What do you think?
Rate this book
Grant and Sherman: The Friendship That Won the Civil War
They were both prewar failures—Grant, forced to resign from the Regular Army because of his drinking, and Sherman, holding four different jobs, including a much-loved position at a southern military academy—in the years before the firing on Fort Sumter. They began their unique collaboration ten months into the war, at the Battle of Shiloh, each carefully taking the other's measure. They shared the demands of family life and the heartache of personal tragedy. They shared similar philosophies of battle, employed similar strategies and tactics, and remained in close, virtually daily communication throughout the conflict. They were incontestably two of the Civil War's most important figures, and the deep, abiding friendship they shared made the Union's ultimate victory possible.
Poignant, riveting, and elegantly written, Grant and Sherman is a remarkable portrait of two extraordinary men and a singular friendship, forged on the battlefield, that would change the course of history.
Poignant, riveting, and elegantly written, Grant and Sherman is a remarkable portrait of two extraordinary men and a singular friendship, forged on the battlefield, that would change the course of history.
496 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2005
About the author
Charles Bracelen Flood
26 books22 followersCharles Bracelen Flood was born in Manhattan, and graduated from Harvard, where he was a member of Archibald MacLeish’s noted creative writing seminar, English S, and was on the literary board of the Harvard Lampoon. (In 2001, Flood was honored with the Lampoon’s Clem Wood Award; past recipients have included George Plimpton, John Updike, and Conan O’Brien.)
Love is a Bridge, Flood’s first novel, received nationwide critical attention, and was on the New York Times Bestseller list for 26 weeks. It won the Houghton Mifflin Literary Fellowship Award. The twelve books he has written include the novels A Distant Drum and More Lives Than One. Praising Flood’s The War of the Innocents, his account of his year spent in Vietnam as a correspondent, John Updike said of him, “This brave and compassionate reporter’s account of a year spent with our armed forces in Vietnam tells more of the physical actualities and moral complexities of the American involvement than any other book I have read.” Flood’s Rise, and Fight Again won the American Revolution Round Table Annual Award for 1976, the Bicentennial Year, and his Hitler - The Path to Power, a History Book Club selection, was among the successful studies in history and biography that followed. All his books have also appeared in paperback.
Flood’s first venture into the Civil War era was Lee - The Last Years, which was a Book-of-the-Month Club selection and won the Colonial Dames of America Annual Book Award. Lee was followed by Grant and Sherman - The Friendship That Won the Civil War, a work that the Washington Post described as “beautifully defined and explored…a powerful and illuminating study of the military collaboration that won the war for the Union.” Salon.com named it as one of the ”Top 12 Civil War Books Ever Written.” Of his 1864: Lincoln at the Gates of History, published in 2009, Lincoln’s Bicentennial Year, Kent Masterson Brown, author of Retreat from Gettysburg, said, “Lincoln walks off the pages as in no other book,” and in the New York Times Janet Maslin wrote, “Mr. Floods versatility is impressive …1864 compresses the multiple demands upon Lincoln into a tight time frame and thus captures a dizzying, visceral sense of why this single year took such a heavy toll.”
This writer’s short pieces have appeared in The New Yorker, The Atlantic, Esquire, and other magazines, and a number of his books have been translated into foreign languages. Flood’s journalistic experiences have taken him to many countries, including being a reporter for the Associated Press at the Olympics held in Melbourne, Rome, Tokyo and Mexico City. He has been a Senior Fulbright Scholar in Taiwan, and taught World Literature for two years at Sophia University in Tokyo.
Charles Bracelen Flood is a past president of the American Center of PEN, the international writers’ organization, and has served on the governing bodies of the Authors League and Authors Guild. He and his wife Katherine Burnam Flood live in Richmond, Kentucky, in that state’s Bluegrass region.
Love is a Bridge, Flood’s first novel, received nationwide critical attention, and was on the New York Times Bestseller list for 26 weeks. It won the Houghton Mifflin Literary Fellowship Award. The twelve books he has written include the novels A Distant Drum and More Lives Than One. Praising Flood’s The War of the Innocents, his account of his year spent in Vietnam as a correspondent, John Updike said of him, “This brave and compassionate reporter’s account of a year spent with our armed forces in Vietnam tells more of the physical actualities and moral complexities of the American involvement than any other book I have read.” Flood’s Rise, and Fight Again won the American Revolution Round Table Annual Award for 1976, the Bicentennial Year, and his Hitler - The Path to Power, a History Book Club selection, was among the successful studies in history and biography that followed. All his books have also appeared in paperback.
Flood’s first venture into the Civil War era was Lee - The Last Years, which was a Book-of-the-Month Club selection and won the Colonial Dames of America Annual Book Award. Lee was followed by Grant and Sherman - The Friendship That Won the Civil War, a work that the Washington Post described as “beautifully defined and explored…a powerful and illuminating study of the military collaboration that won the war for the Union.” Salon.com named it as one of the ”Top 12 Civil War Books Ever Written.” Of his 1864: Lincoln at the Gates of History, published in 2009, Lincoln’s Bicentennial Year, Kent Masterson Brown, author of Retreat from Gettysburg, said, “Lincoln walks off the pages as in no other book,” and in the New York Times Janet Maslin wrote, “Mr. Floods versatility is impressive …1864 compresses the multiple demands upon Lincoln into a tight time frame and thus captures a dizzying, visceral sense of why this single year took such a heavy toll.”
This writer’s short pieces have appeared in The New Yorker, The Atlantic, Esquire, and other magazines, and a number of his books have been translated into foreign languages. Flood’s journalistic experiences have taken him to many countries, including being a reporter for the Associated Press at the Olympics held in Melbourne, Rome, Tokyo and Mexico City. He has been a Senior Fulbright Scholar in Taiwan, and taught World Literature for two years at Sophia University in Tokyo.
Charles Bracelen Flood is a past president of the American Center of PEN, the international writers’ organization, and has served on the governing bodies of the Authors League and Authors Guild. He and his wife Katherine Burnam Flood live in Richmond, Kentucky, in that state’s Bluegrass region.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 111 reviews
July 18, 2013
This book is one of the most readable and interesting histories of the Civil War that I have had the pleasure to read.
This is an excellent read with excellent insights into the personalities and temperaments of the two great Union generals in the Civil War.The strength of this book is that the narrative is very compelling and easy to read. This book is very well-written and enjoyable, and examines a very important, though sometimes underestimated, relationship between the two men who arguably did more to win the Civil War than anybody else. The thing that most impresses me about these men is their unfailing loyalty to each other and seeming lack of selfish ambition, and Flood does a great job of profiling this.
Flood keeps the pace quick and interesting and anyone who enjoys reading about the Civil War should enjoy this book. I particularly enjoyed reading about the more personal aspects of Grant and Sherman's lives and Flood devotes a good amount of time not only to their friendship but also to that of their families.
Some errors:Example: page 362 states that Seminary Ridge was a battle fought in the West. Come on! Seriously? Page 219 states that Sheridan was brought South to help the beseiged Union soldiers at Chattanooga...Wrong again! Page 160 says that the Battle of Fort Hudson was part of the Red River Campaign.
in describing Pickett's charge at Gettysburg Lee is described as sending his men "up Cemetery Ridge." Later his men "come staggering down the slope," suggesting that the charge was, indeed, made on a hill. Now of course Gettysburg is an aside to the real topic of this work, but I would think that anyone who'd written a biography on Lee would no that the charge was NOT made on a hill.
Reading that Sherman "agreed" with the misquote attributed to Sheridan after the war (the only good Indian is a dead Indian) left me scratching my head-to my knowledge neither Sherman nor Sheridan ever admitted the comment was even made, much less that Sherman agreed with it.
But in all, an excellent book.
This is an excellent read with excellent insights into the personalities and temperaments of the two great Union generals in the Civil War.The strength of this book is that the narrative is very compelling and easy to read. This book is very well-written and enjoyable, and examines a very important, though sometimes underestimated, relationship between the two men who arguably did more to win the Civil War than anybody else. The thing that most impresses me about these men is their unfailing loyalty to each other and seeming lack of selfish ambition, and Flood does a great job of profiling this.
Flood keeps the pace quick and interesting and anyone who enjoys reading about the Civil War should enjoy this book. I particularly enjoyed reading about the more personal aspects of Grant and Sherman's lives and Flood devotes a good amount of time not only to their friendship but also to that of their families.
Some errors:Example: page 362 states that Seminary Ridge was a battle fought in the West. Come on! Seriously? Page 219 states that Sheridan was brought South to help the beseiged Union soldiers at Chattanooga...Wrong again! Page 160 says that the Battle of Fort Hudson was part of the Red River Campaign.
in describing Pickett's charge at Gettysburg Lee is described as sending his men "up Cemetery Ridge." Later his men "come staggering down the slope," suggesting that the charge was, indeed, made on a hill. Now of course Gettysburg is an aside to the real topic of this work, but I would think that anyone who'd written a biography on Lee would no that the charge was NOT made on a hill.
Reading that Sherman "agreed" with the misquote attributed to Sheridan after the war (the only good Indian is a dead Indian) left me scratching my head-to my knowledge neither Sherman nor Sheridan ever admitted the comment was even made, much less that Sherman agreed with it.
But in all, an excellent book.
February 9, 2011
As other reviews note, this book is marred by some errors (e.g., it was not Grant who abrogated Kentucky's neutrality; most works I have read credit The Bishop General, Polk, with that accomplishment). It also promises more in the subtitle than it can deliver ("The Friendship That Won the Civil War"). I just don't see the case made that their friendship led to victory. It was hardly irrelevant, of course, but the subtitle's claim sets a high standard to meet.
However the performance of generals such as George Thomas suggests that others could as well have been the hammer in the West after Grant's accession to control of all of the Union armies. And Thomas' record before Sherman became the top general in the west could be said to be no worse than Sherman's (in fact, Buell's "Warrior Generals" argues that Thomas was one of the best of all Union generals and was never given full credit; while the argument is not, in the final analysis, fully convincing, one cannot downgrade Thomas' contributions to the North).
Many of the stories and events here are quite familiar to readers of Civil War history. And there is rather less on the battlefield events than might have been called for.
Nonetheless, in the end, this is a good analysis of the friendship between Grant and Sherman and how it did help them to mesh their strategic efforts.
However the performance of generals such as George Thomas suggests that others could as well have been the hammer in the West after Grant's accession to control of all of the Union armies. And Thomas' record before Sherman became the top general in the west could be said to be no worse than Sherman's (in fact, Buell's "Warrior Generals" argues that Thomas was one of the best of all Union generals and was never given full credit; while the argument is not, in the final analysis, fully convincing, one cannot downgrade Thomas' contributions to the North).
Many of the stories and events here are quite familiar to readers of Civil War history. And there is rather less on the battlefield events than might have been called for.
Nonetheless, in the end, this is a good analysis of the friendship between Grant and Sherman and how it did help them to mesh their strategic efforts.
May 24, 2017
The story recalls the past glory of the two greatest leaders of the Civil War and their relationship. Grant and Sherman's incredible victories combined to crush the game but overmatched Confederate Army led by who was considered the War's best Generals Robert E . Lee. The book runs a little long describing in detail what the victory parade entailed at the end of the book. Otherwise, the book is marginally good.
I must note what a nice good man U.S. Grant was. After his presidency, he was swindled out of his earnings by a bad investment. On this deathbed he wrote his much anticipated memoir in order that his wife would have money to live off once he had passed. He died 3 days after completing it.
I must note what a nice good man U.S. Grant was. After his presidency, he was swindled out of his earnings by a bad investment. On this deathbed he wrote his much anticipated memoir in order that his wife would have money to live off once he had passed. He died 3 days after completing it.
March 23, 2011
Sherman once famously said of Grant, 'we were as brothers', and the enduring friendship between them is brought wonderfully to life in this book. Both were considered failures before the War began, both had left the army, Grant was considered a drunk and Sherman a lunatic, but the Civil War was really the making of them. Indeed, Flood questions whether the North could have won the war without such a strong military partnership in charge. Given how much politics and ambition had interfered and hamstrung the army before Grant was appointed commander, it's not an unreasonable supposition.
Grant knew he could rely on Sherman in any situation, both military and personal. Sherman knew Grant would back him all the way and Grant's belief in him gave him confidence in himself. Sherman once talked Grant out of resigning his position, even though he himself would have stood to benefit the most. Grant saved Sherman from a political crisis of his own making. It's actually quite touching, to see how much each thought of the other. No doubt today it would be described as a 'bromance'.
Both Grant and Sherman were in full agreement with Lincoln as to how to treat the South after Appomattox - 'let 'em up easy', in Lincoln's words. One can only wonder how different Southern history might have been had Lincoln been alive to implement his plans, with the full support of the North's most celebrated generals.
Grant knew he could rely on Sherman in any situation, both military and personal. Sherman knew Grant would back him all the way and Grant's belief in him gave him confidence in himself. Sherman once talked Grant out of resigning his position, even though he himself would have stood to benefit the most. Grant saved Sherman from a political crisis of his own making. It's actually quite touching, to see how much each thought of the other. No doubt today it would be described as a 'bromance'.
Both Grant and Sherman were in full agreement with Lincoln as to how to treat the South after Appomattox - 'let 'em up easy', in Lincoln's words. One can only wonder how different Southern history might have been had Lincoln been alive to implement his plans, with the full support of the North's most celebrated generals.
February 23, 2018
Grant and Sherman are my favorite generals of all time, and Flood is a highly respected author. This book was on my must-read list, and so I searched it out on an annual pilgrimage to Powell’s City of Books, and I came home happy. It turned out to be even better than I anticipated.
The beginning is congenial but also fairly basic, and I was saddened—needlessly, as it turned out—believing that I was about to be exposed to a whole big book of American Civil War 101, which I didn’t need. But Flood was just warming up, preparing a readership that might not have the broad outline at its fingertips. Soon the narrative evolved into something much more complex and enjoyable. I found a great many anecdotes that I hadn’t seen in biographies of either of the individual men, or in overall historical works about this conflict. There are quotations from their correspondence, which had to be meaty and specific given the lack of reliable technology at the time. All told, Flood makes the story personal without being prurient, and at the same time gives the reader little-seen information about the deadliest conflict ever experienced by Americans. His thesis—that the relationship enjoyed by these two outstanding generals won the Civil War—is well supported. The end notes show meticulous documentation. Best of all, since this is not a new release, those interested in reading this excellent work can get it for the price of a latte.
Highly recommended.
The beginning is congenial but also fairly basic, and I was saddened—needlessly, as it turned out—believing that I was about to be exposed to a whole big book of American Civil War 101, which I didn’t need. But Flood was just warming up, preparing a readership that might not have the broad outline at its fingertips. Soon the narrative evolved into something much more complex and enjoyable. I found a great many anecdotes that I hadn’t seen in biographies of either of the individual men, or in overall historical works about this conflict. There are quotations from their correspondence, which had to be meaty and specific given the lack of reliable technology at the time. All told, Flood makes the story personal without being prurient, and at the same time gives the reader little-seen information about the deadliest conflict ever experienced by Americans. His thesis—that the relationship enjoyed by these two outstanding generals won the Civil War—is well supported. The end notes show meticulous documentation. Best of all, since this is not a new release, those interested in reading this excellent work can get it for the price of a latte.
Highly recommended.
August 31, 2021
A great resource on the intricacies of the Civil War highlighting Generals Grant and Sherman.
August 11, 2013
Study of the North's two greatest generals during the American Civil War. Not an analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of Grant and Sherman, but, more importantly, a description of the warm, but sometimes testy relationship between them. Each brought unique qualities to the relationship and to the war effort. Together they were an unstoppable force. The book can be read by both laypeople and Civil War experts.
October 13, 2023
Finally!!! I finished this!! It only took more than a month. But I thoroughly enjoyed this one. The Civil War, especially Grant is one of my favorite topics to study. This work was no different. I do think there may be a couple of inaccuracies in this book, but when doing such a broad history of something it’s hard to get every single thing right. So I applaud this man. Very informative and definitely a great read! Thanks history teacher for recommending this to me! 5/5 stars.
May 17, 2024
This book read like a movie. What set it apart was the readability (unlike the last Civil War book I read), the depth of the research the author did, and the details about the two generals and their relationship that I never knew!
June 26, 2020
Terrific account of their juxtaposition and collaboration.
December 31, 2012
Engaging writing and good information on the politics behind how the Civil War was waged. The Union was on its way to bungling the whole thing with generals minus military experience appointed by cronies; all with mighty career agendas. Grant was in the right place at the right time, after the tin soldiers who couldn't bring themselves to attack anything were removed; and Sherman was fortunate to be right there with Grant. Egos are evident and loud. Sherman would make a good psychological study - the sum of his maneuvers to get and hold his position would make a passive/aggressive expert twitch. Halleck, too. And the womenfolk and children traveling to be with their husbands at headquarters. Astonishing stuff. Ellen Ewing Sherman had 3 brothers who made general. Was that all about their military skill set? I don't think so. I believe the soldiers won the Civil War, in spite of the generals, and the Cabinet. In the end, it was Lincoln's ability to find a fighting general and let him do the fighting that held the Union together.
February 10, 2012
Flood has a gift to write both factually interesting and emotionally gripping.
The book almost reads like a novel and Grant and Sherman appear in the lines somewhat larger than life. Their friendship, supporting each other almost unconditionally during the whole of the Civil War, forms them in an unbeatable team on the Union side.
Not being specially well versed in American history, it is an incredible story how both men were more or less down and out before the war and four years later were the defining characters of the war.
What strikes me most, apart from their successes in battle, is their modesty, certainly Grant, whom power does not seem to corrupt him.
The description of the victory parade through Washington, shortly after the assasination of Lincoln, is a very moving end of the book. When you close your eyes, you can see, smell and hear the thousands of men marching over Pennsylvania Avenue.
The book almost reads like a novel and Grant and Sherman appear in the lines somewhat larger than life. Their friendship, supporting each other almost unconditionally during the whole of the Civil War, forms them in an unbeatable team on the Union side.
Not being specially well versed in American history, it is an incredible story how both men were more or less down and out before the war and four years later were the defining characters of the war.
What strikes me most, apart from their successes in battle, is their modesty, certainly Grant, whom power does not seem to corrupt him.
The description of the victory parade through Washington, shortly after the assasination of Lincoln, is a very moving end of the book. When you close your eyes, you can see, smell and hear the thousands of men marching over Pennsylvania Avenue.
August 10, 2011
Easily read, this book gives a more personal perspective on the familiar story of the Civil War. I found the relationship between Grant and Sherman fascinating. To fill out the book Flood provides a lot of other material that also made that war more personal. This book is not very analytic, but perhaps that is not necessary in an account of the intertwining of the lives of two men. I don't know of many books about friendship between men. As for Sherman's madness, the book makes clear that this was overstated. My opinion is that Sherman suffered from a mix of insecurity and egotism and that Grant's trust in him helped him direct his efforts constructively. The descriptions of the marriages of both Grant and Sherman were also quite interesting, though sad to read about how poorly Sherman treated his wife in later life.
April 21, 2022
Most people don’t realize that Grant and Sherman were not just the architects of the end of the Civil War. They were also colossal failures before becoming the leaders the Union needed to win the war.
Flood’s book is a great analysis of their triumphs and failures throughout their lives. When Grant and Sherman finally come together, you get the sense these men were made to fight alongside each other. Grant had to be the tenacious leaders who didn’t care about credit and let his successful subordinates shine. Sherman, in his own words, confirmed he could not operate without Grant who gave him the confidence and room to make decisions.
Flood wrote a fantastic book which gives each general the spotlight without overburdening the reader. His military acumen shows through as he also knows how to explain a battle without getting too deep in the weeds.
Flood’s book is a great analysis of their triumphs and failures throughout their lives. When Grant and Sherman finally come together, you get the sense these men were made to fight alongside each other. Grant had to be the tenacious leaders who didn’t care about credit and let his successful subordinates shine. Sherman, in his own words, confirmed he could not operate without Grant who gave him the confidence and room to make decisions.
Flood wrote a fantastic book which gives each general the spotlight without overburdening the reader. His military acumen shows through as he also knows how to explain a battle without getting too deep in the weeds.
March 21, 2011
Well written, nice flow with a few annoyances: 5 or 6 more quotes and you would swear the author was there taking minutes; The picture of Grant on a horse is not Grant on a horse, see the notes for the picture at the LOC: http://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/2007....
All in all a very enjoyable book. A nice change from the endless staccato of data that embalms most writings on this war.
All in all a very enjoyable book. A nice change from the endless staccato of data that embalms most writings on this war.
March 4, 2010
Interesting details not generally covered in the broader histories of the civil war. Makes even more clear how two such seemingly ordinary men could rise to greatness to meet the challenges which they faced.
January 19, 2011
Interesting but had a very nasty tendency to drag in a number of places. Felt longer then it really was and finishing it felt like a chore. Still had some interesting parts to it.
April 19, 2012
It has been said before in better prose and with more insight.
September 19, 2023
I docked this book an extra star for not being nearly as cool as its title implies. Also, the thumbnail description contains a factual error.
As a Grant-and-Sherman-themed description of the Civil War, it is not flawless but is good. The author strikes a good balance, providing enough breadth and depth to make clear what was happening and why, without overwhelming me with detail that would have left matters unclear (I don't mean that a more comprehensive treatment of the war would have been bad--I might not enjoy such a thing, but plenty of other people would and do). And there are plenty of lovely little stories that provide a clear and engaging picture of who these men were and what they were about. I particularly appreciated descriptions of how they moved and looked and what impressions they made on those who met them--it gets them out of the black-and-white studio shots and the lists of battles won and shows them as real and whole people.
But the title is not "Grant and Sherman's Civil War," or some other vague indication of topic. Instead it tells us that this is a book about a friendship, and that this friendship won the Civil War.
It's not unreasonable for a reader to therefore expect the book to address certain questions:
When and why and how did these men become friends?
Was this friendship qualitatively different from the men's other relationships--were they something to each other nobody else was, or did each have a lot of close friendships, with this one being notable only because it won the war?
How did this friendship win the war? That Grant and Sherman were both key to the Northern victory is obvious to anyone who knows even a little Civil War history, but could the war have been won if one or the other or both had been missing? How did their friendship contribute to the victory--could the war have been won by generals who were brilliant in all the same ways individually but had no personal connection to each other?
The author, Flood, addresses some of these questions briefly and partially in a two-page afterword. Others he does not address at all, except possibly by vague implication.
For example, he never says how this friendship got started--he acknowledges that Grant and Sherman met as cadets at West Point, but does not say whether they befriended each other then. Flood implies that they were mere acquaintances until they began fighting together in 1862, but Sherman himself says otherwise in his memoir (which Flood obviously read as he quotes extensively from it). Now, it's possible that their earlier friendship is nowhere documented--Sherman, in his memoir, is characteristically reticent about his most personal connections, and while he mentions that they were close since 1839, says nothing else on the subject. Grant could be similarly closed-lipped in his memoir (which I haven't read yet), and it's possible that their friendship left no paper-trail for its first twenty years. But if that is the case, Flood should say so.
Were Grant and Sherman mere acquaintances when they met on the battlefield at Shiloh, or had they been true friends for twenty years, or something in the middle? For Flood not to even frame the question is extraordinary.
So much for the one star I docked.
The other star came off because of the "flawed" part of my "flawed but good" assessment. Flood is prone to digressions, some of which are interesting, but others seem mere pointless abstraction. And while his writing is, for the most part, clear, he occasionally lets loose with phrases that are clunky, ambiguous, or just stylistically bizarre. Worse, he's sometimes wrong--or, at least he sometimes makes statements that appear to contradict the evidence he himself provides.
For example, he repeatedly characterizes Sherman as having been "a failure" prior to the war, but all the evidence Flood himself provides suggests that's not true. While Sherman didn't achieve any notable success prior to the war and did experience multiple setbacks in business in quick succession, Flood does not indicate that any of those setbacks were his fault. On the contrary, he handled a series of unfortunate events very competently. To be a failure, one has to fail; Sherman didn't, and Flood doesn't say he did, so why does he repeat the pre-war failure narrative?
Throughout, Flood does not ever indicate when there isn't enough evidence to be sure of something. He either leaves the question (whatever it is) unaddressed, or he speculates, without clearly saying that he is speculating or explaining why he believes a speculation to be correct. That, plus the aforementioned errors, means that I can't really trust Flood's accuracy except where he quotes or directly paraphrases primary sources.
All in all, I'd say the book is worth reading, but it's not as good a read as it could have been.
As a Grant-and-Sherman-themed description of the Civil War, it is not flawless but is good. The author strikes a good balance, providing enough breadth and depth to make clear what was happening and why, without overwhelming me with detail that would have left matters unclear (I don't mean that a more comprehensive treatment of the war would have been bad--I might not enjoy such a thing, but plenty of other people would and do). And there are plenty of lovely little stories that provide a clear and engaging picture of who these men were and what they were about. I particularly appreciated descriptions of how they moved and looked and what impressions they made on those who met them--it gets them out of the black-and-white studio shots and the lists of battles won and shows them as real and whole people.
But the title is not "Grant and Sherman's Civil War," or some other vague indication of topic. Instead it tells us that this is a book about a friendship, and that this friendship won the Civil War.
It's not unreasonable for a reader to therefore expect the book to address certain questions:
When and why and how did these men become friends?
Was this friendship qualitatively different from the men's other relationships--were they something to each other nobody else was, or did each have a lot of close friendships, with this one being notable only because it won the war?
How did this friendship win the war? That Grant and Sherman were both key to the Northern victory is obvious to anyone who knows even a little Civil War history, but could the war have been won if one or the other or both had been missing? How did their friendship contribute to the victory--could the war have been won by generals who were brilliant in all the same ways individually but had no personal connection to each other?
The author, Flood, addresses some of these questions briefly and partially in a two-page afterword. Others he does not address at all, except possibly by vague implication.
For example, he never says how this friendship got started--he acknowledges that Grant and Sherman met as cadets at West Point, but does not say whether they befriended each other then. Flood implies that they were mere acquaintances until they began fighting together in 1862, but Sherman himself says otherwise in his memoir (which Flood obviously read as he quotes extensively from it). Now, it's possible that their earlier friendship is nowhere documented--Sherman, in his memoir, is characteristically reticent about his most personal connections, and while he mentions that they were close since 1839, says nothing else on the subject. Grant could be similarly closed-lipped in his memoir (which I haven't read yet), and it's possible that their friendship left no paper-trail for its first twenty years. But if that is the case, Flood should say so.
Were Grant and Sherman mere acquaintances when they met on the battlefield at Shiloh, or had they been true friends for twenty years, or something in the middle? For Flood not to even frame the question is extraordinary.
So much for the one star I docked.
The other star came off because of the "flawed" part of my "flawed but good" assessment. Flood is prone to digressions, some of which are interesting, but others seem mere pointless abstraction. And while his writing is, for the most part, clear, he occasionally lets loose with phrases that are clunky, ambiguous, or just stylistically bizarre. Worse, he's sometimes wrong--or, at least he sometimes makes statements that appear to contradict the evidence he himself provides.
For example, he repeatedly characterizes Sherman as having been "a failure" prior to the war, but all the evidence Flood himself provides suggests that's not true. While Sherman didn't achieve any notable success prior to the war and did experience multiple setbacks in business in quick succession, Flood does not indicate that any of those setbacks were his fault. On the contrary, he handled a series of unfortunate events very competently. To be a failure, one has to fail; Sherman didn't, and Flood doesn't say he did, so why does he repeat the pre-war failure narrative?
Throughout, Flood does not ever indicate when there isn't enough evidence to be sure of something. He either leaves the question (whatever it is) unaddressed, or he speculates, without clearly saying that he is speculating or explaining why he believes a speculation to be correct. That, plus the aforementioned errors, means that I can't really trust Flood's accuracy except where he quotes or directly paraphrases primary sources.
All in all, I'd say the book is worth reading, but it's not as good a read as it could have been.
June 27, 2017
It is not uncommon for students of the Civil War to be familiar with the writings of either Grant or Sherman or writings about either of them [1]. What this particular book does, in the form of what amounts to a parallel biography of sorts, is to look at the friendship of Grant and Sherman as a means by which both men were made greater than either could have been on his own. In looking at this famous and fateful friendship, the book also reminds the reader of the importance of having a good support system--something both of these men needed for reasons of mental health--and also the benefits of trust. There were other generals who were as talented as either Grant or Sherman in the army, and neither general was without flaw, but the absolute confidence that both of these generals was able to place in the other was of immense importance in determining the course of the Civil War and leading to Union victory. Of interest as well is the way this book demonstrates the immense lack of trust Grant and Sherman had with other important people, as well as the trust that they had for Lincoln and that Lincoln had for them.
As far as the contents of this book are concerned, the 400 pages or so of this book are divided into twenty chapters with a short prologue and epilogue (called L'Envoi) that take a chronological view of the lives of Grant and Sherman with a special focus on their interactions during the Civil War. Attention is paid to the high and low points of the careers of both men and how both managed the difficult tasks of strategic insight, tactical skill in the face of battle, managing unruly subordinates, displaying political finesse in dealing with superiors in the civil and military spheres, and engaging with the press and civilians. The book does not sugarcoat the failures or overplay the successes of the two, showing a nuanced and complicated look at how Grant and Sherman were able to build rapport with each other through the demonstration of mutual loyalty over the course of their careers during the Civil War. In an age where communication was becoming more instant and campaigns much more complicated in nature, a development that prefigured many later developments in war, the author sensibly argues that the trust built between Grant and Sherman was decisive in providing for the Union victory despite the flaws of both men.
In many ways, the author's discussion of the career of both men follows a fairly traditional set of stories. There are discussions of Grant's poverty before the Civil War, his deeply romantic marriage with his wife, Sherman's nervous temperament and inveterate hostility towards the media, Grant's drinking, as well as the failures at Cold Harbor and the murky nature of the reporting on the Battle of Missionary Ridge. Readers who are familiar with the biographies of both men will likely find much here that is familiar. What may be novel is the way that the book focuses on loyalty and trust, with the implications that successful friendships and partnerships in our own lives requires that we be able to build the same sort of trust and confidence with others. As someone who has struggled my entire life with issues of trust and confidence, this book was a familiar reminder of the importance of successfully resolving such issues in life, and although this book was a long one, it certainly was able to hold interest from beginning to end, thoughtfully written and well-researched.
[1] See, for example:
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2017...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2015...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2015...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2017...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2017...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2011...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2016...
As far as the contents of this book are concerned, the 400 pages or so of this book are divided into twenty chapters with a short prologue and epilogue (called L'Envoi) that take a chronological view of the lives of Grant and Sherman with a special focus on their interactions during the Civil War. Attention is paid to the high and low points of the careers of both men and how both managed the difficult tasks of strategic insight, tactical skill in the face of battle, managing unruly subordinates, displaying political finesse in dealing with superiors in the civil and military spheres, and engaging with the press and civilians. The book does not sugarcoat the failures or overplay the successes of the two, showing a nuanced and complicated look at how Grant and Sherman were able to build rapport with each other through the demonstration of mutual loyalty over the course of their careers during the Civil War. In an age where communication was becoming more instant and campaigns much more complicated in nature, a development that prefigured many later developments in war, the author sensibly argues that the trust built between Grant and Sherman was decisive in providing for the Union victory despite the flaws of both men.
In many ways, the author's discussion of the career of both men follows a fairly traditional set of stories. There are discussions of Grant's poverty before the Civil War, his deeply romantic marriage with his wife, Sherman's nervous temperament and inveterate hostility towards the media, Grant's drinking, as well as the failures at Cold Harbor and the murky nature of the reporting on the Battle of Missionary Ridge. Readers who are familiar with the biographies of both men will likely find much here that is familiar. What may be novel is the way that the book focuses on loyalty and trust, with the implications that successful friendships and partnerships in our own lives requires that we be able to build the same sort of trust and confidence with others. As someone who has struggled my entire life with issues of trust and confidence, this book was a familiar reminder of the importance of successfully resolving such issues in life, and although this book was a long one, it certainly was able to hold interest from beginning to end, thoughtfully written and well-researched.
[1] See, for example:
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2017...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2015...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2015...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2017...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2017...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2011...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2016...
January 28, 2021
Charles Bracelen Flood was a masterful story teller and biographer. He chronicles the lives of these two Union generals better than each man did alone in his respective memoir—both very fine books in themselves.
Ulysses Grant and William T. Sherman were each alternately idolized and vilified during their lifetimes. Mr. Flood humanizes them as men who experienced personal heartaches, sometimes struggled to succeed in private enterprise, did not hesitate to reflect upon their own failures, but who forged a resolute friendship with each other and joined in a mission to stop the war between states that had been so carefully Unionized, in President Lincoln’s famous words, “four score and seven years” earlier. Each man found “the talent and strength” to lead tens of thousands of other men in physical battles of devastating carnage. And when it was deemed possible to achieve military wins with less carnage, they agreed upon a strategy of siege of an enemy army while depriving it of needed replacement material goods: arms, food, clothing and blankets, and transport systems of road and rail.
There are many books describing the terrible four years of America’s Civil War, but this author adds details taken from personal letters of these men and members of their families to carry the reader back to the powerful real-time emotions of so many participants of those frightening years. He also includes the peripheral background of the usual jealousies among both politicians and other military officers, all willingly abetted by news “reporters.” By writing from the perspective of the two most effectively cooperating generals, as well as reminding the reader of how long it took (sometimes several days) for communications to reach across distances of several hundred miles, the author exquisitely draws the pictures of misunderstandings, premature interpretations of someone else’s actions, and oftentimes chaos in official behaviors.
The most satisfactory part of the book to me was The Grand Review, the two-day march through the city of Washington by surviving Union veterans, as endless bouquets of flowers carried by female spectators and tossed to the passing soldiers contrasted with the somber black crepe of mourning for President Lincoln still draped over windows and doorways of many buildings. Without saying so explicitly, it was a two-chapter metaphor of life’s hopes and disappointments, successes and failures, the inexorable joys and sorrows of flawed humanity. Those ideas are reinforced by the book's final quick synopsis of the future lifetimes that remained for the two victorious generals and their families.
Ulysses Grant and William T. Sherman were each alternately idolized and vilified during their lifetimes. Mr. Flood humanizes them as men who experienced personal heartaches, sometimes struggled to succeed in private enterprise, did not hesitate to reflect upon their own failures, but who forged a resolute friendship with each other and joined in a mission to stop the war between states that had been so carefully Unionized, in President Lincoln’s famous words, “four score and seven years” earlier. Each man found “the talent and strength” to lead tens of thousands of other men in physical battles of devastating carnage. And when it was deemed possible to achieve military wins with less carnage, they agreed upon a strategy of siege of an enemy army while depriving it of needed replacement material goods: arms, food, clothing and blankets, and transport systems of road and rail.
There are many books describing the terrible four years of America’s Civil War, but this author adds details taken from personal letters of these men and members of their families to carry the reader back to the powerful real-time emotions of so many participants of those frightening years. He also includes the peripheral background of the usual jealousies among both politicians and other military officers, all willingly abetted by news “reporters.” By writing from the perspective of the two most effectively cooperating generals, as well as reminding the reader of how long it took (sometimes several days) for communications to reach across distances of several hundred miles, the author exquisitely draws the pictures of misunderstandings, premature interpretations of someone else’s actions, and oftentimes chaos in official behaviors.
The most satisfactory part of the book to me was The Grand Review, the two-day march through the city of Washington by surviving Union veterans, as endless bouquets of flowers carried by female spectators and tossed to the passing soldiers contrasted with the somber black crepe of mourning for President Lincoln still draped over windows and doorways of many buildings. Without saying so explicitly, it was a two-chapter metaphor of life’s hopes and disappointments, successes and failures, the inexorable joys and sorrows of flawed humanity. Those ideas are reinforced by the book's final quick synopsis of the future lifetimes that remained for the two victorious generals and their families.
February 17, 2020
amazing. Absolutely impressive amount of research and supporting evidence!
I learned so much about Grant and Sherman, as well as Lincoln and Stanton, but also so much about the politics and war strategy.
Lincoln was under so much pressure (the Radical Republicans wanted Black freedom immediately with white Southerners treated as traitors-"hating the rebels as Christian patriots ought," while some, like Sherman, thought freedom was necessary but voting rights were not). Lincoln wanted to make sure he didn't alienate border states so he soft-pedaled the freedom that he definitely seemed to plan for. Lincoln had to keep the states united. Even Grant's wife, Julia, commented on the flag during the victory parade: it was waving with all the stars still on it. Keeping the Union -and keeping it free- was everything. (although early on, Sherman observed Southerners getting ready for war-South Carolina seceded- and fired on Fort Sumter, while Northerners weren't anticipating a long or very difficult war.
The way lives were intertwined was heart-wrenching. Many of the generals shared a West Point education and very real friendship. Sherman spent a year as superintendent at a military academy in Louisiana. Some Southern generals resigned positions in the North out of a sense of duty to family and home states and took up the Confederate cause.
The number of soldiers killed was unbelievable. How was anyone left in the US? Lee surrendered to Grant at Appomattox, while Sherman and his huge army were still on their mission to break Confederate forces under Johnston. Families visited army camps, and not just the officers' families.
Lincoln spoke about "malice toward none" and initially said the Virginia legislature could meet to declare that they had surrendered and were officially leaving the confederacy. Lincoln's cabinet panicked and Lincoln agreed that the legislature probably better not meet.
I didn't realize that Lincoln was assassinated so quickly after Lee's surrender! Johnston hadn't surrendered to Sherman yet, and victory parades hadn't even been planned yet. Plus, apparently there was a group of assassins bent on killing a bunch of Union leaders. Grant was targeted, as well as Secretary of State Seward, who was attacked in his home along with his grown sons and a couple servants. So much fascinating history-Charles Bracelen Flood made it accessible.
I learned so much about Grant and Sherman, as well as Lincoln and Stanton, but also so much about the politics and war strategy.
Lincoln was under so much pressure (the Radical Republicans wanted Black freedom immediately with white Southerners treated as traitors-"hating the rebels as Christian patriots ought," while some, like Sherman, thought freedom was necessary but voting rights were not). Lincoln wanted to make sure he didn't alienate border states so he soft-pedaled the freedom that he definitely seemed to plan for. Lincoln had to keep the states united. Even Grant's wife, Julia, commented on the flag during the victory parade: it was waving with all the stars still on it. Keeping the Union -and keeping it free- was everything. (although early on, Sherman observed Southerners getting ready for war-South Carolina seceded- and fired on Fort Sumter, while Northerners weren't anticipating a long or very difficult war.
The way lives were intertwined was heart-wrenching. Many of the generals shared a West Point education and very real friendship. Sherman spent a year as superintendent at a military academy in Louisiana. Some Southern generals resigned positions in the North out of a sense of duty to family and home states and took up the Confederate cause.
The number of soldiers killed was unbelievable. How was anyone left in the US? Lee surrendered to Grant at Appomattox, while Sherman and his huge army were still on their mission to break Confederate forces under Johnston. Families visited army camps, and not just the officers' families.
Lincoln spoke about "malice toward none" and initially said the Virginia legislature could meet to declare that they had surrendered and were officially leaving the confederacy. Lincoln's cabinet panicked and Lincoln agreed that the legislature probably better not meet.
I didn't realize that Lincoln was assassinated so quickly after Lee's surrender! Johnston hadn't surrendered to Sherman yet, and victory parades hadn't even been planned yet. Plus, apparently there was a group of assassins bent on killing a bunch of Union leaders. Grant was targeted, as well as Secretary of State Seward, who was attacked in his home along with his grown sons and a couple servants. So much fascinating history-Charles Bracelen Flood made it accessible.
December 4, 2020
I appreciated the book beginning with an overview of both mens’ lives Both had graduated from West Point, Grant serving during the Mexican-American War, Sherman in California. But both had resigned, for different reasons, but both would answer their country’s call, and find greatness.
Getting to that greatness would take time, especially for Sherman. While Grant had confidence in himself, Sherman did not. But Grant’s drive would bring him the leadership role in the attack on Fort Henry. In a fortuitous happenstance, Sherman would be ordered to ready men and supplies to send to Grant, who appreciated Sherman’s methodical work ethic. And so it would begin.
From Fort Donelson, to the terrible victory at Shiloh where they would finally meet and begin to know each other’s worth. The siege at Vicksburg, probably their crowning achievement, would also be the catalyst that would eventually send them their separate ways, at least for the duration of the war. Grant was now Lincoln’s man, and soon after the battle at Chattanooga would be promoted to Lt. General, a rank only George Washington had ever held.
Though now fighting on opposite sides of the country, Grant and Sherman would stay in touch by telegraph. Then, with the war entering its final phase, they would meet with Lincoln to discuss how the final battle would play out. It would be Grant harrying Lee to Appomattox, while Sherman in the West would try to bring Joseph Johnson to heel.
Lincoln’s assassination, and Sherman’s lenient surrender terms to Johnson would create dissent, but Grant was able to save his friend from his unintended misstep as the War finally came to an end.
After the War, they would have disagreements, but would remain friends, with Sherman lending support to Grant as he fought the cancer that would take his life. It was a friendship forged in battle, yet would remain vital in peace. Concise and easy to read, this is a book not to be passed by.
Getting to that greatness would take time, especially for Sherman. While Grant had confidence in himself, Sherman did not. But Grant’s drive would bring him the leadership role in the attack on Fort Henry. In a fortuitous happenstance, Sherman would be ordered to ready men and supplies to send to Grant, who appreciated Sherman’s methodical work ethic. And so it would begin.
From Fort Donelson, to the terrible victory at Shiloh where they would finally meet and begin to know each other’s worth. The siege at Vicksburg, probably their crowning achievement, would also be the catalyst that would eventually send them their separate ways, at least for the duration of the war. Grant was now Lincoln’s man, and soon after the battle at Chattanooga would be promoted to Lt. General, a rank only George Washington had ever held.
Though now fighting on opposite sides of the country, Grant and Sherman would stay in touch by telegraph. Then, with the war entering its final phase, they would meet with Lincoln to discuss how the final battle would play out. It would be Grant harrying Lee to Appomattox, while Sherman in the West would try to bring Joseph Johnson to heel.
Lincoln’s assassination, and Sherman’s lenient surrender terms to Johnson would create dissent, but Grant was able to save his friend from his unintended misstep as the War finally came to an end.
After the War, they would have disagreements, but would remain friends, with Sherman lending support to Grant as he fought the cancer that would take his life. It was a friendship forged in battle, yet would remain vital in peace. Concise and easy to read, this is a book not to be passed by.
November 21, 2023
Other than telegraph, the two only met a handful of times. A much better book on abolishing slavery and supreme generalship was a bio of their contemporary American general, George H. Thomas, Master of War, by Benson Bodrick. A subordinate general who never wrote his memoirs, also never lost a battle, never lost his part of a battle, had a supremely low casualty count, was a defensive wizard, yet went on the offense to destroy not one, but TWO Confederate armies in separate campaigns, one where he speed marched more than 120 miles to both free and arm African-American slaves, which was the key to Robert E. Lee’s massive desertion rate by slave-owning or borne to inherit slaves, officers and soldiers who no longer had any reason to fight, or were in fear of their family slaves deserting, or were gobsmacked when their own so-called ‘loyal’ slaves deserted and/or pillaged their plantation prisons at the first opportunity, and finally the oft-misquoted mathematical farce of a lie spread by racists like Shelby Foote that the “4-out-of-5 Confederate soldiers who DIDN’T own slaves” grew tired of the hypocrisy of fighting “a rich man’s war”, when so many of those really wealthy large plantation slave-holders were exempt from the draft and going anywhere near the actual fighting.
July 20, 2020
A damn good book detailing the professional and personal relationship of Union generals Ulysses S. Grant and William Tecumseh Sherman during the Civil War. This book does a decent job of giving you the basic facts - it doesn’t go into overly annoying detail and yet it doesn’t just skim over the important stuff. It’s a good introduction for readers and armchair historians of the Civil War. I also admire that this book does not whitewash the darker aspects of the character of these men - such as Sherman’s view of slavery and African-Americans in general.
Since Grant has been in the news lately due to his statue being toppled, I found it fitting to read this. For all of his faults - and he was an American man, God knows he had plenty - he was still the embodiment of what we want this country to be - never backing down in the face of personal defeat, and to keep on when the going is too rough.
Since Grant has been in the news lately due to his statue being toppled, I found it fitting to read this. For all of his faults - and he was an American man, God knows he had plenty - he was still the embodiment of what we want this country to be - never backing down in the face of personal defeat, and to keep on when the going is too rough.
July 6, 2017
A really great read! Whether or not they were friends Grant and Sherman certainly made a significant contribution toward winning the Civil War and the author makes a strong case for their friendship. In any event Flood has written an outstanding book by enabling us to look over the shoulders of these two flawed but driven characters as well as the other political, military and civilian individuals who make up the story. I put this at the top of the books I've read about the Civil War. The descriptions of battles clear describe the settings and shifting influences, even without having to flip back to the maps. Assigning five stars was easy.
April 7, 2019
One of the most readable, and thoroughly enjoyable histories of the American Civil War I have had the pleasure to read. I will confess I put it on the reading list first because Sherman is an ancestor on my mothers side.
The book gave m3 new insights into the war in the west, and Grant and Sherman’s relationship .
What I continue to find fascinating is that the North survived to win this war with their initial inept leadership and political nonsense.
What I also find fascinating is that politics was the same then as now, interfering when they shouldn’t, providing politically motivated oversight, and attempting to take credit from the warriors
The book gave m3 new insights into the war in the west, and Grant and Sherman’s relationship .
What I continue to find fascinating is that the North survived to win this war with their initial inept leadership and political nonsense.
What I also find fascinating is that politics was the same then as now, interfering when they shouldn’t, providing politically motivated oversight, and attempting to take credit from the warriors
January 25, 2020
I found this to be an interesting narrative about two men who took their own personalities and struggles and used their strengths, together at times, to impact the outcome of the Civil War, as well as both the preceding and following years.
Grant was more of a modest and reluctant politician, a struggling farmer, and a closet drinker in the months of service separated from his family. Sherman was a man who bounced from one business venture to the next, and was at times considered to be a lunatic. Yet both men found in the other a "brother," for the needed time and place for each other and for America.
Grant was more of a modest and reluctant politician, a struggling farmer, and a closet drinker in the months of service separated from his family. Sherman was a man who bounced from one business venture to the next, and was at times considered to be a lunatic. Yet both men found in the other a "brother," for the needed time and place for each other and for America.
July 19, 2017
Loved to read about these two oft-misunderstood leaders, their friendship and how they both unlocked each other's potential on and off the battlefield. Grant has quickly become one of my favorite leaders in all of US history, and not just because of his military brilliance.
From a military history perspective, it was nice to get a greater understanding of the Western theater of the Civil War, as most people tend to place far greater importance and focus on the duels between Robert E. Lee and the Army of the Potomac.
From a military history perspective, it was nice to get a greater understanding of the Western theater of the Civil War, as most people tend to place far greater importance and focus on the duels between Robert E. Lee and the Army of the Potomac.
June 1, 2021
Without Grant and Sherman, there would be no United States. Their friendship shows what true friendship is, being there for one another and loving one another. Not only was their friendship crucial to the war, their leadership, strategy, and tactics to the war also played a major role, from Shioh, Vicksburg, The March To The Sea and through the Carolinas, and to the Overland Campaign against Robert E. Lee in 1864. These men, and their friendship helped win the Civil War, but also show what true friendship is.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 111 reviews