Sherman Called It the Way He Saw It

Sherman Called It the Way He Saw It John F. Marszalek Since the development of the Lost Cause view of the Civil War, William T. Sherman has been the major villain ofthat conflict. In recent times, however , scholarly books and popular accounts are once more placing the man in a new light. A recent article on the front page of a national newspaper is entided "Pariah in the South, William T. Sherman Is Getting a Makeover"; it discusses these more objective views of Sherman and their mixed reception in the South. ' Just as the revisionists are busily revising, along comes noted historian Albert Castel to offer his dissent to this more favorable view of Sherman. In his 1992 award-winning account of Sherman's Atlanta campaign, Decision in the West, and now in his article, Castel does not advocate a Lost Cause view of Sherman, but he does turn a jaundiced eye on Old Cump. In his book he criticizes Sherman for the failures of his Atlanta campaign, though concluding that he still is one of the military giants of the war. In his much more critical article on the Sherman memoirs, Castel calls Sherman a "prevaricator" and accuses him of "exaggerations and dubious assertions, omissions and distortions of facts" and of "deliberate and sometimes malicious prevarications, fabrications, and falsifications" in the memoirs. I do not agree with everything in Decision in the West, but I believe it is, by far, the best account of the military aspects of the Atlanta campaign.2 1 Recent books include the first complete modem biography, John F. Marszalek, Sherman: A Soldier's Passionfor Order (New York: The Free Press, 1993). See also Charles Royster, The Destructive War: William Tecumseh Sherman, Stonewall Jackson, and the Americans (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1991); Joseph H. Ewing, Sherman at War (Dayton, Ohio: Morningside, 1992); Charles Edmund Vetter, Sherman; Merchant of Terror, Advocate of Peace (Gretna, La.: Pelican, 1992); Mark Coburn, Terrible Innocence: General Sherman at War (New York: Hippocrene , 1993); Daniel Pearl, "Pariah in the South, William T. Sherman Is Getting a Makeover ," Wall Street Journal, June 9, 1993, p. 1 . 2 Journal ofAmerican History, forthcoming issue. Civil War History, Vol. XL, No. 1, C 1994 by The Kent State University Press HE CALLED IT THE WAY HE SAW IT73 Besides, it does not disagree with my own assessment of Sherman's personality and activities. The article under consideration here, however, is another matter. No Civil War historian in his right mind would dare question Albert Castel on the military details of the Civil War. If it is an exaggeration to say that he has the Official Records memorized, as it sometimes seems, it is true that he knows the sources as well as anyone I know. Historians well remember the famous article he wrote disputing the late Thomas Connelly's critical assessment of Robert E. Lee. At that time, Castel went through Connelly's article footnote by footnote, assertion by assertion, and wrote a devastating critique . Suffice it to say, Albert Castel knows the Civil War.3 Castel is also a historian of integrity, insight, and literary talent. His long string of publications are all grounded in the sources, clearly written, and easy to understand. Professionals and buffs have long benefited from his dedicated work. I have so much confidence in the precision of his research that I made no effort to go back and check his footnotes in this article. I'm sure they are accurate. I believe, however, that as a result of his many years of researching Decision in the West and of discovering inaccuracies and debatable comments in the Sherman memoirs, he came to the task of this article all too ready to impute to Sherman conscious motives and aims that I am convinced Sherman never thought about or ever had. Castel begins his article with a list of Sherman's inaccurate dating. He points out that Sherman said it was morning, when it was actually afternoon, the nineteenth not the eighteenth, a brigadier general not a colonel, and so forth. He admits that all this is "minor," but the fact that he lists so many instances makes the reader believe...