Citizen Sherman:: A Life of William Tecumseh Sherman

Citizen Sherman is not so much an attempt to put Sherman on the couch, so to speak, as a study of his character and personality as evinced through his personal relationships and in his voluminous correspondence. Fellman isn't just making things up or shooting from the hip as some reviewers imply; most of the light shed on Sherman's life and character comes from his own words. You will not find most of this information anywhere else. If you want an analysis of Sherman the Civil War general you won't find it here. But that doesn't mean that an understanding of Sherman the man is not worthwhile. This is a wonderful biography, a beautifully constructed and poignant character study of Sherman the man. If all the Civil War buffs out there don't like its lack of reliable military information, too bad; there are many other places to find that. And since when should an author be hesitant to seek an understanding of an individual's motives, emotions, and psychological processes? This is what the finest biographers do. Fellman does not cross the line by asserting theories that are not backed up by evidence. Indeed, his assertions as to Sherman's feelings and emotions are supported by a great deal of evidence. I will acknowledge that Fellman, on occasion, does let his liberal bias show as when he claims Sherman was "an utterly inhumane warrior" and the like. After making a brilliant case for the necessity of Sherman's kind of warfare, and letting Sherman speak for himself as to his motivations, very human motivations we all can relate to, Fellman seems to be one of those authors who feels it is necessary to damn any kind of practice that seems to make liberal minded Americans uncomfortable with humanity or themselves. He, as an author, seems to be one of those people who just couldn't live with himself if he didn't somehow pretend he is beyond that, and we all should be too. Well, sometimes just plain old nasty stuff just has to be done, and when it does need doing, we should be glad we have guys like Billy Sherman around to do it for us. This is more a minor annoyance, however, and does not detract from the power of the character study. All-in-all, this is a book well worth reading. You will surely come away with a much enhanced picture of Sherman the man.

I have read dozens of autobiographical accounts of the Civil War by its leaders, both Northern and Southern. Most of these accounts were, of course, written in the sentimental, shielded, "polite society" style of the post-civil war/turn of the century years. Although these books offer valuable insight into the author's actions and reactions, philosophy, and basic moral structure, they leave the modern reader without a real knowledge who the author was as a person. It is only through a thorough understanding of the subject of a biography/autobiography that the reader can truly appreciate the way in which a subject continues to influence us years after that person made his mark on the world. For example, everyone knows that Sherman was a hard-headed, all-out warrior whose unwavering determination helped the Union win the Civil War. But not everybody knows about the Sherman who, during the war years, was an unhappily married man whose heart died when his favorite son did; a man who, years after the dust and gunsmoke settled, sought to recover dormant emotional feelings by seeking the companionship of women half his age. It does seem that there are a few very minute points in this book that are historical misrepresentations, most likely caused by oversight. But despite its few flaws, it gives a full and complete portrait of Sherman, the human being - someone we must see for all he was in truth, before we can truly understand his impact on American History.

Some of the above reviews have merit, Fellman definitely puts Sherman on the couch, and, I also don't usually like this, as it takes some liberties that may not be entirely correct. However, it will take more than one source on Sherman to help the reader draw their own conclusions about the man. This said, I very much enjoyed reading Fellman's analysis. I did find it light militarily, however, I really wasn't looking for that kind of bio on Sherman. A history teacher, this was my first exposure to "Cumpy" the man, as opposed to military commander. I found myself wanting to research him more as a result of reading this book, as I feel it inspired me to learn more about him. There is an implication here that the book did not tell me everything I needed to know, but, as stated above, I found myself not really minding as I enjoyed Fellman's ease with words and the simplicity of the smooth flowing text. Therefore, I didn't critique it so much for being a bit on the lighter side of research work. I found that I would need to consult other sources for more information anyway. Having read Grant's bio and Foote's Civil War trilogy, I found this to be a good introduction to Sherman as an individual, especially after hearing Grant's praise of the man in his own work. I'm interested to read Sherman's own book after reading Citizen Sherman, can compare some of Fellman's analysis with Sherman's own. I very much enjoyed the section on Sherman's women, and the way that the text was oriented less chronologically than in the different departments of Sherman's life.

Presents Sherman as never sure of who he was in a family or society, tortured to the edge of suicide by self doubt. Therefore he needed success and adulation to validate himself. Despising democracy, he waged the War in a spirit of punishing the defiers of authority. When he said "War is hell" it was not an empirical observation, but his intent. He functioned best under adult supervision - e.g. under US Grant. Once on his own - in Georgia, the Carolinas - he was arbitrary and dictatorial. I thought the similarity with Douglas MacArthur was striking. MacA. in Japan followed his own agenda just as Sherman followed his whenever he could get away with it. After the Civil War, Sherman got into petty, whining arguments with fellow ex-officers about who should have gotten the glory and blame for various battles. If Sherman couldn't command agreement with his views, he retreated into fuming about being underappreciated. While commanding general, after 1868, he fumed as Congress cut military size and budgets but did not champion the Army's place in America. He did not have the introspection to see that he could possibly be wrong, and which would see a need for improvements over the Army as it was in the Civil War. He regarded blacks, Indians, and Mexicans as species several notches below whites, so that that blacks should be kept subservient after the War, and Indians should be sequestered if not extermianted, so they would not get in the way of exploitating the West in a nineteenth century preview of ethnic cleansing.