William T. Sherman during Reconstruction

After months of mulling over Sherman’s memoirs, I feel it is time for me to give my two cents on him and his memoirs.  In the spirit of the current topic of the Reconstruction, I shall focus on Sherman’s post bellum years.  Interestingly enough, Sherman’s memoirs were published in 1875, two years prior to the end of Reconstruction.  So in all intended purposes, his memoirs are useful in regards to how Sherman saw himself during the war from the perspective of the Reconstruction Era.  So from a certain point of view, Sherman’s memoirs are a primary source into his mindset during late Reconstruction.  While some scholars in our illustrious field do not see Sherman’s memoirs as useful, I find them useful still (if you are curious about the longer version of my opinion, I have a post on said topic on this very blog). 

As far as Reconstruction content goes, it is quite fascinating.  Sherman pretty much stayed busy.  He became Lieutenant General and when Grant became president he became Commanding General.  Prior to learning this, I always expected Sherman to retire after the war and try to avoid the spotlight much as possible.  In a way I’m glad I was wrong because after my thorough research into the Savannah Campaign, I have a deep respect for Sherman’s ability to command.  (Not to get off topic here) Sure there exists a debate as to Sherman’s motives and his command abilities, but I stand on the side of the debate that praises Sherman and his abilities.  That being said, I do not think there was any other officer who could have done the jobs any better.  Well, Stonewall Jackson and Robert E. Lee may have been excellent for the job but as we all should know, Jackson was killed at Chancellorsville and Lee was, well, the Confederate’s head general.  As far as his Union contemporaries, I don’t think Sheridan or Custer would have been good for the job and other than Hooker’s reputation (I will not indulge you my fair audience about my opinions on how his reputation would go with lieutenant general, after all I want to keep this PG), his health was at its all-time low (considering he died due to his poor health in 1879). 

I found his dealings with Andrew Johnson to be very interesting.  For those who have not read Sherman’s Memoirs, or at least the copy I have checked out from the library, it has various correspondences in it from and to Sherman.  The ones that caught my eye and are related to what I previously said deal with Sherman’s refusal to lead the Military Division of the Atlantic and be involved in the Secretary of War affair.  Fun fact: Sherman was a witness for the defense of Johnson.  Personally, I found that interesting because I feel like things I’ve been studying are intersecting.   In class, we discussed Johnson’s impeachment and I feel that anything Sherman related is connected to my 450 paper so thus I feel as if my studies this year are acting like a scholarly, “Pulp Fiction-esque” crossing.  Of course this is not the first time and sadly this might be one of the last.

As a whole, the language of the Memoirs portrays Sherman as a man who was, in my opinion, tired of war. When I dissected the book, I never once had the feeling that Sherman saw war as anything but a gory and dark affair.  I never came across evidence that he saw his experiences as wonderful or some kind of adventure.  I can’t say I blame him.  He summed it up perfectly, “war is hell”.  I know for a fact that I could not have handled the things Sherman experienced and all the death and destruction that he endured.  After it is all said and done, the man that Sherman was during Reconstruction was a man shaped by the hells of war.  He was a man that did not cherish his wartime memories.  Despite it all, he was a man who earned his posts and rank and I feel I have become a better scholar in researching him.