The Validity of William T. Sherman's Memoirs

I have recently read an article titled “Sherman Called It the Way He Saw It” by John F. Marszalek.  This article tackles the issue of how Sherman is viewed by historians. This topic is one that I feel needed to have been covered. Of all the military commanders during the American Civil War, William T. Sherman has received the worst of reviews. Some have labeled him as villain, “prevaricator”, and worse sadly.

John Marszalek does not focus on all of the detractors of Sherman, just one in particular, an individual named Albert Castel.  Apparently, Castel is a historian who really knows his stuff about the Civil War.  I’m not familiar with his work, although I feel I should and will make a point to do so.  From what I read in the article, Castel was really harsh on Sherman.  I have not read the memoirs of Sherman yet (though it is on my reading list) and apparently they are full of inaccuracies.  I managed to find a copy of “Prevaricating through Georgia: Sherman's Memoirs as a Source on the Atlanta Campaign” by Albert Castel, the same article that Marszalek is focusing on, and I must say that Castel held nothing back in his critique of Sherman.  If you just glance and skim through the article, you get the impression that Castel has an axe to grind with Sherman.  The very last paragraph of Castel’s article, he claims that he was trying to “expose the real truth” and he tells anyone who sees his article as harsh (readers such as me) that “it is not a popularity contest.” 

The Memoirs are still important even if they do have a few inaccuracies.  They are the accounts of the Civil War written by a man who was a major player in it.  That reasoning in itself should be enough to justify its existence and valid use in a term paper but to elaborate on the issue; many primary sources have some inaccuracies, biases, and other factors that challenge their credibility.  I doubt that any firsthand account of any event can be one hundred percent free of any flaw.  Everyone perceives things differently.  Truth varies in the eye of the beholder.  I don’t mean to rant here but labeling the Memoirs as useless is a jab at the intelligence of anyone attempting research William T. Sherman or anything related to the Civil War that would involve said book.  Anyone trained in history or any other scholarly field would know that they need to check other sources and not just one.  The fact the he feels obligated to do so is almost like he expects everyone reading the article without a PhD to be the kind of people who give a left turn signal and turn right.  Either his “final word” was yet another jab at Sherman or an off handed remark at the layman researcher. 

I do respect Castel and his pain staking thorough research into the question of how authentic was Sherman’s Memoirs, I agree with Marszalek that Sherman was a “blunt chronicler”.  This document is Sherman talking about Sherman’s experiences and not Sherman presenting a detailed account of the Civil War.  I doubt that the Memoirs were written to be an objective, historically accurate document.  The document was written to be Sherman’s accounts of what he experienced.  The man was a soldier after all (no disrespect to soldiers) and not a highly trained chronicler of history.  Besides, anyone who is conducting research is supposed to use other sources.

Castel, Albert “Prevaricating through Georgia: Sherman's Memoirs as a Source on the Atlanta Campaign,” Civil War History 40, no. 1, (March 1994) 48-71. http://muse.jhu.edu/ journals/cwh/summary/v040/40.1.castel.html (accessed February 2, 2013)

Marszalek , John F. “Sherman Called It the Way He Saw It,” Civil War History 40, no. 1 (March 1994): 72-78.  http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/cwh/summary/v040/40.1.marszalek.html (accessed February 1, 2013)