery, twenty-three had advanced from no military experience whatsoever to attain the highest rank in the Union Army. This remarkable feat underscores the nature of the Northern army that suppressed the rebellion of the Confed- erate states during the years 1861 to 1865. Initially, it was a force of "inspired volunteers" rather than a standing army in the European tradition. Only seven of these forty leaders were graduates of West Point: Jacob Ammen, Joshua H. Bates, Sidney Burbank, Kenner Garrard, Joseph Hooker, Alexander McCook, and Godfrey Weitzel. Four of these seven —Burbank, Garrard, Mc- Cook, and Weitzel —were in the regular army at the outbreak of the war; the other three volunteered when the war started. Only four of the forty generals had ever been in combat before: William H. Lytle, August Moor, and Joseph Hooker served in the Mexican War, and William H. Baldwin fought under Giuseppe Garibaldi in the Italian civil war. This lack of professional soldiers did not come about by chance. When the Constitutional Convention met in Philadelphia in 1787, its delegates, who possessed a vast knowledge of European history, were determined not to create a legal basis for a standing army. The founding fathers believed that the stand- ing armies belonging to royalty were responsible for the endless bloody wars that plagued Europe.
    [Show full text]
  • “Never Was I So Depressed”
    The Army of Northern Virginia in the Gettysburg Campaign “Never Was I So Depressed” James Longstreet and Pickett’s Charge Karlton D. Smith On July 24, 1863, Lt. Gen. James Longstreet wrote a private letter to his uncle, Augusts Baldwin Longstreet. In discussing his role in the Gettysburg Campaign, the general stated: General Lee chose the plan adopted, and he is the person appointed to chose and to order. I consider it a part of my duty to express my views to the commanding general. If he approves and adopts them it is well; if he does not, it is my duty to adopt his views, and to execute his orders as faithfully as if they were my own. While clearly not approving Lee’s plan of attack on July 3, Longstreet did everything he could, both before and during the attack, to ensure its success.1 Born in 1821, James Longstreet was an 1842 graduate of West Point. An “Old Army” regular, Longstreet saw extensive front line combat service in the Mexican War in both the northern and southern theaters of operations. Longstreet led detachments that helped to capture two of the Mexican forts guarding Monterey and was involved in the street fighting in the city. At Churubusco, Longstreet planted the regimental colors on the walls of the fort and saw action at Casa Marta, near Molino del Ray. On August 13, 1847, Longstreet was wounded during the assault on Chapaltepec while “in the act of discharging the piece of a wounded man." The same report noted that during the action, "He was always in front with the colors.
    [Show full text]
  • Civil War Chronicles, a Civil War Commemorative Quilt
    Civil War Chronicles, a Civil War commemorative quilt Read more about history of women and the Civil War: http://library.mtsu.edu/tps/Women_and_the_Civil_War.pdf Women of the Quilt: 1. Mary Custis Lee was the wife of Robert E. Lee, the prominent career military officer who subsequently commanded the Confederate Army of Northern Virginia during the American Civil War. 2. Lizinka Campbell Ewell was the daughter of a Tennessee State senator who was also Minister to Russia under President James Monroe. In her second marriage, she married Confederate General Richard Ewell. 3. Arabella Griffith Barlow, Civil War Nurse and wife of General Francis Barlow, who spent much of the War treating wounded soldiers as part of the United States Sanitary Commission. 4. Jessie Benton Fremont, an American writer and political activist, wife of John C. Fremont, explorer of the American West and commander of the Western Region in the Civil War. 5. Mary Ann Montgomery Forrest, wife of Confederate General Nathan Bedford Forrest, who followed her husband across many battlefields, described as “.. moving fro place to place as the scenes of the war shifted, like a true soldier.” 6. Julia Dent Grant was the wife of the 18th President of the United States, Ulysses S. Grant, and was First Lady of the United States from 1869 to 1877. 7. Maria Garland Longstreet, wife of Confederate general James Longstreet, was the daughter of General John Garland. 8. Susan Elston Wallace was an American author and poet from Crawfordsville, Indiana. In addition to writing travel articles for several American magazines and newspapers, she published six books, five of which contain collected essays from her travels in the New Mexico Territory, Europe, and the Middle East in the 1880s.
    [Show full text]
  • The Lincoln- Mcclellan Relationship in Myth and Memory
    The Lincoln- McClellan Relationship in Myth and Memory MARK GRIMSLEY Like many Civil War historians, I have for many years accepted invita- tions to address the general public. I have nearly always tried to offer fresh perspectives, and these have generally been well received. But almost invariably the Q and A or personal exchanges reveal an affec- tion for familiar stories or questions. (Prominent among them is the query “What if Stonewall Jackson had been present at Gettysburg?”) For a long time I harbored a private condescension about this affec- tion, coupled with complete incuriosity about what its significance might be. But eventually I came to believe that I was missing some- thing important: that these familiar stories, endlessly retold in nearly the same ways, were expressions of a mythic view of the Civil War, what the amateur historian Otto Eisenschiml memorably labeled “the American Iliad.”1 For Eisenschiml “the American Iliad” was merely a clever title for a compendium of eyewitness accounts of the conflict, but I take the term seriously. In Homer’s Iliad the anger of Achilles, the perfidy of Agamemnon, the doomed gallantry of Hector—and the relationships between them—have enormous, uncontested, unchanging, and almost primal symbolic meaning. So too do certain figures in the American Iliad. Prominent among these are the butcher Grant, the Christ-like Lee, and the rage- filled Sherman. I believe that the traditional Civil War narrative functions as a national myth of central importance to our understanding of ourselves as Americans. And like the classic mythologies of old, it contains timeless wisdom about what it means to be a human being.
    [Show full text]
  • The American Civil War: a War of Logistics
    THE AMERICAN CIVIL WAR: A WAR OF LOGISTICS Franklin M. Welter A Thesis Submitted to the Graduate College of Bowling Green State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS December 2015 Committee: Rebecca Mancuso, Advisor Dwayne Beggs © 2015 Franklin M. Welter All Rights Reserved iii ABSTRACT Rebecca Mancuso, Advisor The American Civil War was the first modern war. It was fought with weapons capable of dealing death on a scale never before seen. It was also the first war which saw the widespread use of the railroad. Across the country men, materials, and supplies were transported along the iron rails which industrial revolution swept in. Without the railroads, the Union would have been unable to win the war. All of the resources, men, and materials available to the North mean little when they cannot be shipped across the great expanse which was the North during the Civil War. The goals of this thesis are to examine the roles and issues faced by seemingly independent people in very different situations during the war, and to investigate how the problems which these people encountered were overcome. The first chapter, centered in Ohio, gives insight into the roles which noncombatants played in the process. Farmers, bakers, and others behind the lines. Chapter two covers the journey across the rails, the challenges faced, and how they were overcome. This chapter looks at how those in command handled the railroad, how it affected the battles, especially Gettysburg, and how the railroads were defended over the course of the war, something which had never before needed to be considered.
    [Show full text]
  • Collection SC 0084 W. Roger Smith Civil War Research Collection 1862
    Collection SC 0084 W. Roger Smith Civil War Research Collection 1862 Table of Contents User Information Historical Sketch Scope and Content Note Container List Processed by Emily Hershman 27 June 2011 Thomas Balch Library 208 W. Market Street Leesburg, VA 20176 USER INFORMATION VOLUME OF COLLECTION: 2 folders COLLECTION DATES: 1862 PROVENANCE: W. Roger Smith, Midland, TX. ACCESS RESTRICTIONS: Collection open for research USE RESTRICTIONS: No physical characteristics affect use of this material. REPRODUCTION RIGHTS: Permission to reproduce or publish material in this collection must be obtained in writing from Thomas Balch Library. CITE AS: W. Roger Smith Civil War Research Collection, 1862 (SC 0084), Thomas Balch Library, Leesburg, VA. ALTERNATE FORMATS: None OTHER FINDING AIDS: None TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS: None RELATED HOLDINGS: None ACCESSION NUMBERS: 1995.0046 NOTES: Formerly filed in Thomas Balch Library Vertical Files 2 HISTORICAL SKETCH From its organization in July 1861, the Army of the Potomac remained the primary Union military force in the East, confronting General Robert E. Lee’s (1807-1870) Army of Northern Virginia in a series of battles and skirmishes. In the early years of the Civil War, however, the Army of the Potomac suffered defeats at the Battle of the First Bull Run in 1861, the Peninsula Campaign and the Battle of Fredericksburg in 1862, as well as the Battle of Chancellorsville in 1863. Historians attribute its initial lack of victories to poor leadership from a succession of indecisive generals: Irvin McDowell (1818-1885), George McClellan (1826-1885), Ambrose Burnside (1824-1881), and Joseph Hooker (1814-1879). When General George Meade (1815-1872) took command of the Army of the Potomac in June 1863, he was successful in pushing the Army of Northern Virginia out of Pennsylvania following the Battle of Gettysburg.
    [Show full text]
  • The Battle of Sailor's Creek
    THE BATTLE OF SAILOR’S CREEK: A STUDY IN LEADERSHIP A Thesis by CLOYD ALLEN SMITH JR. Submitted to the Office of Graduate Studies of Texas A&M University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS December 2005 Major Subject: History THE BATTLE OF SAILOR’S CREEK: A STUDY IN LEADERSHIP A Thesis by CLOYD ALLEN SMITH JR. Submitted to the Office of Graduate Studies of Texas A&M University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS Approved by: Chair of Committee, Joseph Dawson Committee Members, James Bradford Joseph Cerami Head of Department, Walter L. Buenger December 2005 Major Subject: History iii ABSTRACT The Battle of Sailor’s Creek: A Study in Leadership. (December 2005) Cloyd Allen Smith Jr., B.A., Slippery Rock University Chair: Dr. Joseph Dawson The Battle of Sailor’s Creek, 6 April 1865, has been overshadowed by Lee’s surrender at Appomattox Court House several days later, yet it is an example of the Union military war machine reaching its apex of war making ability during the Civil War. Through Ulysses S. Grant’s leadership and that of his subordinates, the Union armies, specifically that of the Army of the Potomac, had been transformed into a highly motivated, organized and responsive tool of war, led by confident leaders who understood their commander’s intent and were able to execute on that intent with audacious initiative in the absence of further orders. After Robert E. Lee’s Army of Northern Virginia escaped from Petersburg and Richmond on 2 April 1865, Grant’s forces chased after Lee’s forces with the intent of destroying the mighty and once feared iv protector of the Confederate States in the hopes of bringing a swift end to the long war.
    [Show full text]
  • Meigs Chapter 8
    CHAPTER 8—1861 [FEB.] 20TH. To Washington, where I had again the happiness of em- bracing my wife and children. Finding them all well and rejoiced, like myself, to be once more together. As I left Washington on the 22nd of October, I have been just 4 months absent, less 2 days. [FEB.] 21ST. To Engineer office. General Totten took me over to see the Secretary, 1 who received me most kindly. Complimented me upon my conduct and said he was glad to see me back again in Washington, in my right place. He told me that Floyd had told the cabinet that he had a long rigamarole of a letter from Captain Meigs, that pestilent fellow who got trouble wherever he went, and that it was perfectly ridiculous that he wanted men and guns to defend the Tortugas and some heap of rocks, perfectly indefensible. And the cabinet, not being prepared to expect false representations from one of their colleagues, believed him, thought me a silly fellow, and did not read my letters. Soon after Floyd’s exposure, General Scott 2 came. One of the first things he called attention to was the great importance of holding with sufficient garrison and stores the fortress of the Tortugas and of great asset. Then Floyd’s speech about my letters was told to him. He ad- vised them to read my reports, that he had a letter from me which was very much to the point and not at all rigamarole. On reading them, Mr. Holt says he is astonished at the vision they showed.
    [Show full text]
  • "Rebels to the Core": Memphians Under William T. Sherman
    "Rebels to the Core": Memphians under William T. Sherman By John Bordelon Tis idle to talk about Union men here. Many want Peace, and fear war & its results but all prefer a Southern Independent Government, and are fighting or working for it. Major General William T. Sherman 1 Memphis, Tennessee, August 11, 1862 Citizens representing various segments of Memphis society, from a southern judge to daring "lady smugglers," engaged in unconventional warfare against the occupying Union presence under Major General William Tecumseh Sherman. White Memphians resisted Federal occupation and aided the Confederacy by smuggling goods, harboring spies, manipulating trade, burning cotton, attacking steamers, and expressing ideological opposition through the judicial system. In occupied Memphis, Sherman never confronted a conventional army. Instead, he faced relentless opposition from civilians sympathetic to the Confederacy. Previous scholarship on Memphis during the Civil War treats examines the city's experience from numerous angles.2 However, the extent of civilian devotion to the Confederacy and willingness to actively pursue their cause deserves further exploration. Focusing on the actions of pro-Confederate Memphians during one officers tenure in the occupied city allows for a more intimate understanding of the character of the city during wartime. Because of a shortage of extant writings of Memphians during the war, the correspondence of W T. Sherman provides valuable insight into the experience of the city in 1862. 1 W T. Sherman to Salmon P. Chase, August 11, 1862, as published in Brooks D. Simpson and Jean V. Berlin, eds., Sherman's Civil Wftr: Selected Correspondence ofWilliam T Sherman, 1860-1865 (Chapel Hill, N.C.: University of North Carolina Press, 1999), 270.
    [Show full text]
  • Sherman's March Through North Carolina
    Published on NCpedia (https://www.ncpedia.org) Home > ANCHOR > Civil War and Reconstruction (1860-1876) > The War Comes to an End, 1864–1865 > Sherman's March Through North Carolina Sherman's March Through North Carolina [1] Share it now! On December 21, 1864, Union Maj. Gen. William T. Sherman completed his March to the Sea by capturing Savannah, Georgia. Sherman’s next move was to march northward through the Carolinas to Richmond, Virginia, the capital of the Confederacy, where he would combine with the forces commanded by Union general-in-chief Ulysses S. Grant. The massive juggernaut [2] under Grant and Sherman would ensure final victory for the Union by crushing Confederate general- in-chief Robert E. Lee’s Army of Northern Virginia. Before marching to Richmond, however, Sherman would halt at Goldsboro, North Carolina, and unite with a Union force commanded by Maj. Gen. John M. Schofield. Sherman began his Carolinas Campaign on February 1, 1865, by advancing into South Carolina. By February 17, his forces had captured Columbia, the capital of the Palmetto State. Thus far, the Confederates’ resistance in South Carolina was ineffective. On February 22, Lee ordered Gen. Joseph E. Johnston to assume command of the forces opposing Sherman. During the first week of March, Johnston frantically concentrated his scattered forces in central North Carolina, while Sherman advanced into the Tar Heel State. On March 10, Confederate cavalry [3] commander Wade Hampton surprised his Federal counterpart Judson Kilpatrick at Monroe’s Crossroads in an engagement later dubbed "Kilpatrick’s Shirttail Skedaddle." Although Kilpatrick quickly recovered from his shock and regained his camp, Hampton succeeded in opening the road to Fayetteville.
    [Show full text]
  • The C C H S Newsletter
    TheTheThe C C H S Newsletter Carroll County Historical Society P. O. Box 1308 Carrollton, GA 30112 NOVEMBER 2015 Carroll County Irregulars Return to Second Manassas Last April, twenty members of the Carroll County Irregulars, a group of Civil War enthusiasts from Carrollton, made their annual trip to a major battlefield to relive the history of the area by studying the armies and the tactics of their generals. This year they were joined by John Hennessy, Chief Historian of Fredricksburg and author of “Return to Bull Run: The Campaign and Battle of Second Manassas”. At next Tuesday’s general meeting of the Historical Society, Dr. Jack Crews, Dr. Peter Worthy, and Robert Carter will report on this trip. Second Manassas demonstrated the impact of the expanding war in terms of the size of the armies that fought there and in the numbers of casualties resulting from the battle. The campaign showed the effects of a widening Union war effort, resulting in increasing impacts upon civilians. The campaign also marked the rise of Robert E. Lee as a battlefield commander: his success at Second Manassas opened the opportunity to the Confederate army to carry the war into the North. On the Confederate side, Gen. Robert E. Lee's Army of Northern Virginia was organized into two "wings" totaling about 55,000 men. The "right wing" was commanded by Maj. Gen. James Longstreet, the left by Maj. Gen. Stonewall Jackson. The Cavalry Division under Maj. Gen. J.E.B. Stuart was attached to Jackson's wing. The Union Army of Virginia was divided into three corps of 51,000 men, under Maj.
    [Show full text]