General W. T. Sherman
Sherman: the Genius of the Civil War. By B. H. Liddell Hart. (Bann.)
AMONG the military writers of to-day Captain Liddell Hart has won a distinguished place, not only as an historian of campaigns, but as a philosopher who understands the root principles of human conflict. No one has read so courageously and acutely the lessons of the Great War. To him generalship is not an unrelated science or a sporadic art, but a gift which involves an insight into the fundamentals of human society. Victory is won by breaking the enemy's will to resist, and should be sought in subtler ways than by the brute contest of strengths in the field. For such a writer Sherman is a perfect subject." The Western part of the American Civil War was the nearest approach, before 1914, to a war of nations, for it was largely a contest of economic and psychological factors. Sherman understood the truth that " the resisting power of a democracy depends more on the strength of the popular will than on the strength of its armies, and that this will in turn dependslargelyuponeconomic and social security." It is not easy, in the case of nations in arms, to destroy completely an enemy's forces, and even if you succeed it may be at a fatal expense to yourself ; but you may force a nation to surrender by wrecking its normal life and destroying its hope. To Captain Liddell Hart the " War in the West " was the first modern war and Sherman the first modern general. He adds, " and hitherto the only one "—which is, perhaps, too great a claim.
Sherman, a West Point cadet, had been a banker, and knew something of economics. He realised from the beginning that the shortest road to victory was to strike at the heart of the Southern economy, at the main supply grounds. Virginia was not the real seat of the Confederacy's will and power, nor was the capital, Richmond, more than a sentimental counter. The enemy expected to be met on that battle- ground ; the more reason for disappointing him. It was the " deep South " that mattered, and the Mississippi was the grand scene of operations. By a fortunate chance he was able to carry out his views. In the first phase he was under Grant, and assisted in the operations which led to the capture of Vicksburg. Then, as Grant's successor, he fought his way through the mountains into Georgia, till, at a dark Moment in the 'affairs of the Union, he turned the tide by his capture of Atlanta. Then by his march to the sea he cut the Confederacy in two, operating, as Captain Liddell Hart well says, not only against the rear of an army, but against the rear of a people.
He believed in winning the war, not in winning battles, and his triumphs were gained by his amazing mobility and his acute perception of where lay the true centre of gravity. Very early in the campaign he conceived his great purpose, and he worked towards it with unfaltering logic and courage. The march through Georgia was a triumph of pure reason, for " his venture was to be made under the cloud of the dubious permission of his military superior, the anxious fears of his President, and the positive objection of their advisers." In such circumstances it needed a strong spirit to be faithful to Napoleon's maxim, that in war the moral is to the physical as three to one. The purpose of all strategy, he held, was to play on the mind of an opponent so as to minimize field actions, and victory was to be won " more by the movement of troops than by fighting." He made his army a machine so mobile that it could start at a moment's notice, move at incredible speed, and subsist on the barest rations. " He was able to demand from his. men such sacrifice of comfort because he demanded so comparatively little sacrifice of life."
Sherman must rank as one of the greatest of strategists. He was fortunate, too, for he took enormous risks, and the enemy often unexpectedly played into his hands, as when Johnston was replaced by Hood. Tactically, we may put the operations, before the fall of Atlanta, and the manoeuvres after the capture of Savannah as his main achievements, and they must always remain classic in the history of war. The man himself, as portrayed
by Captain Liddell Hart, is an attractive study. Though he won a reputation for ruthlessness, he was essentially humane—of the school of the " hard-hearted kind." His ruling principle, both in war and in peace, was the reign of Law, and he detested all that bred disorder, from prying journalists to lobbying politicians. After peace his influence was always on the side of mercy and conciliation. In every relation of life he was honourable and magnanimous, and at his funeral his chief Southern opponent, Joseph Johnston, was a pall bearer. He is a strange figure among the great captains—this tall, lean, ruddy man, with the high forehead and the scraggy red beard, who began the war hr an ancient stove-pipe hat, and to the end was apt to dress like a scare. crow. He had no taste for heroics, and no illusions about glory. He was an unflinching realist, who sought to establish law above human folly by the use of a cool, scientific reason.
" In Sherman's attainment of that philosophic pinnacle, soaring above the clouds of ignorance and passion, lies the explanation of much that seems perplexing and contradictory in his character— the dispassionateness of an impulsive man, the restfulness of a restless man, the patience of an impatient man, the sympathy of a relentless man. It was logical, and due to reasoning that was purely logical, that he should first oppose war ; then, conduct it with iron severity ; and finally seize the first real opportunity to make a peace of complete absolution."
• :JOHN BUCHAN.
Previous page
