Welcome back to the Deep Dive. We know exactly
why you're here. You are the ultimate learner.
Yeah, you want to get thoroughly informed, you
want the full picture, but you absolutely do
not want that overwhelming information overload
that usually comes with it. Right, exactly. Well,
you are in the right place. Because today, we
are looking at a pretty comprehensive Wikipedia
article on the memoirs of General W .T. Sherman,
which was originally published in 1875. And our
mission for this deep dive is to explore the
incredible story of how one of America's most
famous, or I guess infamous, generals actively
engineered his own historical legacy. But before
we even begin unpacking this text, we really
need to provide a mandatory disclaimer. Yes,
absolutely. The material we're exploring today
contains highly politically charged historical
content. We will be discussing the clashing viewpoints
of Northern historians and Southern historians,
specifically those propagating the Lost Cause
narrative. Right, and we'll also be examining
19th century debates on slavery, as well as some
highly controversial wartime military tactics.
We want to make it unequivocally clear to you,
the listener, that we are absolutely not taking
any sides here. Not at all. We're not endorsing
any of the historical viewpoints, the arguments,
or the military actions described in this text.
Our sole job today is to impartially report and
just unpack the ideas contained within this specific
source material so you can fully understand the
historical context. Exactly. We are simply your
guides through the historical record. And I have
to say, that record is full of surprises. It
really is. wars feature high stakes publishing
deals, 19th century real world troll book bindings,
and just unfiltered campfire style storytelling.
Okay, let's unpack this. Immediately following
the end of the American Civil War, Sherman's
reputation was starkly divided. Yeah, on one
side, you had the Southern perspective, which
was heavily influenced by the emerging Lost Cause
movement. And that was an intellectual and literary
movement that attempted to reframe the Confederate
rebellion as a noble defense of states' rights
rather than a fight to preserve slavery. And
Edward A. Pollard, who was a prominent Southern
historian of the era, offered a really scathing
critique. He wrote that Sherman would scarcely
be known in future history other than as the
man who depopulated and destroyed Atlanta and
essayed a new code of cruelty. He even predicted
Sherman would end up with a fame that was mediocre
and insignificant, which is a bold claim. denying
his genius would obliterate the most brilliant
achievements of the war. So you have this massive
gap in public perception, and that was something
Sherman observed very closely. Oh, he was highly
aware of his detractors. He wanted to push back
against the narratives taking root in the South.
I mean, during an 1867 address to the Society
of the Army of the Tennessee, he expressed astonishment
that anyone could still boast of the lost cause
without a sense of shame. He pointed to the plain,
palpable facts of the Union victories, staring
them in the face. What's fascinating here is
how explicit he was about that philosophy. He
didn't view history as just a passive record
of events. Right. He saw the writing of history
as an active battleground. In a letter written
in the early 1870s, Sherman laid his intentions
bare. He stated, We the victors must stamp on
all history that we were right and they wrong,
and that we must give direction to future events.
Stamping on all history requires a deliberate
strategy. But initially, he kind of downplayed
his ambitions. When he sent an early draft of
his writings to an English scholar named John
W. Draper in 1874, Sherman claimed he had merely
written it for his children. Or perhaps to assist
a future historian, yeah. But Draper read the
manuscript, recognized this really engaging narrative
style, and strongly urged Sherman to publish
it for the general public. And that push from
Draper led Sherman directly into the publishing
business. While living in St. Louis, he negotiated
with multiple publishers before signing a three
-year contract on January 21, 1875. D. Appleton
and Company. The contract stipulated two volumes,
averaging about 400 pages each, covering his
life from 1846 to 1865. But the most revealing
detail of this business arrangement is that Sherman
actually paid for the cost of the printing plates
out of his own pocket. That cost him $2 ,165
.36, which was a massive capital investment in
1875. It really was. And understanding the mechanics
of 1875 printing reveals exactly why he made
that investment. Back then, books were often
printed using stereotype plates, which were these
metal casts of the set type. So by paying for
and owning the physical metal plates, Sherman
secured absolute ultimate creative control. Yes.
The publisher could not alter a single word,
change a paragraph, or refuse to print certain
passages without his permission because he literally
owned the molds the words were printed from.
He bought the right to ensure his exact version
of history went to press. When the two -volume
set officially dropped in May 1875, bound in
a distinctive blue cloth with gold lettering,
it retailed for $5 .50, and Sherman negotiated
a royalty of $0 .40 per volume sold. and he knew
exactly what kind of reaction this set would
provoke. In a letter to his brother -in -law
right after signing the deal, Sherman noted that
handing over the manuscript might bring him some
profit. but more controversy. He was definitely
self -aware. The structure of the memoirs itself
really reflects a man methodically setting the
record straight across 814 pages and 24 chapters.
The first seven chapters actually often surprise
readers who come to the book strictly for Civil
War history. They cover his life from 1846 to
1861, a period that profoundly shaped his worldview.
The text delves into his military experience
in California during the Mexican -American War.
It covers his time working as a banker in San
Francisco during the height of the Gold Rush,
where he observed massive economic inflation,
rampant speculation and a somewhat lawless society
governed by vigilance committees. It's wild stuff.
It is. It also details a crucial period where
he served as the president of the Louisiana State
Seminary of Learning and Military Academy, the
institution that would eventually become Louisiana
State University. And then the remaining 17 chapters
focus entirely on his experiences as a leading
general in the Civil War. The writing style throughout
those chapters is highly distinct. It's meandering
and frequently interrupted by the insertion of
official post -battle reports, casualty lists,
and battlefield correspondence. Yet historians
consistently describe it as incredibly engaging.
Historian John F. Marzelek captured the tone
perfectly, describing it as Sherman telling his
story around a campfire. He's forthrightly presenting
his view of a massive national crisis to a mixed
audience of friends, admirers, family, former
enemies and current critics. It's an unapologetic
conversational delivery of his own historical
truth. And that tone is really what sets it apart
from typical dry military histories. Here's where
it gets really interesting, because that campfire
tone, that unvarnished way of speaking, his mind
is on full display when he recounts his life
in Louisiana right before the war. There's a
specific anecdote about a dinner he attended
with Louisiana Governor Thomas O'Moore and several
other prominent Southern political leaders in
the months just before the Civil War broke out.
And the men at the table flat out asked Sherman
for his views on slavery. Now, before we detail
his response, it's crucial to reiterate our impartiality
disclaimer here. Yes, absolutely. We are about
to outline Sherman's exact arguments on slavery
as they are written in his 1875 text. We are
imparting the historical record exactly as it
is presented, not taking sides or endorsing these
19th century viewpoints. So at this dinner, Sherman
presented an argument that was deeply pragmatic
and entirely unsentimental. He told the table
that he recognized two distinct conditions of
slavery, domestic slaves employed by families
and fieldhands. He argued that the condition
of the fieldhands was entirely dependent on the
temper of their masters. He then stated that
if he were a citizen of Louisiana and a member
of the legislature, he would try to bring the
legal condition of slaves closer to the status
of human beings. And he offered two specific
legal changes he would advocate for. First, forbidding
the separation of families at state sales, ensuring
fathers, mothers, and children were sold together
rather than separated. His second proposed legal
change really struck at the economic core of
the men sitting at that table. He advised repealing
the Louisiana statute that penalized owners who
taught their slaves to read and write. And he
didn't base this on a moral crusade for human
education. Instead, he argued that the law actually
qualified the property and took away a part of
its value. To prove his point about property
value, Sherman shared a real -world story with
the governor right there at the dinner table.
He told them about Henry Sampson, a slave belonging
to a Colonel Chambers of Rapides parish. Sampson
had traveled to California, where Sherman eventually
hired him to work at the San Francisco bank he
was managing. Initially, because Sampson could
not read or write, Sherman paid him $100 a month.
However, a bank teller named Riley took the time
to teach Sampson literacy skills. Because of
those new skills, Samson's practical value to
the bank operations increased dramatically, and
his salary was raised to $250 a month. And Samson
then used that increased income to buy his own
freedom, followed by the freedom of his brother
and his family. If we connect this to the bigger
picture, Sherman's use of the Samson story at
that specific dinner is a masterclass in reading
an audience. He's sitting with Southern secessionist
leaders on the eve of a war over slavery. Instead
of making a moral argument about human rights,
which they would have immediately rejected, he
frames upward mobility and self -emancipation
entirely around the concept of property value
and economic utility. It's a striking example
of that campfire storytelling style. Just laying
out his complex, unvarnished thoughts exactly
as he argued them at the time, prioritizing practical
logic over ideology. That reliance on pure, cold
logic over sentiment perfectly sets the stage
for how he handled the most heavily criticized
part of his wartime record in the memoirs, the
expulsion of the citizens of Atlanta in September
1864. After capturing the city, Sherman made
the decision to require all citizens and families
living in Atlanta to leave. They were given the
option to go north or south, but they could not
stay. This raises an important question. How
does a general justify the mass expulsion of
a civilian population to history? Schumann does
it by leaning heavily into strategic necessity.
He wrote that he was resolved to make Atlanta
a pure military garrison. He wanted absolutely
zero civil population present to influence military
measures or drain resources. And he based this
directly on his past experiences in the war.
He pointed out that when the Union Army captured
Memphis, Vicksburg, Natchez, and New Orleans,
they were forced to leave massive numbers of
troops behind just to garrison those cities.
Right, to protect military interests from hostile
local populations. He argued that these territorial
successes were actually crippling the Union armies
in the field because they had to detach so many
men for guard duty. He just refused to let that
happen in Atlanta. He even included his own letter
to General Halleck from September 4th, 1864,
to back up his mindset. It remains one of the
most famous testaments to his view of warfare.
He wrote, War is war. He knew the expulsion would
be heavily criticized, but he wrote that he executed
it with the absolute certainty of its justness.
He wanted the South to draw two very specific
conclusions from the action. First, that the
North was entirely in earnest about winning.
And second, if the Southern population was sincere
in their popular clamor to die in the last ditch,
that opportunity was rapidly arriving. That bluntness
resonated deeply when the memoirs were published
in 1875. The book was a massive commercial hit
with the general public, but it also sparked
intense rivalries among his fellow veterans.
The feud with Henry the Feet -Boynt is a perfect
example of how fiercely veterans fought over
the historical narrative. Boynton was a fellow
Union veteran who took major issue with Sherman's
recollections. So to counter Sherman, Boynton
wrote an entire book based on official War Office
files titled Sherman's Historical Raid. the memoirs
in the light of the record. But Boynton didn't
just write a rebuttal. He engineered a physical
protest. He purposely instructed his publisher
to match the exact blue cloth and gold lettering
of Sherman's memoirs. He designed his critical
hit piece to look identical to Sherman's work
so that bookstores would place them side by side
on the shelves. It was essentially a 19th century
visual photobomb of Sherman's legacy, ensuring
that anyone reaching for the triumphant memoir
would also have to look at the scathing critique.
But Sherman did not ignore the provocation. In
an 1880 interview with the Cleveland Leader,
Sherman publicly attacked Boynton's character.
He stated that Boynton was a man you could hire
to do anything for money, adding, why for $1
,000 he would slander his own mother. And Boynton
actually read the interview and wrote Sherman
a letter directly confronting him about the insult.
Sherman wrote back, standing his ground completely,
stating, this is a hard thing to say of any man,
but I believe it of you. Wow. While he was busy
feuding with critics like Boynton, Sherman was
simultaneously receiving highest praise from
some of the most powerful figures in the country.
In July 1875, Union General and future President
James A. Garfield wrote to Sherman, praising
the fresh and vivid style and the graphic descriptions
of people and events. Garfield noted that he
didn't think a just criticism could charge Sherman
with doing intentional injustice to anyone. Six
months later, sitting President Ulysses S. Grant
gave his assessment, stating he didn't believe
a more correct history could be given. And the
narrative style of Sherman's work actually heavily
influenced Grant's own legendary memoirs written
a decade later. The impact of the memoirs extended
far beyond American borders, too. Right. European
military powers were actively studying Sherman's
logistics and tactics. In 1876, a Prussian military
captain named A. von Clausewitz translated Sherman's
entire chapter on the Atlanta campaign for a
German military journal. The translated piece
was published under a title that roughly translates
to a railroad war in the American Civil War,
highlighting the global interest in how Sherman
utilized modern infrastructure in conflict. Even
with international praise and presidential endorsements,
Sherman continued to curate his legacy. After
nearly a decade of absorbing reviews, praise,
and criticism, he published a revised second
edition of the memoirs around 1885. He made approximately
50 changes to the text. He added a new preface,
a completely new first chapter focusing on his
life before 1846, and a new final chapter detailing
his life after the Civil War. He also appended
two sections filled with letters and excerpts
that were both complimentary and critical of
his first edition, offering readers context for
his revisions. Most of the textual edits were
minor, though he notably softened his criticisms
of General Joseph Hooker. This second edition
was the final version Sherman edited himself.
But the text has never truly faded from public
or academic discourse. Just a few months ago,
on September 23, 2025, Harvard University's Belknap
Press published the very first completely annotated
edition of the memoirs. And the project was edited
by John F. Marzalek, Louis P. Gallo, and David
S. Nolan, the exact same team of historians who
produced the definitive annotated edition of
Grant's memoirs back in 2017. The publication
of a fully annotated edition 150 years later
demonstrates the enduring power of the text.
Historians are still meticulously unpacking the
nuances of how Sherman presented his story. They're
constantly cross -referencing his campfire storytelling
with the official records to separate the man
from the myth he helped build. So what does this
all mean? When we zoom out from the specific
troop movements in 19th century politics, this
deep dive into a Wikipedia article reveals a
masterclass in how historical figures battle
to write their own legacy. Sherman used everything
at his disposal from raw, unfiltered storytelling
to sharp, self -funded business contracts to
ensure his version of events became the foundation
of history. History isn't just a record of what
happened. It's a record of what the survivors
managed to get printed, bound in blue cloth and
put on a shelf. It really highlights the vital
importance of understanding the bias, the intention,
and the human friction behind the historical
narratives we consume. Every memoir, every historical
account has an author who is making deliberate
choices about what to include, what to omit,
and how to frame their own actions for posterity.
Which brings us to a final thought to leave you
with. Think back to that detail about the printing
plates. Sherman paid thousands of dollars to
buy the physical metal molds so he could absolutely
own the work and guarantee his narrative survived
without interference. In our modern age of highly
curated social media feeds, personal branding,
and meticulously managed digital footprints,
aren't we all essentially buying our own printing
plates? Exactly. How much of your own personal
history, your own narrative, are you actively
trying to edit and control for future generations
right now? It's something to mull over the next
time you draft an update or delete an old photo.
Thank you for joining us on this deep dive into
the memoirs of General W .T. Sherman. Keep exploring,
keep questioning the narratives, and as always,
keep learning.