New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1891-08-12

opurpaI SHERMAN And HIS CRITICS
M John G. Ropes's article on General oher-
,uo, IN "Tbe August Atlantic" gives the South
orn nress a fine opportunity 10 renew Its ar
..;onment of that great soldiers fame. Mr..
Ropes is one of the best OF the Civil war CRU
-. who lacked the advantage of personal ser
vice But his censure of Federal and Conleu-
crate leaders for not always doing what they
tboupht unwise is sometimes as unwarranted
as his blame of Wellington for posting third
of his army at Client, instead OF Brussels
AGAINST the possibility of retreat from Water
loo 10 the sea. -,
in the sherman article Mr. Ropes unfolds
oninions that lead "The Charleston News and
Courier,' to the conclusion that the Generafs
career was commonplace throughout his only
conspicucus success having been really second
class affair. In its own words, his record shows
not \ single brilliant achievement, save his
unopposed march from Atlanta to Savannah and
from savannah to Averysboro', and that feat
was performed at his ease while Grant ana
Thomas were fighting Lee and Hood and deal
ing the deathblows to the exhausted Coined
aracyn It's warrant for this cool assertion IS
MIR. Ropes's allegation of Shennan's lack oil
distinction previous to Shiloh or Chattanooga al
Missionary Ridge, or in the Atlanta campaign
while Johnston commanded and his contention
that the march to the sea was merely lame
sequel of Sherman's failure to break up inc
Confederate Army of the West, which after all
involved "no risk to the 10000 picked vet
Grams" who performed it.
These detractions effectually qualify the
praise of Sherman contained elsewhere in Mr.
Ropess estimate, and are indeed hard to recon
Gle with it. At this distance the War and Its
principal actors can happily be discussed ex-
cent in Charleston, as impartially as Hannibal
inaction after Cannae. Grant himself conceded
that Sherman did all that was possible at VickS-
burg. in December, 1852, and declared that the
demonstration at Haines's Bluff, his subsequent
rand marches, his management at Jackson, the
march from Jackson to Bridgeport and the
massage of the Black River attested his great
merit as soldier. The latter part Of the march
to Chattanooga and the march across Missis-
sippi would alone justify Mr.. Ropes's admission
of Sherman's mastery OF logisticS. But the plan
Of operations against Johnston and Atlanta was
his own, and the whole course of their excel
tion I'D to the fall Of Atlanta was rendered only
the more brilliant bJ his opponents superauYe
astuteness and address. The Confederate force
was only shattered, not entirely crushed; but
if the incidental conquest of territory and
the dislodgement OF a formidable fee are not
notable successes, then Sherman's superiors and
the entire North were at fault in haiing the
campaign as a mastery exemplification Of sound
military principles. The investment OF Sayan-
nah. which marked the elimination OF these
victories, foretod to the popular mind In the
North the downfall OF the Southern cause, and
this was confirmed by the wonderful campaign
in the Carolinas, when previous advantages
were followed up to the ruin of the scattered
Confederates.
In Napiers words, military success consists
less in battle than in preparation for BATTLE
From this point of view alone Sherman appears
supremely brilliant among the great command
ers of the War. To seek TO belittle his achieve
ments before Atlanta is to blink the evidence
of their effect on the final result, and to decry
the operations below Atlanta and in the Caro-
inas, at "a time when Grant was still baflied
Inv Lee. is little less than absurd. The con-
tention that an unbroken series Of successes
over wide field is not proof of commanding
ability would, moreover, imply that Malpaquet
or Austerlitz could have been won by militia
major who had just received his spurs.