Talk:William Tecumseh Sherman

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Insert non-formatted text here

Featured article star William Tecumseh Sherman is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do.
Peer review William Tecumseh Sherman has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
WPMILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Featured article FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale.
Related task forces...
 American Civil War task force
United States military history task force
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 Biography Portal
Featured article FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ]
(If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
This article is supported by the Military work group.
This article is part of WikiProject Missouri, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Missouri.
This page has been selected for Version 0.5 and the release version of Wikipedia. It has been rated FA-Class on the assessment scale. It is in the category History.

Contents

[edit] Overrated

There is no mention that at the Battle of Chattanooga, Sherman disgraced himself. Grant's plan called for Sherman's Army of the Tennessee to win the battle, but Sherman attacked the wrong mountain, & then had his army beaten piecemeal by one Confederate Division. It was left to Thomas' Army of the Cumberland, & Hooker's Corps, from the Army of the Potomoc, to defeat Bragg. In spite of this terrible performance, Grant supported his crony Sherman to be the Western commander over George Thomas. At the opening of the Atlanta campaign, Sherman ignored Thomas' advice to put the entire Army of the Cumberland through Snake Creek Gap to a position behind Johnston's army. Instead he sent only one undersized Corps under McPherson, who was unable to trap Johnston. The man was HIGHLY overrated.-- Achilles 12:20 18 June 2005

  • It's easy to point out a single mistake as evidence that Sherman was "no good" as a general. However according to Victor Hanson's "Soul of Battle" Sherman was very effective in breaking the South's will to continue fighting and also it's belief that it would win the war. After all it's tough to believe you are winning if the enemy has a army marching through your territory and destroying anything that could have military value. Sherman's March to the Sea increased the number of desertions and also convinced Southern

civilians that the war was lost. --etalian

---



    • I pointed out two HUGE mistakes. Sherman's major qualification as commander of the Western Theater was that he was Grant's crony. Sherman's command resulted in a longer war & greater casualties & suffering.
    • Sheridan's campaign in the Shenandoah Valley predated Sherman's "March", so you can't even credit him with that innovation. Achilles 4 Oct 2005
  • I doubt that either of these are HUGE, so relax. There were many instances in the Civil War of generals appointed over others who might be better qualified. And personal relationships are not inconsequential. Grant chose a guy he trusted over one he didn't as much. His choice.
  • It would be appropriate to mention Sheridan, but I believe the concept was discussed between Grant and Sherman prior to either campaign. Sherman did not merely copy Lil' Phil. And the historic impact of the March is certainly better remembered than the Valley. Hal Jespersen 12:49, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
  • They were "HUGE" mistakes. If the battle of Chattanooga had followed Grant's plan of depending on Sherman to win, it would have been much longer & bloodier. Had Thomas' plan at Snake Creek Gap been followed, Johnston's army would have been trapped & destroyed within a week. Union forces could have been shifted to Virginia, & that campaign ended before election day. Grant & Sherman DID have a somewhat bizarre personal relationship, but it is also a fact that the polilitcal power of Ohio played a large role in choosing western commanders. It didn't hurt that Sherman's brother was a powerful US Senator. What else had Sherman done during the war to warrant such a promotion? Have a nervous breakdown? Achilles 04:27 7 Oct 2005

I interpreted your reference to HUGE mistakes to apply to the previous edit, not the generals' actions. Sorry to confuse. I believe that speculative what-ifs on battles and strategies are interesting things to discuss, but don't rate OUTRAGE EXPRESSED IN ALL CAPS!!!! :-) It is literally impossible to know what would have happened in Chattanooga if Grant, Sherman, or Thomas had acted differently. Or if Jackson had lived two more months. Or Hooker hadn't offered to resign. Or Order 191 had not been found. So although we may have our personal opinions, we owe something to Wikipedia readers to treat history as it happened and as it has been most frequently interpreted by the bulk of reputable historians. This is one of the tenets of No original research.

As to your obvious resentment that some generals were promoted based on personal relationships, I'd give that a rest. It has happened throughout history. It is up to the commander to determine who his subordinates will be and unless there is some evidence that foul play was involved (like on a Klingon ship :-)), it isn't newsworthy. Or encyclopedia-worthy.

I invite you to continue this one-on-one back-and-forth in email instead of these convoluted Talk page edits. See my User page for the address. Hal Jespersen 16:40, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

  • I believe it entirely appropriate to captitalize the 2 words I did. They were large mistakes, & Sherman/Grant did have a very strange relationship. At Chattanooga, after Cleburn's division defeated Sherman's army, Sherman was through for the day-- he took no further actions. McPherson (after declining Thomas' offer to lend the AofC's most powerful Corps) succeeded in advancing through Snake Creek Gap, but was unable to trap Johnston--if he had, the Georgia campaign would have indisputably ended much sooner. I don't think there is any doubt that Thomas (with the AofC) would have cut off Johnston's retreat. What were Sherman's outstanding qualifications for the western theater command? Sherman did have some kind of mental/emotional breakdown. Thomas, OTOH, had saved the army from destruction at Murfreesboro & Chickamauga, &, later during the Atlanta campaign, at Peachtree Creek. Grant's cronyism came back to bite him in the ass when he became President-- the thieves & incompetents he appointed disgraced his administration, & nearly ruined his reputation. Achilles 18:57 7 Oct 2005

Sherman's burning of Atlanta is disputed. Sherman took Atlanta, and burned munitions factories, but it is doubtful that he sacked the town.

He did chase away the local government, so when he left, the looters had run of the city, and perhaps they did the burning and sacking. Tim

[edit] Burning of Atlanta

In keeping with Sherman's MO it is most likely that he did burn the city. He expelled more than the government. Sherman's orders called for the depopulation of the whole city. Only Sherman's soldiers were there, so it's hard to blame locals.

Ryan McKenzie

[edit] Genocide?

In some circles, Sherman is in large part blamed for killing off the Plains Indians. Anyone have more information on that? --Delirium 02:52, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)

He was instrumental in the policy of slaughtering the buffalo, which he knew would break the back of the Indians feeble economy. Achilles 12:23 18 June 2005
According to Stephen Ambrose book "Custer and Armstrong" Sherman correctly saw killing off the buffalos as the main means to break the resistance of the Plain Indian tribes. Once the buffalos were wiped out the Indians could either go to the reservation or die of starvation. -- (Unsigned)
I think that was supposed to be Crazy Horse and Custer. I put in the information, with a reference to an academic book by Andrew Isenberg. -- Eb.hoop 09:52, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sherman's title

The grade of general was revived under the title of General of the Army of the United States", by the Congress, Act of 25 July 1866 and was conferred upon Lieutenant General Ulysses S. Grant. William T. Sherman succeded Grant in the grade of "General of the Army of the United States", having been appointed on 4 March 1869.

According to Act of 25 July 1869, Shermans grade was "General of the Army of the United States".

[edit] Featured article

I'm sending this article through for peer review. I think it has the potential to be a featured article. :)--Kross | Talk 20:59, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

In light of the comments posted after this was submitted as a featured article, I've tried to improve the article, primarily by adding references. (Google Books was extremely useful.) I think the greatest remaining deficiency in this regard is the lack of references for the data on damage and casualties at the end of the sub-section on "Total War." I encourage someone with more familiarity with the relevant literature to address this.
On the other hand, I would argue against adding too many further references, or against a legalistic removal of the generalizations and non-controversial value judgments that remain in the article. My concern there is that the piece would lose much of its readability. -- Eb.hoop 07:17, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm now done with my revisions to the article. I think that now it's pretty solid in terms of references, and I'm generally pleased with the presentation. If others agree I think this could be resubmited as featured article candidate. -- Eb.hoop 00:59, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed edits by JohnFlaherty

I did not downplay criticism. I eliminated POV, conjecture, and superfluous commentary.JohnFlaherty

Hi. John Flaherty here. South Jersey. Thanks for stopping the revert war.JohnFlaherty

Hi John. I don't disagree with all of your recent edits, and they tend to cut down the length of the article, which is a good thing. But I also get the sense that they make the article less balanced. I'm as great an admirer of Sherman as anyone (otherwise I wouldn't have dedicated anywhere nearly as much time as I have to this article), but we must recognize that he is a controversial figure, and this must be thoroughly addressed by a good article. Let me comment on your edits one at a time:
  • Your removed Thus, the first leader of what became one of the most prestigious Southern universities was a Yankee, who would later be considered one of the most hated men in the South. I'm ambivalent about this. I was never quite happy with that sentence, but Sherman was perhaps the most hated Union man among Southern whites after the war, so I thought it was interesting to point out that he was the first leader of LSU.
  • You removed as well as drinking and smoking too much. The sentence might need some revision. I personally have no sources on the exact circumstances of Sherman's breakdown, and doubt there are any good ones to be found.
  • You removed despite expressing serious reservations about Grant's unorthodox campaign plans and Sherman and Grant blamed incorrect maps for the embarrassing failure. I strongly disagree with these edits. Sherman did in fact think that Grant's plan to take Vicksburg was crazy, and told him so. This is an interesting bit of information. Also, Sherman's failure to take Missionary Ridge deserves mention. Grant has been criticized for writing reports afer Chattanooga that absolved Sherman of his blunder while minimizing Thomas's success.
  • You added Dispasionate analysis by historians however makes it clear that Sherman had little to do with this act and indeed engaged his men in the supression of the fires. I think this is unnecessary. We already have a quote from McPherson under the the subsection on "Total warfare" that makes this case, without presenting it as indisputable fact.
  • You added Sherman's surrender terms to Johnson were so generous that Congress refused to honor them. This could stay in. I don't know for fact that this is true, though. Do you have a source?
  • You removed His tactical record was mixed: he was critically surprised at Shiloh, suffered defeat at Chickasaw Bluffs in the Vicksburg campaign, assaulted unsuccessfully at Missionary Ridge, and suffered severe casualties in his futile frontal assault at Kennesaw Mountain. I strongly disagree with this edit. All of these are true statements, and help to keep the article balanced and interesting.
  • You removed a long passage on whether Grant deserves more credit for the "total war" strategy. While I agree that that passage could be somewhat reduced, the issue deserves discussion.

I'll be glad to discuss these with you here or on my talk page. -- Eb.hoop 06:49, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Ed. Thanks for the comments. Thank you also for being so reasonable.

• Your removed Thus, the first leader of what became one of the most prestigious Southern universities was a Yankee, who would later be considered one of the most hated men in the South. I'm ambivalent about this. I was never quite happy with that sentence, but Sherman was perhaps the most hated Union man among Southern whites after the war, so I thought it was interesting to point out that he was the first leader of LSU.

The term “Yankee” is an inflammatory code-word meant to impart a whole swath of negative assumptions and accusations in one word. Aside from that, it is simply a sloppy way to make the point. His being the superintendent of the Louisiana State Seminary and Military Academy at Alexandria is of great importance and interest. “Hated Yankee” is not the way to make this point.

• You removed as well as drinking and smoking too much. The sentence might need some revision. I personally have no sources on the exact circumstances of Sherman's breakdown, and doubt there are any good ones to be found.

The reasons for his breakdown are myriad. The drinking/smoking comments are pure, unadulterated conjecture. Moreover, they smack of the same kind of Neoconfederate character assassination techniques aimed so successfully at Grant.

• You removed despite expressing serious reservations about Grant's unorthodox campaign plans and Sherman and Grant blamed incorrect maps for the embarrassing failure. I strongly disagree with these edits. Sherman did in fact think that Grant's plan to take Vicksburg was crazy, and told him so. This is an interesting bit of information. Also, Sherman's failure to take Missionary Ridge deserves mention. Grant has been criticized for writing reports afer Chattanooga that absolved Sherman of his blunder while minimizing Thomas's success.

I do not see how they are the least relevant to the context of the comments they were associated with. I do not feel that strong about them however and would not object to them remaining IF they were massaged a bit. They seem more rhetorical than informational.

• You added Dispasionate analysis by historians however makes it clear that Sherman had little to do with this act and indeed engaged his men in the supression of the fires. I think this is unnecessary. We already have a quote from McPherson under the the subsection on "Total warfare" that makes this case, without presenting it as indisputable fact.

I agree. Your right. I added that because I thought the comments about the controversy made it seem like it was still being seriously debated. I will acquiesce on that point.

• You added "Sherman's surrender terms to Johnson were so generous that Congress refused to honor them. This could stay in. I don't know for fact that this is true, though. Do you have a source?

Thank you. It should. Your request is more than reasonable. I will get sources. I am currently away from my home library. I will get back to you. Please feel free to remind me if do not – john@flahertys.org

• You removed His tactical record was mixed: he was critically surprised at Shiloh, suffered defeat at Chickasaw Bluffs in the Vicksburg campaign, assaulted unsuccessfully at Missionary Ridge, and suffered severe casualties in his futile frontal assault at Kennesaw Mountain. I strongly disagree with this edit. All of these are true statements, and help to keep the article balanced and interesting.

Here we reach an impasse. I strongly feel the point of this addition – based on the wording – was meant too throw more doubt onto the issue of Sherman’s abilities than it was to explore balancing shortcomings. Much heat and no light are added here in my view. I suggest we reach agreement on the other issues then pull this one out for further discussion.

• You removed a long passage on whether Grant deserves more credit for the "total war" strategy. While I agree that that passage could be somewhat reduced, the issue deserves discussion.

See above. I think we can find common ground on this one, but not immediately.JohnFlaherty

Thank you again for your attention and restraint. Your requests are reasonable and your attitude seems one bent on compromise, not confrontation. I am sure we can negotiate a satisfactory solution to these issues.

I've gone ahead and made the edits that I think we agree on. Please add a reference on Johnston's terms of surrender when you have a chance. I think you are right about the Yankee-LSU business. I'll think a little more about the two outstanding issues: whether to explicitly list Sherman's tactical failures and whether to discuss if he or Grant is more responsible for total warfare. -- Eb.hoop 09:36, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

That all sounds great. I either have no issue or no issue worth waring over with most of the changes you made. They seem to be in agreement with what we discussed. If you want to please reference the "maps" comments that would be great.

We can also talk about "Total war" more if you want.JohnFlaherty 0514, 2/14/06, EST

As to the "unorthodox plans" in the Vicksburg campaign, I think it is interesting to point out that Sherman performed well regardless of his opinions of his commander's plans. This is just as valid as pointing out James Longstreet's objections to Lee's strategy at Gettysburg. It actually could be expanded a bit because Sherman later adopted the tactic of "living off the land" for his later campaigns. As to the parenthetical collection of negative comments about tactis, these were originally in the article because there was less detail of those campaigns earlier and they were used to balance the laudatory tones that preceded them in the previous shorter article. As long as the entire article is balanced appropriately, each individual paragraph does not have to be, IMHO. (BTW, I am also not one to worry about negative comments regarding famous people with overall positive reputations, particularly when they demonstrate lessons learned or obstacles overcome. They make for good bios.) Hal Jespersen 15:22, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
I think we've made good progress on the issues. The article is already almost too long, but if Hal thinks he can flesh out the idea the Sherman learned from Grant's strategy at Vicksburg, I think that'd be worth putting in. I still think it'd be worthwhile explicitly pointing out that Sherman, strategist par excellence, made several major tactical blunders during the war. But I've been dedicating far too much time to Sherman recently and I think I'm going to have to go home to recuperate for a while... Eb.hoop 00:31, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] turning movements

Considering his advantages in manpower reserves and material, this seems less brillance to me than the obvious way to pin and outflank his opponent.Mikereichold 10:05, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

It's a bit of a cliché that Union commanders were uninspired and simply used their superior manpower to defeat the enemy in the long run, without regard for loss of life. Sherman's example seems to contradict this. Basil Liddell Hart, the main modern proponent of the "indirect approach," gave him a lot of credit in that regard. That said, in the same campaign Sherman did order one disastrous frontal assault on a well-defended position, at Kennesaw Mountain. Eb.hoop 22:14, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I could not agree more Eb. --JohnFlaherty 22:35, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Film and TV

I have removed the section on "Film and TV" recently added by Tragen. This article is already very long, and I felt that most of the information there wasn't notable.

I decided to remove the section only after I'd spent some time editing it to correct some typos, clarify the language, and remove the non-notable reference while adding one that (in my opinion) would be among the most notable. I'm putting what I ended up with here, in case other users feel that the section should be added back:

Some notable depictions of or references to William Tecumseh Sherman that have appeared in film and television are:
  • In the 1962 film How the West Was Won, Sherman is played by John Wayne
  • In the 1986 film Sherman's_March, Ross McElwee sets out to make a documentary about the lingering effects of Sherman's march of destruction through the South during the Civil War, but is continually sidetracked by women who come and go in his life, his recurring dreams of nuclear holocaust, and his obsession with Burt Reynolds.
  • In the 1990 documentary The Civil War by Ken Burns, the voice of Sherman is provided by playwright Arthur Miller
  • In the 1997 film The Postman by Kevin Costner, based on the post-apocalyptic novel of the same name by David Brin, the main villain, General Bethlehem, bears many resemblances to Sherman. Costner's adaptation of Brin's novel was widely panned by critics.
  • In the episode "The War of the Simpsons" (Season 2, Episode 33, May 2, 1991) of the animated television series The Simpsons, Homer catches "General Sherman," a legendary giant catfish living in Catfish Lake, only to ultimately let him go in order to save his marriage.

-- Eb.hoop 21:55, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I support your decision. If you are successful in this, I invite you to visit Ambrose Burnside and delete the dialogue from the Simpsons TV program. Or Jubal A. Early and its gratuitous discussion of the Firefly TV series. Or J.E.B. Stuart ... Sigh. Hal Jespersen 22:30, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Ditto - and don't hesitate to call on me for support. Rklawton 23:06, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
I also support Eb.'s removal due to his concern on the additional article length. I also appreciate his edits to the section and putting them here for discussion. If there is room to put it back in, I think it is valuable to have cross-referencing information in any and all wikipedia articles because it enables greater "surfing" ability of people to run across (and read) material they may not have read otherwise. So I would like to see it put back in for that reason, but understand the nature of it's removal due to concern on article length. Tragen 05:09, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
This sort of trivia (and, often, much worse) in articles bothers me. I can, if I try, see some value in it, though. My preference would be for a related "contemporary cultural references to ..." or "... in contemporary culture" article to hold this sort of information. Breaking info out into related subarticles is the way to deal with overlong articles anyway. --Kbh3rdtalk 05:14, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
I definately think we should put it back. It is very interesting stuff. It is one of the first things IO look for when reading a Wikipedia entry on a historical fiqure.--JohnFlaherty 07:33, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm of two minds about this. On the one hand, I sympathize with Hal's sense that it detracts from the encyclopedic tone, and that it makes the articles longer and less coherent, distracting the reader from more relevant information. It's also difficult to decide where to draw the line in terms of notability, and if one doesn't draw a line this sort of thing can grow indefinitely and lose all interest. On the other hand, I've often enjoyed trivia of this kind, and it's part of what makes Wikipedia distinct from other references. In the case of this particular article, though, I think the article is too long to accomodate it. I encourage others, if they wish, to create a new article entitled "References to W.T. Sherman in popular culture" (or something along those lines), put the information there, and link to that from this article under a "See also." -- Eb.hoop 12:16, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sherman was not Catholic

I see that Vaquero100 has added a category of "Catholic convert." This issue should be addressed: Sherman was baptized as Catholic when he was nine years old, upon the insistence of his devout Irish-American foster mother. That was when he acquired the first-name "William," as discussed in the article. He later married his foster sister Ellen Ewing, who was as devout as her mother, and their children were raised as Catholic. But biographers agree that Sherman was not religious by temperament, that his views on the subject were agnostic, and that he never regularly attended a Catholic church. After his son Tom became a Jesuit priest, Sherman in fact became increasingly bitter towards the Catholic Church, because he felt that it had robbed him of the support of his son, and his son of a bright future. He refused to attend Tom's ordination and wrote a will disinheriting him, but later tore that up and died intestate. After he had become unconscious, a priest administered the sacraments to him on his death bed, and Sherman's family organized a Catholic funeral, but it is far from clear that that was what Sherman would have wanted. All of this is discussed, for example, in Hirshson's biography, listed under References and searchable on Amazon. Therefore I intend to revert this category later, unless others obect. -- Eb.hoop 09:23, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Since no one has responded I'll go ahead and remove the category. -- Eb.hoop 12:17, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Death and posterity

  • I readded the year of death, as it makes reading the article easier. The previous year listed was 1884, so 1891 is quite a jump. I did not, however, wikilink the year, as that is done previously and in the infobox, as stated in the history log comments. Comment back if there is a better way. -- MrDolomite 00:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Actually, un-Wikilinking isn't the right choice. Although a number of articles violate the principle (including this one sometimes), the date in Wikiland should be fully linked because it is used by the date-preference software to format it according to user desires. So February 19, 1891, can show up as February 19, 1891 (for me), 19 February 1891, 1891-02-19, etc. See WP:DATE. But I see your point about the funeral date without a year. Hal Jespersen 00:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the feedback, easy to forget about preference settings like that. "What, you mean everyone's computer isn't the same as mine?!?" :-) MrDolomite 02:38, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
One of the challenges of Wikipedia is that it is a technology and procedural whirlwind and things change all the time. It's hard to keep up. I often find things simply by accident. Hal Jespersen 04:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Colbert Report vandalism

Steven Colbert remarked tonight that WTS was a pussy, thus tonight's vandalism of this page. swain 03:40, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Ahh, that esplains things, Lucy. As much fun as watching the rvv scroll past, wouldn't a temporary protect (like until tomorrow's show when another target is picked) be the way to go? 2c. — MrDolomite | Talk 03:56, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Businessman

Is it really necessary to describe Sherman as a 'businessman' in the first paragraph? He is not usually associated as a businessman and I think that reference may have distorted his image a bit - Sherman is renowned as a soldier and general, pure and simple, and not for being a successful or failed businessman. --John Seward 15:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

That word removed. --John Seward 04:11, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't want to get into a fight over such a trivial point, but I like the lead sentence better with the "businessman" in it. How can it give a distorted picture of Sherman if it's the literal truth? He spent much more time and effort in business than in education or writing, for example, but you are not proposing to remove "educator" and "author." That he is renowned only as an army general should be abundantly clear from the rest of the lead and from everything else in the article. -- Eb.hoop 21:24, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree it should be mentioned. He was a bank president, after all. Hal Jespersen 22:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
What annoys me with that word in the first paragraph was the implied portrayal of Sherman as an influential businessman as part of his career, when in fact his business career was basically a failure and was before his much more successful military career. My opinion is that a person should only be so described at the first paragraph in such manner as fittingly describing his influence and legacy, ie why is he notable. There is no doubt that Sherman would not become a notable person in history if only for his business career, so that word is inappropriate to me. The length of his business career is really unimportant here.
I did not remove the word "educator" because I am not sure which part of his legacy does the word "educator" refer to and so gave the benefit of the doubt. If someone can point out which part of his life can he be fittingly described as an "educator", which turn out to be uninfluential or unimportant, I would have no problem removing that description either. --John Seward 18:53, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
He was superintendent of the school that became Louisiana State University and he derived some key insights about Southerners in that job. One of the attributes of the lead paragraphs of an article is that they should provide a capsule description of the entire article, so omitting Sherman's antebellum careers is inappropriate. I would not have an objection to seeing those careers mentioned in a secondary paragraph, rather than the first, but I do not think they should be deleted entirely. Hal Jespersen 20:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Some of the above information (school superintendent, bank president) isn't present in the article and perhaps that's part of the reason why I am uncomfortable with the words in the lead. Perhaps the article should be expanded to include these important facts to present that Sherman was a truly notable businessman and educator as well. --John Seward 16:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Huh? Both of these are covered in the sections Marriage and business career and University superintendent. Hal Jespersen 16:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] cleanup needed

The article has small problems that need fixing. Sherman did not engage in scorched earth--that is a DEFENSIVE policy as in Russia 1812. He attacked the civilian infrastructure, Useless links like "general" are unnecessary in a serious article. Rjensen 22:33, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I sounded reactive and defensive. If you're going to make severe changes on this featured space, I'd appreciate it if you'd offer others a chance to discuss. Thanks for holding fire; if you must make large changes, please consider making them section by section so we only need to deal with issues, not the whole block. You always add something important, and I don't want to throw out any babies with bathwater here. Again, thanks for taking this to talk. BusterD 22:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't think delinking useless information is a "serious" change. How many readers need a link to the term "general." The business about his baptism is low grade trivia. Rjensen 22:56, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
If that's all you changed, we wouldn't be discussing this now. You delinked a dozen terms, deleted a cited section about a congressional bill of promotion, deleted a reference to how he was viewed in the south (because of his father), and even changed the wording on baptism all in the same edit. This was a change that begged for immediate reversion. BusterD 23:59, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
The article on Scorched earth specifically states that it can be carried out either by a retreating or an advancing army. It seems quite clear to me that Sherman's tactics in Georgia and the Carolinas amounted to scorched earth. As for Rjensen's edits, they seem to me relatively minor, but I see no need for them and will revert them shortly. I find the origin of the name "William" interesting enough to deserve a sentence. The linking seems consistent with the usage in other articles. -- Eb.hoop 23:17, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
the article on scorched earth clearly says it's a device to deny supplies to an enemy army. That was not Sherman's goal and it trivializes his role in trying to destabilize the civilian self confidence of the CSA. Editors should delete trivia--we have 1000+ pages of good biography to condence into a few pages and should not waste space (like the religious afficiation of the priest in the baptism story). Rjensen 23:33, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Rjensen Unless you can cite an expert opinion that says Sherman was not engaging in scorched earth tactics, you are engaging in original research when you say that was not his goal. You must cite expert opinions from established historians and preferably military historians. Further, you cannot simply delete information without discussing it here. Stop doing so, or you could face discipinary action. This is an article under the Military Group, I suggest two things: a peer review, and that all parties agree to stop the edit war (including deletions and opinions without citations) until the peer review is complete. old windy bear 23:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I think a peer review would be a good idea. The article is cluttered with trivia (the priest at his Baptism gets more attention than Robert Lee or General Hood) and with misleading historiography (the scorched earth business), as well as useless speculation about things that never happened. (see fn 33 for an example of this.) Rjensen 00:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Peer reviews are usually applied to pagespace which hasn't achieved this level of community approval. When an article achieves featured status, it's as finished as it's likely to need to be. Certainly any FA might be improved, but I wish we were spending this much effort moving a deserving B-quality article up to GA to FA status. If you can find two other users that agree with you, then I'll not be hostile to a peer review, but with no consensus, peer review is unwarranted and might violate guidelines. BusterD 01:16, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
I think we have a problem in getting rid of junk. -- the priest strory, the false promotion story, that sort of thing. Rjensen 01:39, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
When you say "we," I can't help but think that you're using it in the Imperial sense, because I don't see crowds assembling to support your position. I see you using the plural pronoun as if someone has agreed with you. In this case, I think "we" have one user who would like to make stated changes, and a small group of users who disagree. Rough consensus is the preferred way to work this stuff out. BusterD 01:55, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't really understand why Rjensen is so opposed to the "priest story." It occupies all of one sentence and its truth is not in question. If it's indeed the case that no bill was ever introduced in Congress to create a second lieutenant general, and that rumors were all that ever existed in that respect, then please, by all means, correct this. If so, please provide the appropriate reference. --Eb.hoop 02:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
The baptism/priest/William/Saint's day story represents junk history--people want military history here and instead get more about the priest than, say, general Hood, Sherman's opponent. I already provided the Porter reference about the nonexistent bill [1] --the story was garbled and efforts to correct it get repulsed. Rjensen 02:38, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Rjensen Fortunately, or unfortunately, we operate by consensus. If you are outvoted, you may appeal to the military project coordinators, of which I am one, and we will have a peer review or ask the overall coordinator to look at this. But you cannot unilaterally change and delete without discussion and against consensus. It won't be permitted, and I hope you can work with us without it becoming unpleasant. old windy bear 02:45, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

---

Sherman engaged in "scorched earth" policy, to say the least. It is a historical fact. I support old windy bear on that issue. --Fix Bayonets! 20:40, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Misleading rumor about Sherman's promotion

Liddell Hart is probably the source for the misleading story about Sherman's promotion. He closely paraphrased Porter "Campaigning with Grant" (page 374)[2] then garbled it. Porter clarly says there was no bill in Congress, only a camp rumor, and there is no one who said it was to replace Grant. It's the kind of political history mistake made by military experts (Liddlell Hart is a British officer) who don't do political research. It's been exploded by historians for decades as McFeeley shows. So it needs to be removed. See The Sherman Letters: Correspondence between General and Senator Sherman from 1837 to 1891 vol 2 p 245.

[edit] Nicknames and primary sources

Those few are biased because they are all affectionate Federal nicknames as opposed to what Confederates or their descendants of the past and today would call Sherman. I recall one is "Willie the Torch". Anyone reading a multitude of articles on Wikipedia on the Union soldier may conclude the entire encyclopedia is biased and perhaps on every topic. Brother Officer 16:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

You are invited to edit the article and add nicknames that have citations from secondary sources (not personal recollections) to document them. In general, nicknames in ACW bio articles refer to those names used by their friends, but there are exceptions for notorious guys, such as Beast Butler. Hal Jespersen 17:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
I concur wholeheartedly with Hal Jespersen - while in general nicknames are not appropriate for ACW bio articles, in this case, (because the subject was, and remains, a controversial figure), if you find primary or even credible secondary sources which document such nicknames as "Willie the Torch" you would be welcome to edit the article and add the information. Personal recollection though is original research. I am sorry you feel that wikipedia is biased, but you have to list facts and source them before we can do anything about any of the alleged biases. old windy bear 21:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Although I always enjoy being concurred with wholeheartedly, I need to take exception to your advice "... if you find primary or even credible secondary sources ..." because it is the opposite of Wikipedia policy. If you find, say, a letter from a Georgian that says "'Willie the Torch' burned my farm," that is a primary source and it says little about the prominence or longevity of the name. It is inferior to a secondary source in which a noted historian has examined many primary sources and written something such as, "Sherman's actions in the March to the Sea earned him the nickname 'Willie the Torch' throughout the South." Hal Jespersen 22:04, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Hal Jespersen Greetings my friend! Sometimes I forget my arenas - I work in one profession while toiling here in another. In this case, I would not consider a letter from a farmer saying "Willie the Torch" to be a primary source. I would consider a primary source to be a newspaper from the era, or an official document from the era - not a letter from someone who lacked any ability to authenticate what they were referring to. On the other hand, if we found an Atlanta paper that said in 1865 that General "Willie the Torch" Sherman was revisiting the town he burned, that would be a primary source, and credible. Do you see the difference? I believe in historical context that a primary source is a historian or official keeping records or documents OF THE AGE IN QUESTION, during the age in question, or some verifiable record such as a newspaper, during the period in question. Secondary sources are historians who are referring to such records or documents that remain. I don't think in this context it violates Wikipedia policy. I just want someone to find us a newspaper clipping from the era, or a document which is official. That, to me, is a primary source historically, one from the era. Or find us a good, credible secondary source. I don't consider a letter of the type you are referring to as a primary source however. Historically, I consider a primary source to be official records or documents from the age or era in question. Secondary sources are historians studying that age via what primary records remain. (and where the fun begins, is when there are no primary records remaining, and the historian has to base his or her conclusions on other evidence) old windy bear 23:54, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
I do not claim to be an academic or have any prior experience with these terms prior to my Wikipedia adventures, but the definition of primary source says "In political history, the most important primary sources are likely to be documents such as official reports, speeches, letters and diaries by participants, and eyewitness accounts (as by a journalist who was there)." (Since they do not mention military history, I am assuming that political history is close enough for this discussion.) So by this definition, the imaginary letter from the farmer would in fact be a primary source, as would a period newspaper article or the Personal Memoirs of U. S. Grant. Your definition is perhaps useful in other domains, but it is a subset of the Wikipedia definition.
I actually think that the Wikipedia policy that favors secondary sources is a good one. There is a cacophony of data in all of the thousands of primary sources that thousands of Wikipedia editors could stumble across and utilize selectively to make whatever point they chose. (We are having a lot of trouble with that practice over in Naming the American Civil War.) By finding a single instance of a nickname in a newspaper article, we cannot judge whether that nickname was used widely or notably, and thus worthy of inclusion in our article. By emphasizing that we are reporting the opinions of professional historians, we remove a lot of noise from the system and also get around the fact that none of our articles are signed, and thus provide no means for the reader to determine the credibility of the article, as they can for, say, the Encyclopedia Britannica. Hal Jespersen 00:26, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Hal Jespersen Greetings again! I do have some experience as an academic - though it was a long time ago! - and your definition of primary sources is a good one. (as to primary material being official reports, speeches, letters and diaries by participants, and eyewitness accounts (as by a journalist or military commander who was there) Historians certainly favor such primary sources as the best material. I have no problem with wikipedia's policies, because we would be using a secondary source, a historian's writings or interpretations of the primary source matter. This is not really a disagreement, because what I meant was good historical primary information, found in a history of the time - i. e. in a secondary source. Historians classicly look for the best primary material from the era, primary material, and use it in secondary sources. Wikipedia's ban comes from the fact that we would have original research in verifying the historical accuracy of a primary document not already verified by a historian. OR, we would have, as in the case you are citing, people interpreting primary sources on their own, which violates wikipedia's bann on original research. I phrased this poorly. For that I apologize. Wikipedia very wisely decided to let the experts decide what was, and was not, meant by primary material. That was what I was trying to say, and did so very poorly. Sigh...I am glad you cleared it up. I do agree that having you or I, or anyone, no matter how many degrees they have, interpret what an article meant, is original research. We need a historian to do it - it removes a plethoria of potential problems. Your definition was right, and my wording in this was poor in that I assumed - and assumptions are dangerous - that everyone knew that you have to cite a historian's interpretation if you wish to interpret primary source. About all I know that primary sources are good for without violating policy is say an article citing x number of casualties. Such an article would be usable without violating the wikipedia bann. Where it could cross the line is if you took those numbers, and tried to critique the strategy of the battle. I know that seems like a fine line, but it is a real one. old windy bear 01:31, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
(I adjusted your indentation so that it is easy to keep track of who said what in this conversation.) So I think we are in agreement. But I need to make one more comment. It is interesting that you've selected casualty figures as appropriate data to pull from primary sources (if I understand your comments as you intended). Oddly enough, this is one of the most blatant examples of where American Civil War primary sources let us down. If you look at many of the more prominent battle articles, you will see that there is wide disagreement among authors about the number of casualties. You would think that the Official Records would be the definitive source, but almost invariably more recent authors have used additional primary sources to clarify these numbers. You can see prime examples in Battle of Gettysburg and Battle of Cold Harbor. There are a couple of reasons for this. First, record-keeping by the armies (particularly the Confederates) was not very good and the OR is simply a compilation of their reports and correspondence. Sometimes those reports were edited after the fact, other times they were not. It takes a lot of research to determine which reports are accurate and which ones are not. Second, there is a great deal of interpretation necessary to understand how many men were actually present for battle, versus stragglers and men who were not adequately equipped and men who were doing noncombat related tasks, and what was the disposition of prisoners and wounded, etc. So although the Official Records seem like a tempting place to do much of the research for Wikipedia articles, they are something that I avoid using whenever possible if there is a secondary source available to me. Hal Jespersen 14:39, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/i/l/Talk%7EWilliam_Tecumseh_Sherman_cec1.html"