Throughout the civil war the Union was plagued by incompetent generals that would not us the men they had, not use their men in a way that could achieve victory in the field of battle. This begs the question what makes a good officer? A good officer should be respected by his men and he should respect his own superiors. They should also use their tactics to lead their soldiers to victory. So, in this time of the Union going through generals was William Tecumseh Sherman the last choice available or was he deserve the job? Major General William Tecumseh Sherman was a good officer because he was competent in the face of battle, respected his leaders and was respected by his men. The soldiers of General Sherman respected their commander and Sherman respected his own superiors. “Sherman felt General Grant’s most valuable trait was, “simple faith in success… which I can liken to nothing else than the faith a Christian has in a savior” (Furgurson 15). Sherman compares General Grant to a savior which is mighty high …show more content…
When he was ordered to march to the sea his soldiers underwent a rigorous inspection and as a result the army that he took with him on that march suffered forty-six percent less illness per one thousand men (Glatthaar 19 and 20). Sherman knew that he would be on his own in enemy territory, so he wanted to only has experienced soldiers that would not get sick. It worked so well that some doubted that the entire southern army could not stop Sherman’s march to the sea (Glatthaar 78). That shows that Sherman was on a role and was starting to complete his objective. He wanted to show the southern people that their armies were no longer capable of protecting them, so they needed to rejoin the union (Glatthaar 100). With people doubting if all the Confederate armies together could stop Sherman, he was accomplishing his goal of demoralizing the southern