Re: Sherman & Grant - Why?
- --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, FLYNSWEDE@A... wrote:
> In a message dated 12/13/2002 2:25:53 AM Eastern Standard Time,Good Question. Looking from Grant's perspective in the 1862 Army of
> Aurelie1999@a... writes:
> > What did these two men see in each other? Why were they so
> > perfectly in tune? What am I missing?
> > Connie Boone
the Tennessee, Sherman is by far the obvious choice for "trusted
subordinate". West Point, experienced (don't forget Bull Run and
Kentucky), connected (not just to Washington but to Halleck) and an
energetic, intelligent and outspoken personality. No one else is
really in the running among the AoT after the death of CF Smith. And
of course the two men needed to join forces to fend off McClernand.
I think the rivalries with Rosecrans and the Army Mississippi was a
big factor in preventing those generals from getting close to Grant.
I also think the Summer/Fall of 1862, so often overlooked, also
played a major role in cementing the relationship. Grant in Corinth,
learned he could trust Sherman to handle things over in Memphis on
his own, with mininal supervision. That this remote relationship was
a proven winner (the communication line, for the most part, was rail
back to Columbus and steamer to Memphis, and there was no direct
telegraph) influenced future decisions greatly.
I also can't help but think about the strictly human aspect, when
Sherman was down and out and needed help Grant was there, and vice
I think it was a long time before Sherman was convinced of Grant's
military ability. He was certainly opposed to Grant's plans in the
Vicksburg campaign, but, and I think this is one Sherman's qualities
that best served the duo, he still energetically carried out his
orders. In comparison to much correspondance between other generals,
these two didn't seem to argue about things very often, or for very
long. And once the decision was made, the argument was generally
I think the best word is trust.