Talk:William Tecumseh Sherman/Archive 1

message: 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
::By all accounts he was did no such thing.  He didn't discourage it though.  He "turned a blind eye," so to speak. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.185.12.122 (talk) 03:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Burning of Atlanta 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Genocide? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Proposed edits by [[User:JohnFlaherty|JohnFlaherty]] 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  turning movements  

message: 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%27s_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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  Ditto - and don't hesitate to call on me for support.  Rklawton 23:06, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Film and TV

message: 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)
replies: text: Since no one has responded I'll go ahead and remove the category. -- Eb.hoop 12:17, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sherman was not Catholic

message: * 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Death and posterity

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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  --the story was garbled and efforts to correct it get repulsed.  Rjensen 02:38, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  cleanup needed 

message: This quotation gets tossed around a lot but I'd like to see a solid source for it.  I've added a .  Whoever edits, please do NOT just put the first thing you find on , I think we should know if he really said it or it's just attributed.  Thanks! Avraham 00:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: If elected...

message: I've seen references that says his middle name is D. Which is the right? Thanks. 151.202.74.135 22:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Colonel Joseph Taylor 

message: Why has Sherman been listed throughout Wikipedia as the 30th secretary of war?  As far as I can gather, he was only acting  Secretary of  War, and only for a couple of weeks.  We don't list other acting Secretaries - for instance, there's a gigantic gap between when William H. Crawford became Secretary of the Treasury and when John C. Calhoun took office as his successor as Secretary of War, and a similar, but somewhat shorter gap, between Cass's resignation and Poinsett's taking office.  The U.S. Army's site on Secretaries of War and Secretaries of the  Army does not list Sherman, but goes directly from Rawlins to Belknap.  So where did this come from? john k 05:56, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Secretary of War? 

message: I can't figure out why, but I can't make this page appear in a readable format in either Firefox or Explorer.  Large sections of text appear in boxes that stretch way, way off to the right.  I've never had this happen with any other Wikipedia articles, and it's making it really difficult for me find any useful information on General Sherman.  Could somebody tell me what's going on?Btwied 18:40, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Somebody edited in leading spaces or tabs on a number of paragraphs. (This is very difficult to detect in the diff list between two versions, because it seems to disguise the exact nature of whitespace changes.) It should be fixed now. Hal Jespersen 20:47, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Readability 

message: After reading this article, and watching the History Channel program on "Sherman's March", I find almost no acknowledgement that what Sherman did on this march from Atlanta, through to Savannah, then through the Carolinas, was engage in a very successful campaign of Psychological Warfare.
This is the point that struck home with me after watching and reading; had General Sherman been like any other Union General at the time, the U.S. Civil War might have been prolonged, due to greater confidence among the Confederates. However, Sherman was NOT like the others, engaged in his march through the Confederacy, and possibly did more to demoralize the south than all other Union Generals combined. Desertion rates among the Confederacy reportedly reached their highest during the latter days of Sherman's march, when Confederate soldiers were confronted with having to choose between war in the Confederate Army, or protection and safety of home and hearth. Edit Centric 18:23, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A new type of warfare? 

message: So, someone decided it would be cute to replace the picture of Sherman with one of the devil. I've been combing the Commons looking for the appropriate picture, but I can't seem to find it. Can someone direct me? Thanks.
::reverted vandalism.  now fixed.  Yaf 06:42, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo vandalism 

message: This is a slightly poorly-written introduction.  It doesn't even say which side the general was on during the Civil War, but goes on to introduce his "criticized policies" this early in the article?  This is another example of why more and more people are avoiding Wikipedia for quick research. Complaint mode off.-DMCer 01:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If this comment is serious, then allow me to point out that the second sentence and the Infobox state clearly that he served in the United States Army.  Even if the reader were completely unfamiliar with the American Civil War, the second paragraph would suffice to establish that that was the side that fought against the Confederate States Army. - Eb.hoop 07:09, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm sorry but DMCer is right.  You need to say which side he was on.  It's no good saying that he was in the US Army - that means nothing to a non-American in this context.  It's correct that the second para states that he fought against the Confederates but information should not be provided by a process of elimination. Dr Spam (MD) 12:06, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 206.180.38.20, please be civil.  Your point about the French Army is moot because WWI was not an internal/civil war in France.  I think you will understand what Dr Spam and DMCer are trying to say.  To a person not familiar with this era of US History, all states are part of the United States.  Such a person might not yet understand the difference between the US Army and the CS Army.  Perhaps the phrase "Union Army" might make this more clear. Arx Fortis 14:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Why not just replace united states army with union army, thus removing all confusion and removing any duplicated sentences. SGGH speak! 17:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Well I've replaced it with Union army for now, as per above and because it links to a more specific article and more relevant article to the context than US Army. Any quibbles it can always be changed, but hopefully that solves that :) SGGH speak! 21:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Cool! And what is more if you look at the link to the Union Army it becomes immediately clear that the Union Army and the US Army cannot be equated since one was a sub-set of the other.  The link to the US Army was not helpful.Dr Spam (MD) 11:48, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WHICH SIDE? 

message: The paragraph below--
During his time in Louisville, Sherman became increasingly pessimistic about the outlook of the war and repeatedly made estimates of the strength of the rebel forces that proved exaggerated, causing the local press to describe him as "crazy." In the fall of 1861, Sherman experienced what would probably be described today as a nervous breakdown. He was put on leave and returned to Ohio to recuperate, being replaced in his command by Don Carlos Buell.
--is inaccurate and should be re-written and double checked for accuracy. 
*Sherman became increasingly pessimistic about the outlook of the war.
::**Not true. What he did note was that he was badly outnumbered, and all of the Union recruits and arms 1861 were going to Virginia and Missouri. He was also facing Generals who were natives of Kentucky, were popular with the locals and knew the topography.
*Sherman repeatedly made estimate of the strength of the rebel forces that proved exaggerated
::**That sentence is so off-base, I don't know what do say about it. Its not cited, nor is it supported by anything in the Official Records. Sherman did not exaggerate the strength of the rebel forces. He actually presented the lower estimates, and even his most liberal estimate were still too low. What he DID state was that he believed a very large majority of the people of Kentucky were thoroughly devoted to the Union, and loyal to the Government, and that the Unionists embraced almost all the older and more substantial men in the State; but, unfortunately, there was no organization nor arms among the Union men; that the rebel minority, thoroughly vindictive in its sentiments, was organized and armed (this having been done in advance by their leaders), and, beyond the reach of the Federal forces, overawed and prevented the Union men from organizing; that, in his opinion, if Federal protection were extended throughout the State to the Union men, a large force could be raised for the service of the Government. This is corroborated by Generals Wood, G.H. Thomas, Rousseau, and Negley--four of his five subordinates, along with two neutral witnesses to the conversation between Sherman and Cameron/L. Thomas.
*The local press described Sherman as crazy for requesting 200,000 troops for "the state's defense"
::**Sherman had actually requested 60,000 troops for the state's defense(he ended up getting 48,000 by 1862), and had mentioned to Secretary of War Cameron and Attorney General Lorenzo Thomas that 200,000 troops would be needed to subdue the deep south before the war's end (which turned out to be a low estimate)
*Sherman was put on leave after a nervous breakdown
::**Totally false. Sherman reported directly to Halleck in Missouri. He had already known this was going to be his assignment before the "Crazy" story was printed in the papers. Don Carlos Buell did not replace Sherman. He was ALREADY in charge of Sherman's Dept. of the Cumberland, who had only taken temporary command after the resignation of Brig. Gen. Robert Anderson. Buell was in California and en route. 
*Sherman had a history of mental illness, so the papers were correct
::**The paragraph doesn't explicity state that—and it has been documented that Sherman did suffer from depression—however it has been proven that the "Crazy" story was a fabrication. Hugh Ewing, and his wife, Ellen Ewing-Sherman, personally lobbied the President to have Sherman reinstated to field command, and Lincoln praised Sherman's conduct and abilities publicly to a large number of officers in stark contrast of stories in the paper. Lorenzo Thomas was banished to the trans-mississippi theater. "Melancholy" and "insanity" are two very</I> different things. I can believe that a depressed General became the #2 commander in the United States, but not a crazy one!
*Sherman went from Lousville, to Ohio, to Missouri
::**No. Sherman went from commanding the Department of the Cumberland (when articles were printed he was crazy for requesting troops), to commanding the post at Sidalia, Missouri under Halleck (when more articles were printed, that he was reassigned for being crazy), to Ohio, to commanding Cairo, and division command under Grant. Right now the article insinuates he was sent home from Kentucky because he was crazy, when in fact he held another command first, and THEN went on leave for "health", which by some accounts (including his own) was a 20-day leave to escort his wife (who was concerned about his mental health after being lampooned in the press, not about the verity of the articles themselves) back home to Ohio.
Anyway, the sentences need to be changed ASAP. I am striking them for now and inserting sourced material that I believe more accurately describes Sherman in Kentucky in 1861. If I am wrong, please feel free to change it and contact me on my talk page. MrPrada 18:52, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have just re-read the relevant pages in John F. Marszalek's biography (searchable on Amazon here: ).  This is a modern mainstream book by a professional historian, and is generally sympathetic to Sherman.  The author states that Sherman did claim his troops were outnumbered by as much as 5 to 1 in Kentucky, when in fact they were not outnumbered at all.  Col. Thomas M. Key was dispatched to investigate and concluded that Sherman was on the verge of a breakdown and that his constant complaints to Washington about shortages were unjustified.  Assistant Sec. of War Thomas W. Scott declared that Sherman was "gone in the head."  Sherman himself admited later to his wife that he contemplated suicide at the time.  Upon leaving Kentucky he declared that the war was irretrievably lost.  (See in particular pages 161-3 in Marszalek's book).  Also, Sherman's family did have a history of mental problems, as his wife knew well.  (See, e.g., the article on his son).  Some edits might be in order, but I've reverted your version because it does not reflect the common view of modern historians and because it seems to uncritically accept Sherman's account in his Memoirs, which cannot be expected to be completely reliable in this matter.  In any case, please discuss this here in the talk page first before making such major edits to the article.  - Eb.hoop 23:13, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Breakdown and Shiloh 

message: One (1) link was detect as requiring assistance, William T. Sherman’s First Campaign of Destruction returns a HTTP 404 status message.  —Dispenser 19:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead external links found 

message: And on this note, I kid not, I'll see if I can find anything official (although I am in doubt). But in common reference throughout the southern United States any mention of General Sherman is often more countered with the title he seems to have received here in the south. From Chattanooga, TN to Charleston South Carolina I have always heard his official title as "That Bastard Sherman". Although I can't say for sure the relevance in that matter, it is pretty widespread down here. I'll see if I can find some semi official linkage, as it is probably nothing more than some obscure gone with the wind reference, but anyone who knows their history down here in the south will still refer to him by that name
fullphaser 05:21, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  He is known by another name. 

message: I would like to request that someone with access to the original text of the "War is Hell" speech upload it to wikisource. Thanks, User:Krator (t c) 13:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  War is Hell 

message: I am adding a direct reference to his birth name - the fact that "William" was added by his foster parents is buried partway down the article, and is confusing when it does come.  As is the style with actors and others who change their names, I am adding it to the opening sentence.  --Chancemichaels 14:39, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: After having it removed, I am putting it back.  Surely his birth name is significant, and it is consistent with the treatment of other entries.  --Chancemichaels 14:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Birth Name 

message: Someone in the know should add to his post-war service regarding Native American policies.
was this the chap who said "the more we kill this year the less we have to kill next year"?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.199.31.149 (talk) 11:03, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Native Americans 

message: Is there a reason that this featured picture isn't being used in the infobox?  Besides being a FP, I feel like this gives a better feel for what he actually looked like.  Any objections to my changing it? -Sarfa 16:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is actually a more famous photo. No objection from me. Hal Jespersen 17:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Made the change.  Because the FP is from further away, though, I also slightly increased the thumb size in the infobox to compensate.-Sarfa 17:53, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox Photo 

message: Sherman accepted a commission as a colonel May 14, 1861. Then he fought in First Battle of Bull Run on July 21, 1861. President Lincoln, however, promoted him to brigadier general of volunteers effective May 17, 1861. How does this work? Was he a general or a colonel in the First Battle of Bull Run? MoiAussie (talk) 19:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: He was a colonel during the battle. The dates can get confusing because they were routinely selected to affect seniority of officers. Sherman was nominated to be a brigadier general on August 2, confirmed on August 5, and appointed on August 7, but his date of rank (seniority) was set to be May 17. Hal Jespersen (talk) 21:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Confused ranks

message: Does anyone have any specific information about this image of "a young William T. Sherman in military uniform"?  I assume it is actually an engraving based on a photo.  It would be interesting to know when/where the photo was taken.  This portrait apparently served as the basis for some war-time engravings of Sherman, but it seems unlikely to me that this is what Sherman looked like in 1861.  All of his war-time photos show a conventional beard.  Thanks, Hartfelt (talk) 20:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Question re young Sherman portrait

message: I dispute the statement that "the mature Sherman did not adhere to any organized religion."  As the quoted statement says, Sherman was baptized and married Catholic.  He regularly attended mass at least until 1861.  In addition, he was given the last rites.  These cannot be received by a non-Catholic and cannot be performed on someone who doesn't want them.  Moreover, his last wish was to be buried in a Catholic cemetary.  Finally, although he expressed disapproval that his son Thomas became a priest, his harshest threat was that he might leave the Catholic Church.  Although he may not have been the most devout Catholic, he certainly was an adherant of the Roman Catholic Church for at least a portion of his "mature" life.  Wilkyisdashiznit (talk) 21:36, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Not Roman Catholic?

message: Eb.hoop:  Good catch regarding the "final solution" passage.  Obviously, the phrase "final solution" is now a historically loaded one.  However, it does appear that, in 1872, Sherman wrote to Sheridan that the railroads "will help to bring the Indian problem to a final solution."  Touched by Fire, 494 n.16.  One would have to see the entire letter to know the context.  Hartfelt (talk) 18:46, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Final Solution" 

message: I added a sentence about Sherman's activity in California.  That section seemed rather barren of detail.  But I don't have a firm source for it, because----
Wikipedia article on Samuel Brannan  section Legacy
In partnership with John Sutter Jr. and with William Tecumseh Sherman and Edward Ord as surveyors, Brannan laid out the unofficial subdivisions that became the city of Sacramento.  end quote
The Brannan article doesn't provide a reference, unless footnote 2 is meant to extend this far.
Pacific messenger (talk) 03:34, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "In California" 

message: I applaud those who keep an eye on the Sherman article and revert all the vandalism.
However, why don't we try to reduce the vandalism by "locking" the article?  I notice that the Grant article and the Lincoln article are both locked.
Locking the site would not prevent legitimate edits but would cut down on the vandalism.
Hartfelt (talk) 23:23, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why don't we "lock" the Sherman article? 

message: The Sherman article now states (or implies) that Sherman's so-called "breakdown" occurred after he left the Department of the Cumberland and was serving under Halleck in the Department of the Mississippi.  Is that the right way to look at it -- or was the real break of nerves in Kentucky when he demanded to be relieved of duty?  Hartfelt (talk) 14:21, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  When did breakdown occur?