This is surprisingly readable, especially the chapters before the war. Once you get to the war, plan to skim through lots of maneuvers and tables of wThis is surprisingly readable, especially the chapters before the war. Once you get to the war, plan to skim through lots of maneuvers and tables of wounded / dead soldiers. As a writer, I found Sherman much more engaging than Grant.
I should add that this shouldn't be your first Civil War book. Assuming you've got the basic facts down from U.S. History class in high school, I think Oxford's Battle Cry of Freedom is the best single-volume Civil War book you should read. So why read Sherman? He was a particularly interesting character from the war, called "the first truly modern general."
The first few chapters show that he even more than that. I had no idea that Sherman was the first president of Louisiana State University, for example. I knew he was in the Mexican War, but I didn't know he was in California during the Gold Rush. There are some good stories in these early chapters. Sherman describes a couple boating accidents that he either witnessed or affected him directly because he was on the boat. They made life in the nineteenth-century seem pretty precarious.
As far as the war, the best chapter is the March to the Sea (Chapter XXI; if you only read part of the book, read that). They knew it was a big deal at the time, with Southerners hoping that it would end up like Napoleon's march to Moscow. Earlier parts of the book allude to it. When Sherman travels through the South before the war, he points out where he learns valuable information about how he knew that the land was safe for a foraging army.
Throughout the war chapters, you get a sense for relationships among the North and the South. People who knew him before the war ask for favors (e.g., p. 765). And reconciliations after the war show up. At times, Sherman will bring in discussions he had with opposing generals that occurred after the war to fill in blanks about what the Confederate army was doing (e.g., p. 507). You can imagine the retired generals sitting around telling stories to each other after the war.
I also liked how Sherman described the people of the South. One person who keeps coming up is a nemesis, Forrest, who would eventually become a major figure in the KKK. He doesn't seem to like Forrest. But he didn't personally blame him for the notorious Fort Pillow massacre (p. 470). In other places, though (esp. pp. 361-363), he gives a great overview of the people of the South. In a letter dated Sept. 17, 1863, he describes four groups of white people in the South: (1) the land-owning, slave-owning planters, who lead the South, (2) the smaller farmers, mechanics, etc. (75% of the population), who are "hardly worth a thought" because they blindly follow the lead of the planters, (3) the Union men of the South, for whom Sherman has contempt because they complain when they meet the Union armies and don't offer any help, and (4) the "young bloods," who are "sons of planters, lawyers about town, good billiard-players and sportsmen, men who never did work and never will." Forrest is one of the leaders of this group, which includes "the best cavalry in the world." Sherman says they "must all be killed or employed by us before we can hope for peace." This was pretty impressive foresight from 1863, given how much trouble Forrest caused during Reconstruction.
Recommended only for fans of Sherman who already know a good amount about the Civil War. Otherwise, you'd be better off with Battle Cry of Freedom or a more recent Sherman biography....more
Unfortunately, Grant's virtue of understating his military genius works against him for a contemporary reader. This book is not a good place to start Unfortunately, Grant's virtue of understating his military genius works against him for a contemporary reader. This book is not a good place to start with his career: it was written for an audience already familiar with the basic history of the Civil War, so Grant does not feel the need to give us much background into the characters of men like William T. Sherman or Philip Sheridan. A few paragraphs of brilliant literature jump out from time to time, but I found that they were too few among Grant's precise and impersonal details about military movements and battles....more
For historians only. This was originally supposed to be a campaign biography for Garfield's re-election, but after his assassination it was turned intFor historians only. This was originally supposed to be a campaign biography for Garfield's re-election, but after his assassination it was turned into a full biography. For today's reader, it's tedious: Garfield's military career and Congressional speeches are given in more detail than anyone but a historian would care to read....more
Enjoyable on many levels: this is the story of Lincoln's greatness, but also the story of how he worked with his Cabinet and his generals, how the CivEnjoyable on many levels: this is the story of Lincoln's greatness, but also the story of how he worked with his Cabinet and his generals, how the Civil War played out, and what life was like for Americans before and during the Civil War. It's not just entertainment; there's a lot to learn from how Lincoln managed all the personalities around him. This would be a fine choice if you were only to read a handful of American history books in your lifetime: Lincoln's story is an essential American story, and this doesn't require a lot of background on American history....more
Loading...
