re: Greatest military commander (any branch of service) in U.S. history?

William Tecumseh Sherman. British military historian B. H. Liddell Hart famously declared that Sherman was "the first modern general"

Although Sherman is most remembered for his "March to the Sea", his true contribution to history occurred before that. Sherman literally changed the course of history of the United States. His capture of Atlanta was virtually the only event that could gotten Abraham Lincoln re-elected President.

If not for that, McClellan would almost certainly have been elected President on a platform of "peace at all cost"...which would have ensured a divided country along the Mason-Dixon Line.

quote:

---

For much of 1864, Lincoln himself believed he had little chance of being re-elected. Confederate forces had triumphed at the Battle of Mansfield, the Battle of the Crater, and the Battle of Cold Harbor. In addition, the war was continuing to take a very high toll in terms of casualties. The prospect of a long and bloody war started to make the idea of "peace at all cost" offered by the Copperheads look more desirable. Because of this, McClellan was thought to be a heavy favorite to win the election.

---

And about that "March to the Sea"...not since the armies of Attila the Hun had a modern army marched through enemy territory completely cut off from it's supply base and triumphed.

quote:

---

Sherman's March to the Sea is the name commonly given to the military Savannah Campaign in the American Civil War, conducted through Georgia from November 15 to December 21, 1864 by Maj. Gen. William Tecumseh Sherman of the Union Army. The campaign began with Sherman's troops leaving the captured city of Atlanta, Georgia, on November 15 and ended with the capture of the port of Savannah on December 21. His forces destroyed military targets as well as industry, infrastructure, and civilian property and disrupted the South's economy and its transportation networks. Sherman's bold move of operating deep within enemy territory and without supply lines is considered to be revolutionary in the annals of war.

---

Stonewall Jackson

Patton

<<<< at least honorable mention for this man

Lt Gen Richard Taylor

Lee
/thread

quote:

---

Also, the answer earlier of U. S. Grant also is overrated. All he did was what Lincoln asked and kept the pressure on the South. All he did was win a battle of attrition.

---

Completely disagree. Most people focus on his engagements vs. Lee in 1864-65 and completely ignore what he did in 1861-1863. Grant's Vicksburg Campaign is a thing of majestic beauty and trumps anything Lee did during the war.

As to Grant's campaign against Lee in 1864, you have to remember that he was advancing on a very narrow front against an entrenched enemy. He really had no other choice but to attack Lee head on. Grant attempted to flank around Lee and get between his army and Richmond, but Lee's army was smaller and faster and thus able to block Grant from outflanking him.

Grant didn't want to play the numbers game against Lee, he was forced to.

Lee is to Sherman as Napoleon is to Hitler

quote:

---

I've never understood the reluctance to compare the two. Lee's army operated in much the same way Sherman's did...by living off the land, destroying enemy assets along the way, and reducing the enemy's will to continue the war.

The two campaigns are more alike than they are different. Sherman just took the concept father.

---

The purpose of Lee's first invasion of the North in 1862 was to try to persuade Maryland to join the Confederacy. They were definitely not burning houses and destroying crops.

quote:

---

Completely disagree. Most people focus on his engagements vs. Lee in 1864-65 and completely ignore what he did in 1861-1863. Grant's Vicksburg Campaign is a thing of majestic beauty and trumps anything Lee did during the war.

---

No I get that and I don't hold it against him. I said he was overrated, not incompetent.

And

quote:

---

As to Grant's campaign against Lee in 1864, you have to remember that he was advancing on a very narrow front against an entrenched enemy. He really had no other choice but to attack Lee head on. Grant attempted to flank around Lee and get between his army and Richmond, but Lee's army was smaller and faster and thus able to block Grant from outflanking him.

Grant didn't want to play the numbers game against Lee, he was forced to.

---

I don't disagree with his tactics. That's what HAD to be done. I was saying that Grant used attrition more than anything in that campaign coupled with tenacity with continually hitting Lee's flanks until he was forced into Petersburg. I wasn't saying that was wrong but ultimately that's what he did and I know he wanted to avoid another drawn out siege like Vicksburg like with the Battle of the Crater but ultimately was forced into that. I also know it bothered him the rest of his life how many men he lost and how he detested his butcher nickname.

Still, I think there are better suggestions than Grant who merely used his resources far more effectively than his predecessors.