What do you think?
Rate this book
Southern Storm: Sherman's March to the Sea
Award-winning Civil War historian Noah Andre Trudeau has written a gripping, definitive new account that will stand as the last word on General William Tecumseh Sherman's epic march—a targeted strategy aimed to break not only the Confederate army but an entire society as well. With Lincoln's hard-fought reelection victory in hand, Ulysses S. Grant, commander of the Union forces, allowed Sherman to lead the largest and riskiest operation of the war. In rich detail, Trudeau explains why General Sherman's name is still anathema below the Mason-Dixon Line, especially in Georgia, where he is remembered as "the one who marched to the sea with death and devastation in his wake."
Sherman's swath of destruction spanned more than sixty miles in width and virtually cut the South in two, badly disabling the flow of supplies to the Confederate army. He led more than 60,000 Union troops to blaze a path from Atlanta to Savannah, ordering his men to burn crops, kill livestock, and decimate everything that fed the Rebel war machine. Grant and Sherman's gamble worked, and the march managed to crush a critical part of the Confederacy and increase the pressure on General Lee, who was already under siege in Virginia.
Told through the intimate and engrossing diaries and letters of Sherman's soldiers and the civilians who suffered in their path, Southern Storm paints a vivid picture of an event that would forever change the course of America.
Sherman's swath of destruction spanned more than sixty miles in width and virtually cut the South in two, badly disabling the flow of supplies to the Confederate army. He led more than 60,000 Union troops to blaze a path from Atlanta to Savannah, ordering his men to burn crops, kill livestock, and decimate everything that fed the Rebel war machine. Grant and Sherman's gamble worked, and the march managed to crush a critical part of the Confederacy and increase the pressure on General Lee, who was already under siege in Virginia.
Told through the intimate and engrossing diaries and letters of Sherman's soldiers and the civilians who suffered in their path, Southern Storm paints a vivid picture of an event that would forever change the course of America.
671 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 2008
483 people are currently reading
1221 people want to read
About the author
Noah Andre Trudeau
16 books48 followersAmerican Civil War historian. He has won the Civil War Round Table of New York's Fletcher Pratt Award and the Jerry Coffey Memorial Book Prize. A former executive producer at National Public Radio, he lives in Washington, DC.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 89 reviews
December 3, 2019
An Unsolicited Personal Preamble
I am a total noob when it comes to military tactics, maneuvers and whatnot in the American Civil War (heretofore referred to as "the Civil War," but it's not like the U.S. holds the exclusive rights to combat among countrymen). I ended up reading this Noah Andre Trudeau work out of a combination of my burgeoning interest in historical narratives of conflict and warfare, references to Sherman in a number of my presidential reads and (the biggest one, if I'm being truthful) as a result of engaging in a bit of ”library roulette."*
The March Oversimplified
So there's this guy leading a bunch of other guys around the South...too vague? Let me try again. Open curtain on William Tecumseh Sherman and his Union troops (often referred to as federal troops/army in journals quoted by Trudeau) in Atlanta, Georgia . Obviously they didn't just appear there, but that's a different story for a different time. The gist, however, is that when Ulysses S. Grant had to travel eastward to take command of the overall Union Army (March 1864), he tapped Sherman to take over for him in the Western Theater as head of the Mississippi Division.
There's no denying that Sherman didn't always have his head screwed on tight, and was thought to be insane by some. He blamed himself for the death of his favorite son, Willie, and made no secret of his thoughts of suicide in letters home.
For now, back to an Atlanta occupied by Union soldiers and where Sherman ordered the evacuation of civilians from the city, and also the destruction of infrastructure (e.g. the railroad depot, below, was blown up upon Sherman's departure), marking the beginning of what would come to be known as Sherman's scorched earth policies.
Sherman and co. began their journey seaward sans supplies- breaking off from the wagon chain which had carried their provisions, but also slowed things down. This left the troops to forage from the land and supplies found in the households as they marched through Georgia. The troops became known as bummers and their activity and directives are well depicted by Trudeau through journals and letters from Georgian civilians and Union troops (and leadership) alike.
The destruction wrought under Sherman's command was not pretty, though it was tactical. Though Sherman was by no means an advocate for racial equality (and was contemptuous of the burden imposed by the "trail of negroes" that followed in the wake of the federal troops), the army made ready use of the knowledge and strength capital offered by slaves (the picture above illustrates the scenario as depicted in many an excerpt from civilian diaries).
The "battles" between Union and Confederate troops en route to Savannah were minimal, small in scale and with fewer lives lost than in earlier battles of the war to which Sherman had been party (e.g. Shiloh). However, Sherman's march was psychologically and logistically devastating to the South. By taking from crops and civilians and destroying the railroad (in what became known as the Sherman necktie - below), the Confederacy was cut off from the resources necessary for its continuation.
On War
I haven't actually read Clausewitz (yet), but he seems to come up a lot in discussions of Sherman's legacy. From a strictly utilitarian perspective, it's impossible to know whether Sherman's march saved (by preventing theoretical battles through the destruction of property) or lost lives in the balance of things by fighting infrastructure rather than infantry . Savannah made for a lovely symbolic Christmas gift to President Lincoln, but Sherman's march undoubtedly sowed some serious resentment among Southerners.
Though not exactly a treatise on the Laws of War, I remember a general in Max Brooks' World War Z mentioning that the traditional take on warfare (of the non-zombie kind) was that soldiers simply needed to be "bred, fed and led," a trio of factors crippled for the Confederacy through Sherman's Union leadership.
Conclusions?
Trudeau lets you draw your own conclusions, and mine are still, at most, rough sketches. Trudeau references Sherman's personal "rules of war" throughout the book (guided in part by Sherman's sense of collective responsibility), and draws language and information from a plethora of vantage points. I closed this book wanting to learn more which (for my money) is actually a good thing.
_________________________________________
* A fun little game wherein I start with a pick from the library's category page (which, as far as I can tell, just includes three or four random books from each category) and I give myself three clicks (max) of "you might also enjoy" pages before selecting what to read. I realize it's not exactly The Deer Hunter , but a girl's gotta spice up her life sometimes!
I am a total noob when it comes to military tactics, maneuvers and whatnot in the American Civil War (heretofore referred to as "the Civil War," but it's not like the U.S. holds the exclusive rights to combat among countrymen). I ended up reading this Noah Andre Trudeau work out of a combination of my burgeoning interest in historical narratives of conflict and warfare, references to Sherman in a number of my presidential reads and (the biggest one, if I'm being truthful) as a result of engaging in a bit of ”library roulette."*
The March Oversimplified
So there's this guy leading a bunch of other guys around the South...too vague? Let me try again. Open curtain on William Tecumseh Sherman and his Union troops (often referred to as federal troops/army in journals quoted by Trudeau) in Atlanta, Georgia . Obviously they didn't just appear there, but that's a different story for a different time. The gist, however, is that when Ulysses S. Grant had to travel eastward to take command of the overall Union Army (March 1864), he tapped Sherman to take over for him in the Western Theater as head of the Mississippi Division.
There's no denying that Sherman didn't always have his head screwed on tight, and was thought to be insane by some. He blamed himself for the death of his favorite son, Willie, and made no secret of his thoughts of suicide in letters home.
For now, back to an Atlanta occupied by Union soldiers and where Sherman ordered the evacuation of civilians from the city, and also the destruction of infrastructure (e.g. the railroad depot, below, was blown up upon Sherman's departure), marking the beginning of what would come to be known as Sherman's scorched earth policies.
Sherman and co. began their journey seaward sans supplies- breaking off from the wagon chain which had carried their provisions, but also slowed things down. This left the troops to forage from the land and supplies found in the households as they marched through Georgia. The troops became known as bummers and their activity and directives are well depicted by Trudeau through journals and letters from Georgian civilians and Union troops (and leadership) alike.
The destruction wrought under Sherman's command was not pretty, though it was tactical. Though Sherman was by no means an advocate for racial equality (and was contemptuous of the burden imposed by the "trail of negroes" that followed in the wake of the federal troops), the army made ready use of the knowledge and strength capital offered by slaves (the picture above illustrates the scenario as depicted in many an excerpt from civilian diaries).
The "battles" between Union and Confederate troops en route to Savannah were minimal, small in scale and with fewer lives lost than in earlier battles of the war to which Sherman had been party (e.g. Shiloh). However, Sherman's march was psychologically and logistically devastating to the South. By taking from crops and civilians and destroying the railroad (in what became known as the Sherman necktie - below), the Confederacy was cut off from the resources necessary for its continuation.
On War
I haven't actually read Clausewitz (yet), but he seems to come up a lot in discussions of Sherman's legacy. From a strictly utilitarian perspective, it's impossible to know whether Sherman's march saved (by preventing theoretical battles through the destruction of property) or lost lives in the balance of things by fighting infrastructure rather than infantry . Savannah made for a lovely symbolic Christmas gift to President Lincoln, but Sherman's march undoubtedly sowed some serious resentment among Southerners.
Though not exactly a treatise on the Laws of War, I remember a general in Max Brooks' World War Z mentioning that the traditional take on warfare (of the non-zombie kind) was that soldiers simply needed to be "bred, fed and led," a trio of factors crippled for the Confederacy through Sherman's Union leadership.
Conclusions?
Trudeau lets you draw your own conclusions, and mine are still, at most, rough sketches. Trudeau references Sherman's personal "rules of war" throughout the book (guided in part by Sherman's sense of collective responsibility), and draws language and information from a plethora of vantage points. I closed this book wanting to learn more which (for my money) is actually a good thing.
_________________________________________
* A fun little game wherein I start with a pick from the library's category page (which, as far as I can tell, just includes three or four random books from each category) and I give myself three clicks (max) of "you might also enjoy" pages before selecting what to read. I realize it's not exactly The Deer Hunter , but a girl's gotta spice up her life sometimes!
March 24, 2014
I usually rate a book by quality but in this case, I can also rate it by quantity. That is the number of scraps of paper sticking out the top where I found something to quote or note. Southern Storm: Sherman's March to the Sea has a forest of little scrap paper at the top. 5 Stars Somehow I have never read any detailed account of Sherman’s March to the Sea, an iconic military campaign if there ever was one. Fixed!! This is an excellent account of the campaign from Atlanta to Savannah, mostly told by the participants themselves. Extensive use of letters and accounts by both sides gives a daily tracking map of the weather, objective and routes of the forces. Superbly blends the overall offensive and defensive strategies with the daily lives of the Union and Confederate soldiers. Fair reporting of the actions of both sides of the conflict. Here are some examples of the story:
Trudeau relates the attitudes of the Union leaders and soldiers towards the slaves encountered along the route. Many were for freeing them in the abstract but did not want them to join up with other camp followers and wanted the slaves to remain behind. Some of this was practical as there would be more mouths to feed and care for. But the slave population wasn’t going to stay. Here was a poignant scene, repeated often I imagine. Really brings the impact of the march to focus:
P155:
The entire march is filled out with little anecdotes and examples of daily life on the march. Here was a comment I found amusing.
P248:
Officers should be able to handle a weapon competently. Here is one who doesn’t make the grade as the Union cavalry is engaging the Confederate cavalry around Millen, GA, about halfway through the march:
Whether you are ignorant of Sherman’s March or know it well, I believe this is a great book to add to your list. Very exciting!
Trudeau relates the attitudes of the Union leaders and soldiers towards the slaves encountered along the route. Many were for freeing them in the abstract but did not want them to join up with other camp followers and wanted the slaves to remain behind. Some of this was practical as there would be more mouths to feed and care for. But the slave population wasn’t going to stay. Here was a poignant scene, repeated often I imagine. Really brings the impact of the march to focus:
P155:
The entire march is filled out with little anecdotes and examples of daily life on the march. Here was a comment I found amusing.
P248:
Officers should be able to handle a weapon competently. Here is one who doesn’t make the grade as the Union cavalry is engaging the Confederate cavalry around Millen, GA, about halfway through the march:
Whether you are ignorant of Sherman’s March or know it well, I believe this is a great book to add to your list. Very exciting!
May 7, 2015
A very solid, workmanlike account of Sherman's march through Georgia, but not especially emotionally engaging. It does stop at Savannah though, there's nothing on the continuation of the campaign into the Carolinas. Sherman's march to the sea was important strategically and psychologically, but as a military adventure it was little more than a logistical achievement.
Trudeau also deconstructs some myths of the march. It is common to label the march as emblematic of a “total war” doctrine, implying that Sherman wanted to impose a “new order” on the South by obliterating its infrastructure. But Sherman’s actual goal was to make the South’s rebellion so unpalatable to its civilian population that they would view a return to the Union as the lesser of two evils. It also stemmed from his personal belief in collective responsiblity and his determination to punish the southern leaders who should have been protecting their people by finding an accomodation with him.
An interesting and seemingly ironic theme that Trudeau emphasizes is the great importance that Sherman placed on order. He believed strongly in the supremacy of national law, and that anything impeding the efficienct, rapid pursuit of its establishment was subject to serious scrutiny. This was why he was so hostile to reporters and so determined to defeat the rebels, whom he considered little more than anarchists. This was also reflected in his “Special Field Orders No. 120”, in which he sanctioned foraging of enemy supplies but required foraging parties to be discriminating in seizing supplies and as civil as they could be.
However the book also has some painful vocabulary (“Sherman was an adept problem solver thanks to the way he approached matters”), but it is easily passed over. Another issue was the strange maps, which were a little hard to puzzle out (Sherman’s objective is always listed under the heading “under the gun”, for example, whatever that’s supposed to mean). And oddly, Trudeau makes no mention whatsoever of one of the greatest controversies of the march, the burning of Columbia.
In all, a comprehensive, readable, and very well-researched book.
Trudeau also deconstructs some myths of the march. It is common to label the march as emblematic of a “total war” doctrine, implying that Sherman wanted to impose a “new order” on the South by obliterating its infrastructure. But Sherman’s actual goal was to make the South’s rebellion so unpalatable to its civilian population that they would view a return to the Union as the lesser of two evils. It also stemmed from his personal belief in collective responsiblity and his determination to punish the southern leaders who should have been protecting their people by finding an accomodation with him.
An interesting and seemingly ironic theme that Trudeau emphasizes is the great importance that Sherman placed on order. He believed strongly in the supremacy of national law, and that anything impeding the efficienct, rapid pursuit of its establishment was subject to serious scrutiny. This was why he was so hostile to reporters and so determined to defeat the rebels, whom he considered little more than anarchists. This was also reflected in his “Special Field Orders No. 120”, in which he sanctioned foraging of enemy supplies but required foraging parties to be discriminating in seizing supplies and as civil as they could be.
However the book also has some painful vocabulary (“Sherman was an adept problem solver thanks to the way he approached matters”), but it is easily passed over. Another issue was the strange maps, which were a little hard to puzzle out (Sherman’s objective is always listed under the heading “under the gun”, for example, whatever that’s supposed to mean). And oddly, Trudeau makes no mention whatsoever of one of the greatest controversies of the march, the burning of Columbia.
In all, a comprehensive, readable, and very well-researched book.
April 30, 2019
I am struggling through it...a few more pages to go. Not very interesting and I wouldn't recommend it unless you are a civil war junkie like I am and you want to check the box on the March to the Sea. Sherman was only challenged by Joe Wheeler's cavalry and militia. As brave as they were, the only thing that the local militias accomplished was to add to the overall casualties for the confederacy.
If I were you I would read some of the other Civil War books that I have recommended.
If I were you I would read some of the other Civil War books that I have recommended.
November 7, 2015
Great book! I will give a full review in a bit.
Diamond
Diamond
August 10, 2018
“On earth, as in heaven, man must submit to an arbiter…He must not throw off his allegiance to his government or his God without just reason or cause. The South had no cause…Satan and the rebellious saints of Heaven were allowed a continuous existence in hell merely to swell their just punishment. To such as would rebel against a Government so mild and just as ours was in peace, a punishment equally would not be unjust.” --William Tecumseh Sherman (quoted on page 19)
I received this excellent Civil War tome from one of my sons as a Christmas gift. I don’t request a lot of books anymore because it’s so easy to get others free, but I asked for this one and I am glad I have it. I’ll be reading more by this guy. Despite one fact that I dispute—for which the citation also is sketchy—and some crummy maps, there’s no way to deny five stars here. The topic is among my favorites, and of course Sherman is my all time favorite general, hailing from a time when the United States government still attracted and produced heroes.
Each time I pick up another book on Sherman’s march to the sea, I question whether there is any new information to be had. Here Trudeau deals with this neatly by referencing participants other than Sherman, most often Major Henry Hitchcock, who was Sherman’s aide-de-camp. There are lots of meaty quotes from Sherman and those alongside him, and occasionally those opposite him. There’s one royal stinker of a reference made by an Atlanta doctor, who said a couple dozen very sick and badly injured men were dumped on him by Sherman personally, who said if they survived the rebels could consider them prisoners. I call bullshit on this, not only because of the source but also because it runs contrary to everything I know about Sherman, whose troops were singularly loyal to him largely because he took great care of them and he led them to victory.
Sherman’s memoir, which I heartily recommend to you, deals with the left column with which he traveled. The right column goes largely unmentioned there, and Trudeau fills us in. This was the column that took the most punishment, and was responsible for heading off enemy cavalry most of the time.
A mark of a terrific history book is that no matter how long it is, the reader emerges wanting to read something more, either by the author or on the subject. I have a couple of gift certificates going unused, and it’s entirely possible I will spend one of them on another book by this writer. The index and other references at the back of the book are useful also.
Highly recommended to American Civil War buffs.
I received this excellent Civil War tome from one of my sons as a Christmas gift. I don’t request a lot of books anymore because it’s so easy to get others free, but I asked for this one and I am glad I have it. I’ll be reading more by this guy. Despite one fact that I dispute—for which the citation also is sketchy—and some crummy maps, there’s no way to deny five stars here. The topic is among my favorites, and of course Sherman is my all time favorite general, hailing from a time when the United States government still attracted and produced heroes.
Each time I pick up another book on Sherman’s march to the sea, I question whether there is any new information to be had. Here Trudeau deals with this neatly by referencing participants other than Sherman, most often Major Henry Hitchcock, who was Sherman’s aide-de-camp. There are lots of meaty quotes from Sherman and those alongside him, and occasionally those opposite him. There’s one royal stinker of a reference made by an Atlanta doctor, who said a couple dozen very sick and badly injured men were dumped on him by Sherman personally, who said if they survived the rebels could consider them prisoners. I call bullshit on this, not only because of the source but also because it runs contrary to everything I know about Sherman, whose troops were singularly loyal to him largely because he took great care of them and he led them to victory.
Sherman’s memoir, which I heartily recommend to you, deals with the left column with which he traveled. The right column goes largely unmentioned there, and Trudeau fills us in. This was the column that took the most punishment, and was responsible for heading off enemy cavalry most of the time.
A mark of a terrific history book is that no matter how long it is, the reader emerges wanting to read something more, either by the author or on the subject. I have a couple of gift certificates going unused, and it’s entirely possible I will spend one of them on another book by this writer. The index and other references at the back of the book are useful also.
Highly recommended to American Civil War buffs.
March 5, 2020
Trudeau does a great job of providing a middle of the ground look at Sherman's March. At what it actually was, how the people who participated or had it inflicted on them viewed it, and how national consciousness molded it into what it is known by today. Many first hands account interspersed throughout.
February 29, 2024
This was suggested out of many books on the topic as the best on the march to the sea.
However as others have said, it only covers the march from Atlanta after it’s nearly leveled, to Savannah on the coast.
The march northward into South Carolina (which gets it even worse than Georgia) isn’t covered here.
It’s also very detailed. The author notes which companies and regiments foraged for food at which places on which days.
It draws quite heavily on diary entries and soldier journals along the way. That got tedious after a while IMO.
The daily events became repetitive after the first few dozen pages.
Skirmishes with the confederate cavalry, foraging for food in gardens and barns for anything the troops could get their hands on. Widespread burning of railroad depots, government buildings and cotton crops. Then more of the same. Despite lore, few homes were burned.
Sherman and his generals often invited themselves in homes for dinner and lodging, and when assailed by locals for the constant pillaging and looting, simply shrugged and said “blame Jeff Davis, not me”
It was a solid 4, but upon reading the last paragraph I closed the book with a sigh, feeling glad it was over.
However as others have said, it only covers the march from Atlanta after it’s nearly leveled, to Savannah on the coast.
The march northward into South Carolina (which gets it even worse than Georgia) isn’t covered here.
It’s also very detailed. The author notes which companies and regiments foraged for food at which places on which days.
It draws quite heavily on diary entries and soldier journals along the way. That got tedious after a while IMO.
The daily events became repetitive after the first few dozen pages.
Skirmishes with the confederate cavalry, foraging for food in gardens and barns for anything the troops could get their hands on. Widespread burning of railroad depots, government buildings and cotton crops. Then more of the same. Despite lore, few homes were burned.
Sherman and his generals often invited themselves in homes for dinner and lodging, and when assailed by locals for the constant pillaging and looting, simply shrugged and said “blame Jeff Davis, not me”
It was a solid 4, but upon reading the last paragraph I closed the book with a sigh, feeling glad it was over.
September 22, 2009
Perceptive readers should be able to approach "Southern Storm" with a good idea what they're getting into. It's hard to imagine someone who's not especially interested in the Civil War jumping into Trudeau's detailed chronicle of Sherman's march through Georgia, but judging by a few reviews here, that seems to have happened.
Of course it's detailed. With 548 pages of main text about a 300-mile march in which no major battles (though small-scale engagements and running cavalry clashes were many) took place, it's obvious Trudeau is presenting an exhaustive treatment. And it stops before Sherman heads north into the Carolinas. But "Southern Storm" also is quite good. Many of the diary entries, etc., from soldiers are, in fact, rather mundane. But of course! I personally loved insight into the day-to-day life of a soldier. Accounts from Sherman's "bummers" — foragers — abound, but Sherman himself also is a focus. The story is told from the Union's point of view. The decisions of the Confederate command are related as well, but this is mostly a story about Sherman and his boys living off the land, clashing with Rebels nipping at their heels or positioning themselves in front of the army to slow it, tearing up railroad tracks and torching war-relevant (most of the time) structures and supplies, moving inexorably toward Savannah, Georgia. The army's arrival at Savannah and the Rebels' subsequent abandonment of the city serve as the climax and Trudeau's handling of it is superb. His is a day-by-day approach, shifting back and forth from the right and left wings of the Sherman's army without confusing readers.
Trudeau often addresses the plight of blacks who, suddenly freed with their masters in flight, understandably want to attach themselves to this massive army. Sherman didn't want them. War is, indeed, hell.
Maps are plentiful but often lacking in detail.
Trudeau writes well, presents good analysis and overviews and gives us an inside peek at one of the Civil War's key campaigns. This is a much-needed, fine account. Civil War buffs rest assured. This is good stuff.
Of course it's detailed. With 548 pages of main text about a 300-mile march in which no major battles (though small-scale engagements and running cavalry clashes were many) took place, it's obvious Trudeau is presenting an exhaustive treatment. And it stops before Sherman heads north into the Carolinas. But "Southern Storm" also is quite good. Many of the diary entries, etc., from soldiers are, in fact, rather mundane. But of course! I personally loved insight into the day-to-day life of a soldier. Accounts from Sherman's "bummers" — foragers — abound, but Sherman himself also is a focus. The story is told from the Union's point of view. The decisions of the Confederate command are related as well, but this is mostly a story about Sherman and his boys living off the land, clashing with Rebels nipping at their heels or positioning themselves in front of the army to slow it, tearing up railroad tracks and torching war-relevant (most of the time) structures and supplies, moving inexorably toward Savannah, Georgia. The army's arrival at Savannah and the Rebels' subsequent abandonment of the city serve as the climax and Trudeau's handling of it is superb. His is a day-by-day approach, shifting back and forth from the right and left wings of the Sherman's army without confusing readers.
Trudeau often addresses the plight of blacks who, suddenly freed with their masters in flight, understandably want to attach themselves to this massive army. Sherman didn't want them. War is, indeed, hell.
Maps are plentiful but often lacking in detail.
Trudeau writes well, presents good analysis and overviews and gives us an inside peek at one of the Civil War's key campaigns. This is a much-needed, fine account. Civil War buffs rest assured. This is good stuff.
June 19, 2018
Really good narrative history that effectively transports the reader into the scenes and events of Sherman’s march through Georgia. The craftsmanship of the author in weaving such extensive research into a fast moving, exciting, informative, and authoritative tale is remarkable. Sherman’s destruction of Georgia, demonstrating the Confederacy’s impotency and inability to protect its citizens from an invading army marching at will through the South’s richest state and laying waste to the rebellion’s capacity to sustain itself, was instrumental in hastening the end of the Civil War. Unfortunately, though beaten Southerners may have rejoined the Union, they had not renounced the essentials of the social system they had in place before the war. They soon found new ways to restore the old balance of white authority and black subservience, through manipulation of law, as well as state sanctioned coercion and terror that would last another century.
May 9, 2015
This is a nicely written and informative volume on Sherman's "March to the Sea." It provides ample detail to get a sense of the venture. The book has some nice features, such as an order of battle for Confederate and Union forces. Resources for the book include diaries and letters written by soldiers. This adds an immediacy to the volume. The author, in his preface, notes some interesting issues that he discovered, such as the story of the weather,
The book is divided into several parts. The first part examines the background for the march and what happened after Sherman's troops took Atlanta. John Bell Hood, the new commander of the Army of Tennessee, was making himself a nuisance to Sherman's army. In strategic terms, Sherman did not want to get bogged down in a tit for tat campaign against Hood. He conceived of creating a force (under the command of General George Thomas) to keep Hood from doing any serious damage while he took the flower of the army into Georgia, to make the state "howl." There was some nervousness in Washington, DC about what was seen as a risky plan. But Ulysses Grant supported his friend and the march was slated to begin.
Part Two follows the path of the army from Atlanta to the state capital at Milledgeville. The damage done by Sherman's troops (whether to railroads, military facilities, and the people themselves) is detailed quite well. One gets a good sense of the impact of the march on the state of Georgia. Part Three takes the reader from Milledgeville to Millen. Part Five traces the campaign to Savannah. The fighting to wrest control of the city from Confederate forces is well described. Part Six is a sole chapter, trying to make sense of the events.
All in all a fine volume. One issue: There are plenty of maps, but they are hard to read. Still, if one wishes to get a comprehensive sense of this campaign, this is a very fine starting point.
The book is divided into several parts. The first part examines the background for the march and what happened after Sherman's troops took Atlanta. John Bell Hood, the new commander of the Army of Tennessee, was making himself a nuisance to Sherman's army. In strategic terms, Sherman did not want to get bogged down in a tit for tat campaign against Hood. He conceived of creating a force (under the command of General George Thomas) to keep Hood from doing any serious damage while he took the flower of the army into Georgia, to make the state "howl." There was some nervousness in Washington, DC about what was seen as a risky plan. But Ulysses Grant supported his friend and the march was slated to begin.
Part Two follows the path of the army from Atlanta to the state capital at Milledgeville. The damage done by Sherman's troops (whether to railroads, military facilities, and the people themselves) is detailed quite well. One gets a good sense of the impact of the march on the state of Georgia. Part Three takes the reader from Milledgeville to Millen. Part Five traces the campaign to Savannah. The fighting to wrest control of the city from Confederate forces is well described. Part Six is a sole chapter, trying to make sense of the events.
All in all a fine volume. One issue: There are plenty of maps, but they are hard to read. Still, if one wishes to get a comprehensive sense of this campaign, this is a very fine starting point.
October 29, 2012
A very well written book about the Sherman's March. As well as telling the large Union military operation there are individaul soldier and civilian stories.
April 2, 2021
Already considered something of a classic in its subject matter, Noah Andre Trudeau's 2008 book Southern Storm: Sherman's March to the Sea presents itself as one-stop shopping for all matters concerning that celebrated and spurned event. It is a text comprehensive in scope, and you'd have to be a lionhearted researcher to conceive of and attempt to write such an overwhelming book.
A lot of people on Twitter these days, I frequently note, consider themselves to be historians. Actual historians ― I am not one, but I admire those who are ― concern themselves a great deal with documentary evidence, gathering together great accumulations of the stuff, and these accumulations inform any subsequent conclusions they may arrive at and any writing they may do on the subject at hand. Those on Twitter more often seem to work backward from uninformed opinions, seeking clever memes to prop up whatever prejudices they may cherish. I say this because Trudeau obviously relied on a substantial body of primary sources from which he constructed his book. So far so good. What's more, Trudeau presents his narrative in a reader-friendly manner that is not strictly limited to those whose only reading material is limited to monographs and treatises about the American Civil War. Unlike many books concerning the Civil War which might be mentioned, this book can be enjoyed by the general public. Merging writing from primary sources with telling an intriguing yarn is no mean feat, and Trudeau justly deserves praise for pulling it off.
The challenge of dealing with all that primary source material for a story unfolding over such broad geographical and temporal scales is the enormous amount of assessment and synthesis required by the author. Just consider how many very good books can easily be written about battles that lasted only one or two or three days, for example. One has to be incredibly selective about how he collapses information into concise paragraphs and spectacularly salient sentences. I'm glad I didn't have to make all the hard choices that Trudeau did about what to keep, what to omit, and how to fuse it all into an integrated whole. As it is, he expends a great deal of energy following the routes taken by subunits of Sherman's army as it marches through the Georgia countryside, starting with the Left and Right Wings, quickly breaking down into Army Corps, Divisions, Brigades, Regiments and sometimes into smaller units of companies. This is not to mention the huge rides made by screening and scouting cavalry units. Somehow Trudeau has to keep track of all these moving pieces, the locations where all the elements are on a given day, where they move to the next day, when they rejoin, when new subdivisions branch off and so on. Sometimes he succeeds with this great juggling act, but sometimes Trudeau stumbles.
This gets me to one of my two major complaints about Southern Storm. For some reason, or maybe for multiple reasons, Trudeau's writing sometimes grows quite imprecise, and the reader can't tell which unit he's talking about. Or a unit will suddenly fall out of the narrative, and when it returns a day or two later, we're left wondering what happened in the meantime. Or the first half of a paragraph will be about one particular unit, and suddenly the second half of the paragraph will be about another unit that happens to be 50 miles away. It seems sometimes Trudeau has gotten lost in the complex spider web of a story that he is weaving and forgets what he's said before, or neglected to say. If you're reading this book closely, that can be most frustrating, and the only way to figure out what Trudeau is trying to say is to turn to other sources to find out what really happened to such-and-such a unit on such-and-such a day.
The other great failure of Southern Storm is its absolutely terrible bibliographic system. I've never seen worse. Here's one example. On the bottom of page 281 I read: "'I think the Div[ision] has been lost nearly all day,' groused an Illinoisan." Which Division was that, I wondered. To track down the reference I turned to page 590, which in turn referred me to page 166 of some book called Reminiscences of the Civil War. Then I had to remember that I'd been reading about XV Corps, since Trudeau's bibliography is broken down by Campaign/Wing/Corps/etc. Eventually I found the reference to Reminiscences of the Civil War on page 620, where I finally learned that the speaker on page 281 was from the 103rd Illinois. Then I could go to the Union Forces Roster and comb through pages 549-51 until discovering that regiment listed there on page 550: 2nd Brigade (Walcutt), 1st Division (Woods) . . . Uh, what was my question again?
As useful as Trudeau's book is for giving the reader a day-by-day account of Sherman's March, I have to mark it down somewhat for these two important shortcomings. Nevertheless, if you're interested in reading about the amazing stories that took place during the March, you'd be hard pressed to find a more complete and (generally) more readable text than this one.
A lot of people on Twitter these days, I frequently note, consider themselves to be historians. Actual historians ― I am not one, but I admire those who are ― concern themselves a great deal with documentary evidence, gathering together great accumulations of the stuff, and these accumulations inform any subsequent conclusions they may arrive at and any writing they may do on the subject at hand. Those on Twitter more often seem to work backward from uninformed opinions, seeking clever memes to prop up whatever prejudices they may cherish. I say this because Trudeau obviously relied on a substantial body of primary sources from which he constructed his book. So far so good. What's more, Trudeau presents his narrative in a reader-friendly manner that is not strictly limited to those whose only reading material is limited to monographs and treatises about the American Civil War. Unlike many books concerning the Civil War which might be mentioned, this book can be enjoyed by the general public. Merging writing from primary sources with telling an intriguing yarn is no mean feat, and Trudeau justly deserves praise for pulling it off.
The challenge of dealing with all that primary source material for a story unfolding over such broad geographical and temporal scales is the enormous amount of assessment and synthesis required by the author. Just consider how many very good books can easily be written about battles that lasted only one or two or three days, for example. One has to be incredibly selective about how he collapses information into concise paragraphs and spectacularly salient sentences. I'm glad I didn't have to make all the hard choices that Trudeau did about what to keep, what to omit, and how to fuse it all into an integrated whole. As it is, he expends a great deal of energy following the routes taken by subunits of Sherman's army as it marches through the Georgia countryside, starting with the Left and Right Wings, quickly breaking down into Army Corps, Divisions, Brigades, Regiments and sometimes into smaller units of companies. This is not to mention the huge rides made by screening and scouting cavalry units. Somehow Trudeau has to keep track of all these moving pieces, the locations where all the elements are on a given day, where they move to the next day, when they rejoin, when new subdivisions branch off and so on. Sometimes he succeeds with this great juggling act, but sometimes Trudeau stumbles.
This gets me to one of my two major complaints about Southern Storm. For some reason, or maybe for multiple reasons, Trudeau's writing sometimes grows quite imprecise, and the reader can't tell which unit he's talking about. Or a unit will suddenly fall out of the narrative, and when it returns a day or two later, we're left wondering what happened in the meantime. Or the first half of a paragraph will be about one particular unit, and suddenly the second half of the paragraph will be about another unit that happens to be 50 miles away. It seems sometimes Trudeau has gotten lost in the complex spider web of a story that he is weaving and forgets what he's said before, or neglected to say. If you're reading this book closely, that can be most frustrating, and the only way to figure out what Trudeau is trying to say is to turn to other sources to find out what really happened to such-and-such a unit on such-and-such a day.
The other great failure of Southern Storm is its absolutely terrible bibliographic system. I've never seen worse. Here's one example. On the bottom of page 281 I read: "'I think the Div[ision] has been lost nearly all day,' groused an Illinoisan." Which Division was that, I wondered. To track down the reference I turned to page 590, which in turn referred me to page 166 of some book called Reminiscences of the Civil War. Then I had to remember that I'd been reading about XV Corps, since Trudeau's bibliography is broken down by Campaign/Wing/Corps/etc. Eventually I found the reference to Reminiscences of the Civil War on page 620, where I finally learned that the speaker on page 281 was from the 103rd Illinois. Then I could go to the Union Forces Roster and comb through pages 549-51 until discovering that regiment listed there on page 550: 2nd Brigade (Walcutt), 1st Division (Woods) . . . Uh, what was my question again?
As useful as Trudeau's book is for giving the reader a day-by-day account of Sherman's March, I have to mark it down somewhat for these two important shortcomings. Nevertheless, if you're interested in reading about the amazing stories that took place during the March, you'd be hard pressed to find a more complete and (generally) more readable text than this one.
June 20, 2013
The book was tough sledding at times because it did get into the weeds about every move and battle as Sherman’s Army slogged through Georgia. I was frustrated at times trying to keep track of each movement because I couldn’t see a battle map of Georgia as it when along. Despite that there’s plenty of information you may or may not know about the march in the book.
It’s my opinion that Sherman did exactly what needed to be done to bring the war to an end. It wasn’t total war or a war of conquest but a war of attrition, something that Sherman and Grant both understood. For the most part his army was only interested in burning and raiding the civilian’s property as a way to stop their ability to wage war. Parts of it were ugly but War is War and the only way to end it was to make them fear the idea of ever considering it again.
Many may not realize that very few men lost their lives on either side during the march. Wrecking railroads, destroying ammunition depots, factories whatever could be used to supply the south with war material was his primary targets. He wanted to avoid any massive frontal battles and instead cut the South in half by wrecking their infrastructure. It was risky, dangerous and controversial but as history shows the march was one of the most brilliant military campaigns in the history of human conflicts.
One fact I didn’t know that really puts a stamp on the greatness of Sherman was that after the war many thought he should move up to the same rank as Grant, even Grant thought that he deserved it but he refused. He didn’t have an ego to stroke and he didn’t want to take more credit or somehow compete with Grant for the successful prosecution of war. He loved and admired Grant and he loved his country that was good enough for him. I really admire that kind of devotion and honor, we could use a lot more of it in today’s America at every level of personal and professional life.
It’s my opinion that Sherman did exactly what needed to be done to bring the war to an end. It wasn’t total war or a war of conquest but a war of attrition, something that Sherman and Grant both understood. For the most part his army was only interested in burning and raiding the civilian’s property as a way to stop their ability to wage war. Parts of it were ugly but War is War and the only way to end it was to make them fear the idea of ever considering it again.
Many may not realize that very few men lost their lives on either side during the march. Wrecking railroads, destroying ammunition depots, factories whatever could be used to supply the south with war material was his primary targets. He wanted to avoid any massive frontal battles and instead cut the South in half by wrecking their infrastructure. It was risky, dangerous and controversial but as history shows the march was one of the most brilliant military campaigns in the history of human conflicts.
One fact I didn’t know that really puts a stamp on the greatness of Sherman was that after the war many thought he should move up to the same rank as Grant, even Grant thought that he deserved it but he refused. He didn’t have an ego to stroke and he didn’t want to take more credit or somehow compete with Grant for the successful prosecution of war. He loved and admired Grant and he loved his country that was good enough for him. I really admire that kind of devotion and honor, we could use a lot more of it in today’s America at every level of personal and professional life.
October 29, 2008
A very solid, workman-like account of Sherman's march through Georgia. It does stop at Savannah though, there's nothing on the continuation of the campaign into South Carolina and North Carolina. There are no great battles here, those pretty much ended with the capture of Atlanta. One point made quite clearly in this book is that Sherman did his best to avoid major confrontation with the Confederate forces and split his force into two prongs to at least appear to threaten the maximum number of targets and thin the Southern defences, and he was hugely successful at this, with a great deal of help from the South and its inability to form a united command structure to oppose Sherman. Hood took his substantial forces left after the attacks out of Atlanta and went north to threaten northern supply lines and presumably force Sherman to divert his offensive to follow him, only to succeed in destroying what was left to no particular purpose. The remaining Confederate general and their forces couldn't decide on what to defend or how to go on the offensive to blunt or stop Sherman. The book gives very clear explanations on what was on the minds of both sides. There's lots to learn here for those sufficiently interested, but little that will stir your blood unless you're a descendent of the folks in Sherman's path.
November 2, 2015
Based on letters and journals written by participants--soldiers, officers, civilians, "Southern Storm" should not be the first book on Sherman's campaign through Georgia that one reads. While it has a wealth of detail the book simply doesn't have enough on the strategy and tactics of the entire campaigns and the battles the constituted it. Probably much better for someone who already has a sense of this part of the Civil War.
November 27, 2020
An in-depth account of Sherman’s fabled “March to the sea”. Trudeau did some serious work on this. I would have preferred some better maps, particularly those dealing with the siege of Savannah, but I wasn’t at all disappointed in the work.
September 21, 2022
This book was a pleasant surprise, as I had always heard of Sherman's March, but didnt really know anything about it. In my imagination I had figured the March was primarily a military conquest filled with battles, but the reality was that the March had far more to due with engineering and risk taking than it was about battles.
I loved the methodical day-by-day approach that set a solid even pace for the book.
I loved the credit given to Engineer Poe for ensuring the marches continued unabated by weather, terrain or obstacles.
I found the rules of engagement to be interesting; what union soldiers were and were not allowed to destroy and forage, especially how provosts were assigned to confederate homes to ensure those living there had enough food to eat after the Union foragers took any excess.
Also interesting were the complicated views of the soldiers and generals in regards to the black population, as well as the roles freed slaves took in terms of intelligence gathering and pioneer divisions.
I loved the methodical day-by-day approach that set a solid even pace for the book.
I loved the credit given to Engineer Poe for ensuring the marches continued unabated by weather, terrain or obstacles.
I found the rules of engagement to be interesting; what union soldiers were and were not allowed to destroy and forage, especially how provosts were assigned to confederate homes to ensure those living there had enough food to eat after the Union foragers took any excess.
Also interesting were the complicated views of the soldiers and generals in regards to the black population, as well as the roles freed slaves took in terms of intelligence gathering and pioneer divisions.
July 4, 2020
I listened to the audiobook which was, alas, abridged, but I also read the paper book and both versions are terrific. I admire Sherman.
July 19, 2025
very good, very detailed account. felt like it took me longer to read than it took Sherman to march to Savannah, but loved the anecdotal comments from various footsoldiers and others along the way. the recap at the end is well worth reading just by itself.
July 18, 2021
Excellent read for those interested seeking to go deeper into the Civil War. Probably a bit long and dry for a causal Civil War learner (the details of battles and foraging get very granular) but excellent if you know what you're getting into.
December 30, 2014
The last book of 2014.
An excellent interpretation and explanation of the campaign. It's unsung heroes, Captain Orlando Poe, the pioneers and bridge-builders who kept the armies moving without much delay on its 60 x 300 mile journey from "Atlanta to the Sea." On the other side, "Fighting Joe" Wheeler who tried to do much with so little. Amazing is the number of accounts by "Billy Yanks" who kept diaries and wrote letters about their experiences along the way. A good number of maps included that help guide the reader's way.
An interesting comment by Trudeau on the extent of the damage inflicted on Georgia by Sherman's troops: "War, it must be said, is an equal opportunity destroyer; a Pennsylvania farmer visited by Confederates on the way to Gettysburg would have much in common with a Georgia farmer caught in the path of the March to the Sea." (540)
An excellent interpretation and explanation of the campaign. It's unsung heroes, Captain Orlando Poe, the pioneers and bridge-builders who kept the armies moving without much delay on its 60 x 300 mile journey from "Atlanta to the Sea." On the other side, "Fighting Joe" Wheeler who tried to do much with so little. Amazing is the number of accounts by "Billy Yanks" who kept diaries and wrote letters about their experiences along the way. A good number of maps included that help guide the reader's way.
An interesting comment by Trudeau on the extent of the damage inflicted on Georgia by Sherman's troops: "War, it must be said, is an equal opportunity destroyer; a Pennsylvania farmer visited by Confederates on the way to Gettysburg would have much in common with a Georgia farmer caught in the path of the March to the Sea." (540)
July 25, 2011
Southern Storm is an extremely well detailed look at General Sherman's famed March to the Sea during the Civil War. This book would not be suitable for someone who isn't a scholar of the Civil War or someone who enjoys reading detailed history often. For a reader just looking for some information on the event, this detailed account could understandably be mundane. The 548 pages of this book may seem repetitive and long winded as the details cover the same general theme. One has to appreciate the attention to detail, no matter how minute the detail may be. As Trudeau quotes an endless amount of soldier diaries he doesn't become caught up with names which could be confusing in such a detailed account of an historical event. The focus remains on Sherman throughout the book and doesn't waver
December 2, 2022
This is a very detailed account of Sherman's famous March to the Sea, however it isn't very engaging. The text is very dry. This isn't completely the fault of the author. When you boil it down, Sherman's March was just that, a march. There wasn't a lot of military action as there was little opposition to the march. But the author has taken a micro view of the march, to the point where we get unit by unit accounts of the march at times which can really become repetitive and boring. There is a lot of good and interesting information presented in this book, but the execution falls short unfortunately.
August 6, 2016
I am a huge civil war buff and bought this book at A Gettysburg gift shop. I started this book with great hope, seeing all the great reviews, but did not like it at all. A series of same stories of burning places down told over and over again. I get it. Sherman's army burned down a lot of stuff in his march to the sea.
July 6, 2015
Detailed, full of primary sources, accurate. All the burning can get repetitive at times, but that is the point. Reccomend it to history lovers.
May 6, 2025
Sherman! If you have seen Gone With The Wind, you know that his 'March to the Sea' played a prominent part in the trauma that Georgia faced during the Civil War. The 300-mile trek from Atlanta to Savannah during November-December, 1864, still generates controversy. Sherman, Howard, Slocum, and Kilpatrick set out to make a fertile swathe of the Confederacy 'howl' by destroying railways, burning necessary buildings and armaments, foraging on hogs, sweet potatoes and anything else that would allow their four corps and cavalry to keep on the march. Essential planning was also necessary. This was no slapdash raid. Sherman knew what he wanted to accomplish with as little loss of life as possible.
The southern leadership tried to rally Georgia to defend itself. Grand words were used to encourage the people to fight, militia was called out, prominent Confederate officers such as Beauregard, Hardee, and Wheeler were given assignments but little backng. Wheeler's cavalry raids on the flanks of Sherman's army probably caused the most problems, but even those were like gnats attacking a bull. The topography of the land caused delays as streams and rivers had to be crossed even if bridges were destroyed. Pontoons made that possible. Sherman's engineers deserved much of the credit fo the success of the mission.
This book is quite detailed, almost day-by-day, allowing the reader to understand how Sherman's audacity paid off while the southern lack of consolidation of forces opened the door to failure. The fall of Savannah coupled with the great Union victories in Tennessee were mighty steps towards the end of the war.
Trudeau ends the book with some discussion about the 'morality' issues of the March. Things were done which were questionable, but neiher side was spotless in their behavior. When you let loose the havoc of war, you can't expect a tea party.
The southern leadership tried to rally Georgia to defend itself. Grand words were used to encourage the people to fight, militia was called out, prominent Confederate officers such as Beauregard, Hardee, and Wheeler were given assignments but little backng. Wheeler's cavalry raids on the flanks of Sherman's army probably caused the most problems, but even those were like gnats attacking a bull. The topography of the land caused delays as streams and rivers had to be crossed even if bridges were destroyed. Pontoons made that possible. Sherman's engineers deserved much of the credit fo the success of the mission.
This book is quite detailed, almost day-by-day, allowing the reader to understand how Sherman's audacity paid off while the southern lack of consolidation of forces opened the door to failure. The fall of Savannah coupled with the great Union victories in Tennessee were mighty steps towards the end of the war.
Trudeau ends the book with some discussion about the 'morality' issues of the March. Things were done which were questionable, but neiher side was spotless in their behavior. When you let loose the havoc of war, you can't expect a tea party.
September 14, 2025
Sherman's march to the sea was an epic event in the American Civil War. He had demonstrated the feasibility of such a maneuver with his six day Meridian Campaign of early 1864 where his force of 20,000 men marched from Vicksburg to Meridian Mississippi and back, destroying the considerable military infrastructure of Meridian without a supply line and foraging instead.
Having taken Atlanta, Sherman wanted to demonstrate that he could take an army anywhere he wanted behind the battle lines of the Confederacy. To that end he put together four army Corp containing only the most fit soldiers, 60,000 men in total and would "forage" his way through Georgia to the Atlantic and bring a battle hardened army up behind Lee in Virginia. Trudeau's is a day by day account of that maneuver.
An everyman's military experience is a mountain of monotony punctuated by moments of stark terror, so to most readers not imbued in military tactics any day by day account can seem extremely tedious. Trudeau's account uses 671 pages to describe the roughly 5 week Savannah Campaign. He describes Sherman's meticulous planning, the importance of the pioneer and bridging units under the most excellent Captain Orlando M. Poe (Chief Engineer) to clear obstacles, repair roads and cross rivers expeditiously. Sherman had mapped out his route through Georgia using 1860 census data so that his foragers would find themselves in a land of plenty. Any delay to the march would deprive his foragers of new plunder and his army would starve. Luckily, the opposing Confederate forces were weak and divided.
Trudeau took advantage of a great many journal entries both Union (mostly soldiers in the March) and Confederates (mostly civilians in his path). These journal entries provide a necessary human context. Although I am not a Civil War buff, I read Trudeau's account from cover to cover with keen interest.
Having taken Atlanta, Sherman wanted to demonstrate that he could take an army anywhere he wanted behind the battle lines of the Confederacy. To that end he put together four army Corp containing only the most fit soldiers, 60,000 men in total and would "forage" his way through Georgia to the Atlantic and bring a battle hardened army up behind Lee in Virginia. Trudeau's is a day by day account of that maneuver.
An everyman's military experience is a mountain of monotony punctuated by moments of stark terror, so to most readers not imbued in military tactics any day by day account can seem extremely tedious. Trudeau's account uses 671 pages to describe the roughly 5 week Savannah Campaign. He describes Sherman's meticulous planning, the importance of the pioneer and bridging units under the most excellent Captain Orlando M. Poe (Chief Engineer) to clear obstacles, repair roads and cross rivers expeditiously. Sherman had mapped out his route through Georgia using 1860 census data so that his foragers would find themselves in a land of plenty. Any delay to the march would deprive his foragers of new plunder and his army would starve. Luckily, the opposing Confederate forces were weak and divided.
Trudeau took advantage of a great many journal entries both Union (mostly soldiers in the March) and Confederates (mostly civilians in his path). These journal entries provide a necessary human context. Although I am not a Civil War buff, I read Trudeau's account from cover to cover with keen interest.
October 1, 2025
Interesting to read right after McPherson, as the two take very different approaches. This is 550 pages on a march that lasted about a month. Want to know the marching order for a given day? Trudeau has you covered. I’d go so far as to say that this is mostly a collection of anecdotes from various soldiers and civilians in the March to the Sea. Trudeau clearly spent a lot of time scouring diaries and does a nice job of sewing them together into a narrative.
Are you interested in Sherman’s wartime experience before November 15, 1864? How he got to Atlanta in the first place, his relationship with Grant? Are you curious about Sherman’s march through the Carolinas after he took Savannah? What about its impact in America and abroad? What it did to morale in Petersburg? Well, those are all outside of the scope of this book. While I think Trudeau accomplished what he set out to pretty well, I prefer McPherson’s approach. In his 150 page treatment of Antietam, he spends just 12 on the battle itself. The rest establish the stakes and lay out the consequences. Even Sears’ approach to Antietam, which does include a blow-by-blow accounting, spends time establishing McClellan’s background, the stakes for the campaign, and its aftermath.
I can’t really fault Trudeau for this, as he didn’t see this context as within his remit, but can’t help but feel that this misses the forest for the trees. I think this is especially important for “popular historians”—this approach is better suited for more “scholarly” treatments where you can assume that your reader already has a lot of context.
Are you interested in Sherman’s wartime experience before November 15, 1864? How he got to Atlanta in the first place, his relationship with Grant? Are you curious about Sherman’s march through the Carolinas after he took Savannah? What about its impact in America and abroad? What it did to morale in Petersburg? Well, those are all outside of the scope of this book. While I think Trudeau accomplished what he set out to pretty well, I prefer McPherson’s approach. In his 150 page treatment of Antietam, he spends just 12 on the battle itself. The rest establish the stakes and lay out the consequences. Even Sears’ approach to Antietam, which does include a blow-by-blow accounting, spends time establishing McClellan’s background, the stakes for the campaign, and its aftermath.
I can’t really fault Trudeau for this, as he didn’t see this context as within his remit, but can’t help but feel that this misses the forest for the trees. I think this is especially important for “popular historians”—this approach is better suited for more “scholarly” treatments where you can assume that your reader already has a lot of context.
April 7, 2023
Noah Andre Trudeau's Southern Storm: Sherman's March to the Sea was a short book based upon a variety of AAR's, diary, and journal entries.
The book highlights as the title indicates the period from the capture of Atlanta to the end of the capturing of Savannah. The book highlights big picture leadership from the perspective of Union and Confederate Generals Sherman, Wheeler. Joseph Johnston, P G.T Beauregard, Bragg, Kilpatrick, among others.
The book is almost a day by day accounting of the campaign and goes into great detail of the unit action, foraging details, and Sherman's continued evolution of total war and bringing the war to the Southern people and the destruction of the Southern infrastructure including the destruction of railroads and public buildings. Sherman is often vilified for this period, but ultimately, he fed and supplied his troops by living of the people of Georgia and South Carolina while effectively removing him and his troops with communication with General Grant and the Lincoln administration until the drive was almost complete.
While some don't like the structure and style of the book, I found it to be an interesting and effective organization. Which shed great light on campaign specifics as well as general lack of Confederate resources and leadership at this point of the war.
Not the biggest or most detailed bok at 548 pages of reading it was nonetheless a solid 4-star book on the subject, and I would recommend it to all.
The book highlights as the title indicates the period from the capture of Atlanta to the end of the capturing of Savannah. The book highlights big picture leadership from the perspective of Union and Confederate Generals Sherman, Wheeler. Joseph Johnston, P G.T Beauregard, Bragg, Kilpatrick, among others.
The book is almost a day by day accounting of the campaign and goes into great detail of the unit action, foraging details, and Sherman's continued evolution of total war and bringing the war to the Southern people and the destruction of the Southern infrastructure including the destruction of railroads and public buildings. Sherman is often vilified for this period, but ultimately, he fed and supplied his troops by living of the people of Georgia and South Carolina while effectively removing him and his troops with communication with General Grant and the Lincoln administration until the drive was almost complete.
While some don't like the structure and style of the book, I found it to be an interesting and effective organization. Which shed great light on campaign specifics as well as general lack of Confederate resources and leadership at this point of the war.
Not the biggest or most detailed bok at 548 pages of reading it was nonetheless a solid 4-star book on the subject, and I would recommend it to all.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 89 reviews