Union General William Tecumseh Sherman's Carolina Campaign During The American Civil War

The American Civil War has become a point of controversy and argument when discussing key events in shaping America. The arguments that arise when discussing the war tend to focus on whether the Confederate was constitutionally justified in seceding, or whether the North had the right to prevent the secession. However, when discussing the America Civil War and the idea of separation, it is important to be mindful that separation did not simply end at the state level. Letters written by Jesse Rolston, Jr. and Jedediah Hotchkiss portray two significantly different attitudes toward the war, despite the fact that the writers both fought for the Confederate States and give accounts of the same battle, one of which ended in the Confederate’s favor. When examining the documents, both writers express different viewpoints on life on and off the battlefield. This significant difference represents a division amongst the Confederate army.

"When New Orleans fell in the spring of 1862, the triumvirate Vicksburg, Grand Gulf and Port Hudson was destined to become the last obstacle to the total Federal control of the Mississippi." Abraham Lincoln thought Vicksburg was 'the key,' so Vicksburg was the focal point of Union strategy. Obviously, Vicksburg was one of the most important objectives of the Union army. General Ulysses S. Grant was placed in charge of the Vicksburg campaign. He was an exceptional strategist and arguably one of the best generals this country has ever seen.

Sherman lead Union forces into battle to take control of the city of Atlanta, Georgia. This was part of a plan known as the Atlanta campaign that was constructed by Sherman under Commander in Chief Ulysses S. Grant. According to Facts on File, Inc. “Plans for the capture of Atlanta, the Confederacy’s largest railroad hub… were first formulated in February and March 1864” (2009). This was about four to five months before Sherman had led the union into Atlanta. Sherman’s plan which was revealed in April, was described to destroy railroads in order to cease the transportation of supplies that confederate troops needed, as well as make Joseph E. Johnston’s army of Confederate soldiers retreat back to Atlanta forcing them to surrender. A month after on May 5, 1864 Union soldiers attacked Confederates at Dalton, Georgia and attacked Resaca four days later. On May 12 Johnston led his soldiers to meet the Union army at Resaca where his army would battle Union soldiers from May 13 to May 15. Although Confederates had driven Union soldiers back on the second day of battle, after Johnston received reports telling him of the Unions success in gaining position he decided not to attack on the following morning and instead retreated his soldiers to Calhoun and Adairsville. Following this evacuation, Confederates were supposed to ambush Union soldiers on Cassville road, they were all positioned by May 19 in the morning, but the army retreated and waited for Union soldiers to attack

The most destructive campaign against a civilian population during the Civil War (1861-65). Began in Atlanta on November 15,1864. Union General William T. Sherman abandoned his supply line and marched across Georgia to the Atlantic Ocean to prove the Confederate population that its government not protect the people from invaders. He believed that by marching an army across the state he would demonstrate to the world that the Union had a power the Confederacy could not resist. After Sherman’s forces captured Atlanta on September 2,1864, Sherman spent several weeks making preparations for a change of base to the cost. Sherman’s March to the

During the American Civil War, leadership within the Union’s army was constantly an issue. Within the Union, various generals were found at times to be at odds with the political leaders in Washington. This was especially evident in the relationship between General George McClellan and President Lincoln. This tension was the result of McClellan’s approach to waging war. By examining the differing approaches to waging war of U.S. Grant and George B. McClellan one can gain a better appreciation for the decision making that was necessary by leaders like Lincoln, in selecting military

Although James McPherson presents Lincoln as having numerous qualities that defined him as a brilliant leader, he wastes no time in revealing what he believes to be Lincoln’s greatest strength. In his Introduction, McPherson states regarding Lincoln’s political leadership: “In a civil war whose origins lay in a political conflict over the future of slavery and a political decision by certain states to secede, policy could never be separated from national strategy…. And neither policy nor national strategy could be separated from military strategy” (McPherson, p.6). Lincoln could not approach the war from a purely martial standpoint—instead, he needed to focus on the issues that caused it. For the catalyst of the war was also the tool for its solution; a war started by differing ideologies could only be resolved through the military application of ideology. This non-objective approach to the waging of the war almost resembles the inspired approach McPherson brings to his examination of Lincoln himself.

Civil War historians view the Battle of Chancellorsville as General Robert E. Lee’s “greatest and most remarkable” victory (Sears 1). Lee, facing an army twice his size, defies all military doctrine and divides his army multiple times in order to out-maneuver and surprise the Union forces. The daring maneuver succeeds and ultimately forces the Union’s Army of the Potomac to retreat. The victory was another major blow to Union troops, but it came at a huge cost to the Confederacy: the loss of General Thomas J. “Stonewall” Jackson. By evaluating the battle through the lens of the mission command activities, one can see how Lee’s daring maneuver was actually very calculated and his only option for victory. Throughout the rest of this paper, I will describe the timeline of the battle and how General Lee used the mission command activities of understand, visualize, assess, and lead to ultimately achieve victory at Chancellorsville.

When we compare the military leaders of both North and South during the Civil War, it is not hard to see what the differences are. One of the first things that stand out is the numerous number of Northern generals that led the “Army of the Potomac.” Whereas the Confederate generals, at least in the “Army of Northern Virginia” were much more stable in their position. Personalities, ambitions and emotions also played a big part in effective they were in the field, as well as their interactions with other officers.

The Battle of Gettysburg was fought for three days from July 1 to 3. The Army of the Potomac, led by General George Meade, repelled the attack of the Confederate’s Army, led by General Robert E. Lee. The purpose of this paper is to examine General Lee’s effectiveness by analyzing his utilization of the mission command, and its principles.

The Battle of Antietam could have been a devastating and fatal blow to the Confederate Army if Gen. McClellan acted decisively, took calculated risks, and veered away from his cautious approach to war. There are many instances leading up to the battle and during the battle in which he lacks the necessary offensive initiative to effectively cripple and ultimately win the war. This paper is intended to articulate the failure of Mission Command by GEN McClellan by pointing out how he failed to understand, visualize, describe and direct the battlefield to his benefit.

In the work, And Keep Moving On, Mark Grimsley presents a study on the Virginia Campaign that is both pleasant in readability and substantial in material. While numerous historians and enthusiast have covered the Civil War, Grimsley’s work offers clear and distinct coverage that assists the reader in identifying the political backdrop to the conflict and a play-by-play report of military tactics. He remains fair to both Grant and Lee as he takes the scholar through Battles such as Spotsylvania, Cold Harbor and The Wilderness. As this is one book in a collection, Great Campaigns of the Civil War, dedicated to the war as a whole, Grimsley’s focus remains set to a short period of six weeks beginning in May of 1864.

Sherman began the move north in January of 1865. The only hope of Confederate resistance would be supplied by General P.G.T. Beauregard. He was putting together an army with whatever supplys he had left, but at best would only be able to get about 30,000 men. This would be no challenge to the combined forces of Schofield and Sherman. Sherman's plan was to march through South Carolina. His men would march in two ranks: One would travel northwest to give the impression of a press against Augusta and the other would march northeast toward Charleston. However the one true objective would be Columbia.

Around the final stages of the Civil War, Union General William Tecumseh Sherman used a tactic called “total war.” Total War is a type of war where nothing is off limits. This strategy allowed General Sherman to harm civilians and destroy everything in his path. Total War was used against the Confederacy by demolishing anything that would have been useful to the South. The Confederacy was already in a bad spot at this time of the war, but using this tactic made the South more vulnerable. I am not for this strategy, however I think it was reasonable for the Union to adopt this policy. It was reasonable for the Union to do this because they had to do what they could to make the Confederacy surrender as fast as they

How did Sherman’s march to the sea during the American Civil War influence the tactic of Blitzkrieg used by the Germans during World War II? To conduct this research, I am going to look into the march by Sherman and the tactic of Blitzkrieg. By consulting books that outline the tactics used in both events, I will be able to draw connections between the two and, also, be able to contrast the two. In studying the tactics, I will look at the troop size, the speed of the attack, and how the attacks took place. In addition, similarities and differences will be pointed out in the Analysis section. In stating the similarities and differences, I will be able to uncover connections and will be able to draw a conclusion on whether Blitzkrieg was influenced by Sherman’s March to the Sea.

Sherman’s March to the Sea is the name commonly given to the Savannah Campaign by Maj. Gen. William Tecumseh Sherman taking place from November 15, 1864 to December 21, 1864. which followed the successful Atlanta Campaign. After leaving the decimated city of Atlanta on November 16, Sherman led his troops on a destructive campaign which concluded with the capture of the port city of Savannah on December 21. It is known for its boldness as well as the sheer destruction inflicted on the south, both to its industry as well as military targets, effectively destroying the Confederate’s capacity to wage war.