Jump to content

Talk:William Tecumseh Sherman/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Edit by LoBinnacle re Sherman's Indian views -- reasons for reversion

I admire Sherman but suggest that LoBinnacle's recent wholesale deletion of some of Sherman's Indian views is inappropriate. LoBinnacle says that the source is biased, but the three quotations of Sherman's views appear to be valid items from actual writings by Sherman. I have found other authors using each of the three quotes via Google Book searches. (The first quote even appears in the rock solid Papers of Ulysses S. Grant.) Therefore, it seems to me that the deletion of this material is not justified. It seems to me that LoBinnacle should edit this section to put Sherman's views into a rounder context, rather than make a wholesale deletion of actual quotations on the ground that they are not valid. Hartfelt (talk) 13:33, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

If there are reliable sources, they should be cited. But it shouldn't be there with only the support of that article. LoBinnacle (talk) 15:33, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

LoBinnacle: I don't quite understand your objection to valid quotations. But feel free to plug in the valid citations I hae worked up below. I was attempting to post this information at the same time you made your post, so my first effort to post this info was blocked by your post. This is all based on online research with Google Books.

- The first quote eliminated by LoBinnacle states: “We are not going to let a few thieving, ragged Indians check and stop the progress of the railroads.... I regard the railroad as the most important element now in progress to facilitate the military interests of our Frontier." This appears to be a blended quote. The first sentence is documented in Papers of U.S. Grant, Jan 1-Sept 30, 1867 Vol. 17 (?), p. 162; Fellman, Citizen Sherman, 264 & 453n.5, citing Sherman to Grant, May 28, 1867, Grant Papers, XVII, 262. The second sentence seems to be from Sherman to Rawlins, Oct. 23, 1865, quoted in Ahearn, Sherman and the Settlemnent of the West, 24.

- The second quote eliminated by LoBinnacle states: "We must act with vindictive earnestness against the Sioux, even to their extermination, men, women and children. (The Sioux must) feel the superior power of the Government." This appears to be a melded quote from two sources. The first sentence is from Sherman to Grant on December 28, 1866, see Whitelaw Reid, Ohio in the War, vol. 1, p. 487; Custer, Wild Life and Horrors of Indian Warfare, 120. The second sentence apparently is found in WTS to Tappan, July 21, 1876 (soon after Little Big Horn), quoted in Marszalek, Sherman: A Soldier's Passion for Order, 398.

- The third quote eliminated by LoBinnacle states: "During an assault, the soldiers cannot pause to distinguish between male and female, or even discriminate as to age." This quotation is found in Marszalek, Sherman: A Soldier's Passion for Order, 379, perhaps quoting WTS to Herbert A. Preston, April 17, 1873.

Hartfelt (talk) 15:46, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Upon further reflection, I have tried to improve the Indian policy discussion with more contextual and transparent use of the previously posted quotations. To the extent that my edits constitute an improvement, it was prompted entirely by LoBinnacle's complaint about the earlier presentation. (For the record, I did not put up the original presentation but was sufficiently interested to try to look into the matter when LoBinnacle complained. I also see that there was an earlier complaint about the same material.) Hartfelt (talk) 17:39, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

nickname

I do not normally get involved in editing this article because others before me have done, and continue to do, a fine job. However, I would like to comment about the recent edit adding "the devil incarnate" as a nickname. This field in the information box is usually reserved for actual nicknames or sobriquets, not descriptive phrases about the person. For instance, I can find you many citations that will indicate that Abraham Lincoln was the tallest president, but no one lists "Tallest President" as a nickname. I think the key to understanding whether something is a nickname or not is one of two conditions: (1) people actually address him by that name, such as Cump (Sherman), Sam (Grant), or Beauty (Stuart), or; (2) people would unambiguously understand who you are talking about without having to speak the name, such as The Great Emancipator or The Railsplitter (Lincoln), Beast or Spoons Butler (at least for people familiar with New Orleans), The Rock of Chickamauga (Thomas), or The Father of His Country (Washington). You can imagine a sentence such as "Cump told me that the Rock of Chickamauga just checked into a Chattanooga hotel" and know exactly what they are talking about. I find it very doubtful that any of the secondary sources citing the devil incarnate use the term in this manner. Hal Jespersen (talk) 00:54, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I think you've nailed that pretty well, Hal. I have no objection to the term being mentioned in the appropriate place within the main body of the article to indicate Southern views of the man, but it doesn't belong where it is now, and six citations (one of which is doubtful by the editor's own admission) seems like protesting too much. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:02, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
It seems to me that this is a form of vandalism to a Wikipedia featured article, in that it is obviously pressing an anti-Sherman POV in a transparently phony way and creating the impression at the outset that the article is lousy. This point would be validly made in other places in the article, where the controversy surrounding Sherman is acknowledged. Furthermore, the six citations are incredibly thin in their own right. No. 6 is a tour guide's remark; no. 5 is a post on a blog; two of the others are assertions by publicists about books. No. 1 is a hyperbolic internet item stating that Sherman had no respect for life, when even his critics acknowledge that there was very little murder, rape, or mayhem associated with the march to the sea. All that is left is one contemporary letter using the words hell-hounds and fiend incarnate. IMO, this edit should be reverted and the contributor encouraged to make his or her point at an appropriate place in the article with more meaningful support. Hartfelt (talk) 14:14, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
I agree with all of the above -- the sources cited are weak and do not establish that the term meets the criteria for a nickname. I will go ahead and revert unless someone else has already done so. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 15:00, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Please Forgive Me

I deeply apologize for my error. It was not an intentional Anti-Sherman view, nor was it an implication of rape or evils on the Union's behalf. In fact, I didn't even know that there were charges of rape or murder. I had intended to simply report one of the terms used to reference General Sherman. I merely made an attempt to provide a Southern opinion on Sherman, one which was not meant to damage the article or its credibility. I had intended to provide more to the article, to help the neutral view via a Southerner's perspective to the general.

I feel extremely guilty for being charged with vandalism, and I give my word that I had absolutely no attempt to vanalize in any manner, and I felt I was acting in good faith by adding this. I was unaware that the nickname section was for his military career, and not general and civillian terms for the man.

Vandalism was not my goal, criticism not my effort, and a swing opinion was nowhere in my mind. I promise you that I had nothing but good faith intentions in adding the incarnate reference, as I have both heard and read of the phrase "devil's incarnate" directly addressed to General Sherman.

I was fully aware of the article's status, and I feel that it is indeed a fantastic and well-written article. I wanted to further help on the doctrine of Be Bold by adding another insight in the saga of the South.

I express my apology for messing up a great article with poor citations, and I hope that the community can forgive me for such idiotic tomfoolery. Sherman, at least where I come from and where I have bee, is viewed as the Devil's Incarnate because of the sheer destruction and total warfare induced upon civillians and soldiers alike, a reference to the burning of crops and capture of Atlanta.

Though I myself express distaste in Sherman's methods for defeating the Confederacy, I know that opinion has no place in an article, and I tried to cite the opinion as an actual viewpoint by Southerners, because, as a native from the South, I can assure you it's been said and is indeed an opinion that's notable. However, I have always been terrible at citing, and I know that "I heard a lot of people say it" is a pathetic citation. I tried to cite, but I failed epically.

I apologize for my stupidity and for me ruining such a fantastic article. I meant no harm in this and I meant no defamation to Sherman nor Wikipedia. Vandalism was not my intention, I just wanted to try, in good faith, to add his infamous nickname which I have heard where I come from.

I hope that you can forgive me for my absolutely idiotic edit and I hope that you will not continue to view me as a vandal, something I never want to be called.

Again, I feel absolutely awful for vandalizing such a quality article and I assure you that I will strive to not be such a burden to Wikipedia in the future. This is why I always have a deep fear of editing Wikipedia, because this sort of thing happens and I feel like I'm somehow evil.

Please understand that I had an honest intention when writing my citations. I added a bold face on the reference to the name not to emphasize an opinion, but to point it out for easier viewing in the reference list. I'm one of the worst citationers you'll ever come across, so I tried to overcome my error by bolding what I thought constituted the reference.

I plea for your forgiveness and will make an attempt to avoid editing an article outside of minor grammar or removal of false data. I was stupid in my attempt and I feel terrible for it.



Please forgive my stupidity,
--TurtleShroom! :) NOODY BRANCH! Don't mess with farmers, SpongeBob. They know how to grow food. - Knowledge is power, grab it while you can. 16:10, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

You're forgiven. He has been called far worse...
Now go and write an article for penance. ;)
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 16:25, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


Thank you, I appreciate that. In happier news, this incident has helped me to choose my Halloween costume. I'm going as Sherman, because where I'm from (Georgia), he is indeed scary. Again, your trust in my good faith means a lot. --99.157.108.248 (talk) 01:04, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Note: it turns out I can't go as General Sherman, there's not enough navy blue in the house... thus, I'm going as General Robert E. Lee. I recently figured out the purpsoe of the nickname section, so this screw-up will never happen again. --99.157.108.248 (talk) 00:53, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Will Sherman redirection

I have removed the "Will Sherman" redirection because it seems unnecessary to me. That article is only a stub, with little encyclopedic value, and it seems to me that virtually no one will be searching Wikipedia for Will Sherman. If others think my edit is wrong-headed and that the redirection should be restored, I will cheerfully stand aside. Hartfelt (talk) 11:38, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Hartfelt (talk) 15:59, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Annihilation sentence removed

A sentence was added to the first paragraph of the introduction about the "brutal and decisive annihilation" of Native Americans under Sherman. I believe this should be removed: (1) The sentence is POV hyperbole -- the Native Americans were not annihilated; (2) the sentence is not reflective of the contents of the article as is appropriate for the summary; and (3) the sentence is redundant of one already in the third paragraph of the summary. The existing sentence should be tweaked appropriately if more attention is to be drawn to the Indian Wars in the introduction. Hartfelt (talk) 00:54, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Isenberg citation

Have removed from the section on "Postbellum service" two sentences based on the Isenberg book about bison. The Isenberg citation does not support the assertion made about Sherman. In fact, if anything, Isenberg contradicts it, saying that Sherman did not bring military resources to bear to reduce the bison. At most, he allowed non-military hunters to reduce the bison population, which had the effect of driving Indians to reservations. The sentences removed from the article are as follows: "In his campaigns against the Indian tribes, Sherman repeated his Civil War strategy by seeking not only to defeat the enemy's soldiers, but also to destroy the resources that allowed the enemy to sustain its warfare. The policies he implemented included the extensive killing of large numbers of buffalo, which were the primary source of food for the Plains Indians." The citation (in footnote) was: "See Isenberg, pp. 128, 156." Hartfelt (talk) 12:41, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Sherman and Catholicism

I have reverted an edit claiming that SHerman was a Catholic. His own family was not Catholic and he was baptized as an infant by a Presbyterian minister. In his foster family, Mrs. Ewing was catholic and he apparently rcd a Catholic baptism. He tehn married Ellen Ewing, a Catholic, in a ceremony conducted by a Catholic priest or bishop (though not in a church). He may have attended Catholic services at some points out of respect for his wife. His children were raised Catholic. But his writings are full of statements that he was nopt a Catholic. He resented his wife's Catholicism. Hartfelt (talk) 15:41, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Shermans. Shermans Everywhere.

So, it has a link to a General Sherman disambiguation page, but should it have a Not to Be Confused With link to the M4 Sherman? And also, on a related note, when I type Sherman into the address bar in firefox it comes to this page. I'd think more people would be looking for the tank then the guy... 96.55.192.119 (talk) 03:28, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Cause of death

I have reverted several changes asserting that Sherman died of coronary problems due to heavy smoking, made by an anonymous editor. I have read extensively about Sherman and never seen any such assertion. His death is usually ascribed to lung problems related to asthma. I strongly question whether there is any justification for the heart problem post; let reliable citations be brought forward if someone wants to pinpoint the cause of death in the article. Hartfelt (talk) 16:10, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Expedition through British Columbia, 1883

I've been researching local history of the Similkameen Valley of in British Columbia, Canada, and found this passage on this site:

We believe that this was the first time an American force had travelled the Hope Road since General Sherman passed through British Columbia to the coast with an escort of cavalry in the fall of 1883. At that time, General William Tecumseh Sherman was a world-famous commander of men. His name was connected with the famous 300-mile march through Georgia, “from Atlanta to the sea” in 1864 during the American civil war. He was a familiar figure on both sides of the border. Both Mrs. Kruger, and Mrs. S.L. Allison had many stories to tell of him and his men. He visited the Allisons here, and left some prized souvenirs.
There had been trouble in 1883 across the Line between the American Government and the Nez Perces Indians, and General Sherman had been sent west with a troop of cavalry to restore order. The U.S. Government at one time planned to build a fort at Oroville, Washington.
Mrs. Kruger described the General as a modest, unassuming man, who permitted a degree of familiarity on the part of this officers which a lesser man would have found inconvenient.
When he crossed the Hope Trail in 1883 he had come from Coeur d’Alene, and Osoyoos, and had with him an escort of 25 mounted men. At Hope he was met by Andrew Onderdonk who was at that time in charge of a section of C.P.R. construction. The escort returned over the trail to Osoyoos, but General Sherman travelled from Hope to Victoria on the steamer “Western Slope.” At the capital city he stayed in the old Driard Hotel, and called on Lieutenant-Governor Cornwall. From Esquimalt he sailed on the U.S.N. “Walcott,” to Port Townsend. He retired the following year, and died in 1891 in his 71st year. The famous general left a kindly memory wherever he travelled on this side of the border.

How relevant that is to this article, and how to condense whatever's useful in it, I don't know - except to say that it is extremely unusual for any US troops, under a US general, to enter Canada at all for any reason (a later instance was the US Army presence during the construction of the Alaska Highway). Reading this was news to me, I had no idea Sherman had been to BC, much less that troops involved in Chief Joseph's War had had any reason to enter Canada. At this same location, by the way, a more apocryphal story tells of a US Cavalry regiment which, apparently during the Cayuse or Yakima Wars, entered the same region and was wiped out by the Similkameen Indians at Cawston, near Keremeos (US cavalry sabres and gear are heirlooms in some local native households still....); don't know which regiment or in which year though.Skookum1 (talk) 05:29, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Skookum1: Interesting post, but I believe your source has things out of perspective. It appears that Sherman was about to retire in 1883 and took a farewell tour in the West, including some stops in Canada. So far as I can tell, he was not leading troops in military operations against the Nez Perce. Search Google under "Sherman British Columbia 1883" and you will find some relevant materials. There is also a passing reference to this farewell tour in Sherman's memoirs. Hartfelt (talk) 17:07, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Meridian

For some reason, neither the Sherman article nor the Meridian Campaign article makes clear the sequence of Sherman's movements in the period between July '63 (Vicksburg surrender) and March '64 (summoned East and promoted by Grant).

He seems to have spent two intervals campaigning in Mississippi/Alabama - before and after his service at Chattanooga.

This timeline is asking for clarification. 86.145.155.99 (talk) 19:43, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Benjamin Harrison

Opinions are needed on the Benjamin Harrison talk page. Two editors are in disagreement about whether or not the last section to the page is appropriate. One editor wants to included an image of the 1st Harrison stamp along with some history associated with it. An other editor feels the information is too tangential and does not belong on the Harrison page. Gwillhickers (talk) 20:57, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Religion

As all eight of his children were brought up as Catholics, it is not clear why Sherman was so displeased when his son Thomas was ordained a Jesuit priest. 86.144.199.247 (talk) 11:30, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Speaking of such, there seems to be an inconsistency in the date of his son's ordination, was it in 1889 or 1879? The source on the son's page indicates that it was 1889, but the general's page indicates otherwise (it has a citation I can't actually check). Would someone kindly help? -- Ever Confused, StudentInsomniac 03:06, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Tom Sherman joined the Jesuits in 1878 and was ordained a priest in 1889. I believe it's traditional for the Jesuits to wait ten years or more, before ordaining a member (who starts out as a "novice," then becomes an "scholastic," before becoming a priest). I'll fix the date in the article. - Eb.hoop (talk) 21:25, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Can you add the link to http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/4361 for the reference to his Memoirs early in the article? That would be helpful. 173.29.138.231 (talk) 03:04, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

In the Modern assessment section, please change the reference URL for the quote (currently #102) from http://www.sagehistory.net/civilwar/docs/ShermanAtl.htm to http://www.academicamerican.com/expansioncw/civilwar/docs/ShermanAtl.htm and remove the {{dead link}} tag. This is the new URL for same organization. 107.10.43.91 (talk) 18:14, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Done Thanks. --Jnorton7558 (talk) 21:04, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Reference to Truman is out of place.

In 1945, President Harry S. Truman would say: "Sherman was wrong. I'm telling you I find peace is hell."[117] Zzzhuh (talk) 10:26, 2 January 2013 (UTC)zzzhuhZzzhuh (talk) 10:26, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

"Chopped off?" Says who?

Hello. Under the section "Slavery and Emancipation," one can find this unattributed statement: "Although the context is often overlooked, and the quotation usually chopped off, one of Sherman's most famous statements about his hard-war views arose in part from the racial attitudes summarized above."

Could someone please tell me who actually has a reference that "the quotation is usually chopped off" as if there's some kind of conspiracy going on here? Otherwise, don't you think this is just another amateur and unprofessional opinion not found in any source (and therefore needs a [citation needed] after it?) Sure seems that way. Thanks114.158.149.78 (talk) 12:43, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

minor quibble but

"President Benjamin Harrison sent a telegram to General Sherman's family and ordered all national flags to be flown at half mast."

That's "half-staff." A mast is on a ship. "Half-staff" is assumed unless all the flags under order are on ships. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.60.219.71 (talk) 19:40, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Sherman's children

The Shermans had eight children, not all mentioned.

You would normally expect a list of the children, with their dates and any relevant notes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.181.213.189 (talk) 13:20, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

If I ever decide to get around to it, I will post the documented births and marriages which prove that I am a descendent of William Tecumseh Sherman, on my mother's side. We always suspected it, but only proved it about 8 months ago. In case you can't tell, I feel cool to be able to be related to someone with a wikipedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.17.88.3 (talk) 00:40, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Even if he was a professional killer? Stevenmitchell (talk) 21:02, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Killing is all part of war. Don't tell me Lee and co. never killed anyone, they started it too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.45.141.126 (talk) 00:29, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Postbellum career

I believe Sherman's postbellum career needs to be expanded in three areas:

  • I agree with you that the portions of the article devoted to Sherman's 14-year service as Commanding General need to be expanded pbp 18:29, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

John B. Walters

This article quotes a book by John Walters as a reliable source on Sherman. I've copied and pasted a review from Amazon below to explain how this could be problematic:

This book alleges to be an analysis of Sherman's total war policy of the late Civil War. In fact, it is more of a chronicle of crimes, real and imaginary, supposed to have been condoned, even encouraged, by General Sherman. It is Walters' contention that Sherman began using total war in Memphis, and developed a policy of plunder and anarchy, completely disregarding the rules of warfare and of civilization, and perpetuated an unprecedented reign of terror and barbarity against the poor, defenseless people of the South. Sherman's motives are always construed as the worst possible, and his virtuous and good deeds are always given an alterior motive. An example: when Columbia, SC, was burned (and not by Sherman), Sherman himself helped fight the fires for most of a night. Walters conveniently forgets this fact. Later, Sherman gave over 500 head of cattle to the city for the relief of those left destitute by the fire. This Walters admits, but insists that they were the poorest the Union had. Such ridiculously strong sentiments such as that Sherman "had hardened his heart and shut out the voice of conscience" (page 74), that Sherman's men spread terror through "sheer joy" (126), and that Sherman "set himself up to judge what constituted right and wrong" (128) are ludicrous for the strength of their language, yet this is how Walters would have us see Sherman. There are a number of problems with his argument. If Sherman was so barbarous, so cruel, why did his army (and several very good high-ranking officers) follow him with such dedication? Surely SOMEONE must have had a conscience among them. Also, if Sherman was such a monster, why is it that many Southerners, including Generals Hood and Johnston (whose armies were opposing Sherman during this time), remained or became good friends of Sherman's after the war? If Johnston hated Sherman as much as Walters implies he did, I doubt he would have served as pall-bearer at Sherman's funeral. The solution is simple. Walters uses mostly Southern testimony to establish that Sherman was a monstrous barbarian. He also makes use of the testimony of newspaper correspondents, who had much reason to taint their stories about Sherman. He even goes so far as to say that Sherman had several newspaper correspondents on his staff! Anyone acquainted with the life of Sherman will laugh at this ridiculous assertion. In this book, Walters will tell you that Sherman ordered random civilians killed for no real reason. He will tell you, too, that Sherman's men were given free rein to do whatever they wanted. The value of this book, if there is any, is that it shows the force of Sherman's 'psychological warfare.' He crushed the spirit of the South in a way that made them want to end the war, and much of the feeling he created while doing so has survived even to the present day. Though Walters argues that Sherman's campaigns were wholly unnecessary (without even attempting to explain how the North otherwise could have subdued Georgia and South Carolina), the simple fact is that Sherman's actions, call them what you will, helped bring an end to the war.

I haven't read said book, but I think it stands to reason that it has more than its share of slant, so I think we should take quotes such as this - "His faults as a commander are as glaring as his faults of character. As an organizer of armies for the field, as a tactician in battle, he was an utter failure. He never commanded an organized army whose discipline did not become relaxed under his administration, and he was never commander-in-chief in any battle which was not a failure. Instead of being an organizer, Sherman was a disorganizer; he was chief among the "Bummers" which he made his soldiers, and by which they were eventually designated" - with a grain of salt. Quodfui (talk) 03:55, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 March 2014

Clear all

2601:7:1B80:1410:6D19:325E:91BC:EA4D (talk) 22:27, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Cannolis (talk) 22:41, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Anti-clerical?

'To Sherman's great displeasure and sorrow, one of his sons, Thomas Ewing Sherman, joined the religious order of the Jesuits in 1878 and was ordained as a priest in 1889.'

Not clear why he was so displeased about it, since Sherman's wife was a Catholic. Valetude (talk) 17:02, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Sherman himself was not Catholic. In his mature years he seems to have been an agnostic, and he regarded his wife's religiosity as a morbid eccentricity. His displeasure when Tom became a Jesuit was particularly acute because he had hoped that Tom, his oldest surviving son, would become a lawyer and take over management of the family concerns. As Gen. Sherman saw it, Tom instead chose a useless life of seclusion and prayer, effectively deserting his family. See, e.g., [1]. -Eb.hoop (talk) 17:47, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Foster sister.

If he married his foster father's daughter, then he married his foster sister. I suppose if their ages were substantially different (they never lived together as brother and sister) that would also merit inclusion. Also there is a Thomas Ewing Sr. and Jr. and I will emend the name to signify which relation we are talking about. I find it curious that it is written carefully avoiding pointing out that she was (or was not) his foster sister.173.189.73.207 (talk) 20:06, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on William Tecumseh Sherman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:02, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Genocide

why is there no mention of genocide?  Sherman and Hitler were cut from same cloth!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.24.36.143 (talk) 07:57, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Under "Death," the correct phrase is "half staff," not "half mast." "Half mast" is used only for ships at sea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.145.7.104 (talk) 20:22, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Are you referring to the plains Indians or the Southerns. Also, the Hitler comparison, isn't really clear. --41.150.64.149 (talk) 11:19, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on William Tecumseh Sherman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:44, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Why Has an Article That Is Using Reference From 3 Decades Ago Being Updated Multiple Times Each Month?

So I am starting to see this more and more on articles as time goes on and a pattern is emerging but it really strikes me here because on historical figures especially ones as well known as Sherman there shouldn't be that much new info gleaned on a month to month basis that is noteworthy (especially info worthy of editing a padlocked article) and if there is it would be widely covered in the news. My hobby is to go down Wiki black holes going from link in what page to creating new tabs from links on that page and just getting lost. I've been doing this since the beginning so certain changes and patterns are really gonna stick out and this one does. I don't want this to become about a partisan thing but being an SEO specialist and programmer I will say there does appear to be a certain slant to these changes.

What's troubling to me though is just how unfriendly for a normal user this trend is making Wikipedia. See in order for them to get their edits past the smell test they hide them behind text books that they can link to and create a mess of a bibliography because they know that those sources are given more weight. They also know that people are less likely to follow through on checking those sources for validity. I'm not saying they are using fake sources. I'm saying they are purposefully using sources that are either horribly outdated or hard to access physical copies of. They are also removing as many valid edits w/ links to regular websites as they can.

So what you get is a Sherman biography where nearly every source is a book and not an easy to follow link and most of those books are horribly outdated. I mean a lot of this article is being taken from a Sherman biography written in 1993, why is that acceptable? Would you think someone educated in US History from a textbook from 1993 would be someone who had a firm grasp on current historical consensus surrounding people like Sherman? Especially when these books are being used to add in lines about Sherman advocating total war against Indians and slaughter of innocent woman and children. Something that when googled could not be found easily except from that book, this site now, and sites that intend to make Sherman look bad (wonder why they would want a linkback quoting from Wikipedia).

I mean Sherman was kept out of Grant's Indian plans such as Black Hills due to his stance of honoring treaties and such, "Sherman advocated total war against hostile Indians to force them back onto their reservations, "Opposition to Grant’s plan might have come from his highest-ranking military officer, Sherman. He was one of the men who had signed the Fort Laramie Treaty on behalf of the United States. He advocated using force against Indians when warranted, but he had once written Grant of his anger at “whites looking for gold [who] kill Indians just as they would kill bears and pay no regard for treaties.” And though Grant and Sherman had become close friends when they led the Union to victory, they had grown apart over politics since the Civil War. After Belknap usurped the general’s command prerogatives with no objection from Grant, Sherman had moved his headquarters from Washington to St. Louis in a fit of pique. He was not invited into the cabal, though two of his subordinates—Sheridan and Crook—were."[1]

There is even a great quote in this article I pulled this from that says this, "For most of the 20th century, historians dismissed the Grant administration as a haven for corrupt hacks." Basically that sentence explains in one simple sentence what I just took way too long trying to say. Can we gleam interesting information from older sources? Absolutely but usually those sources are from people who were contemporaries of the subjects they are writing about or have some experience with it. Such as the Greek historians. Again sorry for the length but I think this is an important topic. --JaqenHghar80 (talk) 04:46, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

the " horribly outdated" book is Marszalek's excellent 1992 biography. Scholars continue to admire it-- there are 52 citations to it in scholarly studies 2013-2017 listed here at google-scholar; Paddy Ashdown (2013) calls it "definitive", as does N.M. Knight (2016); the Reader's Guide to American History edited by Peter J. Parish calls it "the most complete biography" (p 629). Rjensen (talk) 15:20, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool. #14 is incorrect The quote attached to this is found on pg. 13 not 16.

Note #105 is a dead link, but there's an archive of the page here: https://web.archive.org/web/20101103085838/http://www.academicamerican.com/expansioncw/civilwar/docs/ShermanAtl.htm

 Done I ran IABot on the article and it looks like it caught that. LittlePuppers (talk) 18:56, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 January 2019

SoftwarePM (talk) 20:52, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. DannyS712 (talk) 20:58, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

correction of a word

Subject: Second paragraph of article, second sentence: "He graduated from the United States Military Academy in 1840 and was stated in California."

Proposed change: Make the sentence more clear. I was in USAF for 25 years; I've never heard the construct of having been "stated in California". Perhaps Sherman was "stationed in California."

Perhaps small and nit-picky. Perhaps helpful. Take it or leave it; I only hope it helps. Thanks for your important contribution to the Internet.

As to (below), "You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license." If you decide this "contribution" is far below the threshold warranting attribution, I'll happily accept that.

SoftwarePM (talk) 21:08, 10 January 2019 (UTC) SoftwarePM (that, too), 2019-01-10.

[Later] Feedback to Wikipedia: When I clicked "Publish" for the above, I returned to a Sherman screen and saw feedback (1) This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. and (2) Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. DannyS712 (talk) 20:58, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Context: I'm not a frequent contributor. I don't understand the significance of these sentences.

I'll guess this is an automated response because of the speed it came after I posted. Perhaps I haven't complied with a recommended format or something.

These sentences may indicate my feedback will get no further review. If that's correct, I accept. On the other hand, it's a short message and I don't know what the author intended to communicate. I doubt the author communicated as intended.

Your call. It sees the light of day or not.


Different and less important point: I'm trying to comply here; I'm using the four tildes, my username, and a date. That line appears to result in a repetitive annotation. Indeed, the instructions (in one place) asking for this compliance seem to indicate (paraphrasing) that "it's impossible to leave an anonymous comment because the system adds the same information anyway." So ... maybe replace the request for the human work with advice that the username and time of submission will be added by the system software? Maybe ... the system software provides adequate documentation of the same?

I bet there's good reason for the request; I don't see it; I don't need to. No biggee.

Thanks.

SoftwarePM (talk) 21:48, 10 January 2019 (UTC) SoftwarePM 2019-01-10

Semi-protected edit request on 22 November 2019

2600:6C51:637F:E280:95DC:C942:4005:EB86 (talk) 03:53, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

General Sherman was a general during the civil war

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. NiciVampireHeart 04:03, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

"Uncle Billy" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Uncle Billy. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Interstellarity (talk) 17:04, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Democratic Platform of 1864

In the Atlanta section of this article, the statement "the Democratic Party platform called for peace negotiations based on the acknowledgment of the Confederacy's independence." is flatly wrong. The platform called for immediate negotiations so that "peace may be restored on the basis of the Federal Union of the States." Could someone with the authority please correct this error? see :http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=29578 for full text of the platform It might be argued that the platform if implemented would have led to southern independence, but that is not the same thing. And it has to be remembered that although it presented a peace platform, the Democratic Party nominated a war democrat, McClellan, who was committed to having no peace without restoration of the Union.

I've now fixed this. Note, however, that "on the basis of the Federal Union of the States" was evidently a face-saving flourish by the Peace Democrats who wrote that platform. In fact, the only possible basis for actual peace negotiations with the Confederacy was its independence. Eb.hoop2 (talk) 06:24, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
the GOP leadership and Lincoln himself had jitters in August 1864 about losing the election in November--which meant McClellan would be president on March 4 1865. Lincoln made out a written statement--signed on the back by the cabinet who did not know its contents: "Aug. 23, 1864 This morning, as for some days past, it seems exceedingly probable that this Administration will not be reelected. Then it will be my duty to so co-operate with the President elect, as to save the Union between the election and the inauguration; as he will have secured his election on such ground that he can not possibly save it afterwards." the episode is covered in all Lincoln biographies. The jitters were false--the Dem Party was falling apart and with or without Sherman it was in bad shape. If McC won the election Lincoln swore he would make sure the Confederacy was dead by March 4. In any case this article is not the place to debate a very unlikely hypothetical that Sherman would lose a campaign where he had massive military advantages. Rjensen (talk) 06:52, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
The "External links" needs to be examined to see if any can be incorporated into the article or trimmed. 15 links does not seem to follow any of the guidelines, EL Points #3, links to avoid, and to minimize the number of links. This gives the appearance of link farming. Otr500 (talk) 00:21, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 July 2020

I would like to add the office of Superintendent of Louisiana State University to the card of this page. General Sherman was the first to have the role (the office is now called "president") of leading this historic university. JoStaffordRulez (talk) 00:52, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. If by "the card" you mean the infobox (that longish box with Sherman's picture at the top and summary details of his life) then the positions in these are limited to the most prominent positions the person held. That is, those that are important to understanding their place in history or culture and are likely to be the ones readers are looking for. In the case of Sherman, those are his military roles. A retirement sinecure is not likely to be considered such. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:52, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

This article and the FA criteria ...

This article needs significant work to get to the FA criteria, especially since the standards have tightened up since 2006, when it was promoted. I'm a ACW buff myself, but I personally don't have the time for expertise in Sherman to bring this up personally (more of a Trans-Mississippi Theater guy myself). The lead isn't quite compliant, as there's information such as the "first modern general" description that isn't in the body. There's significant uncited text, and some of the current sourcing ain't quite up to snuff. For instance, the entire in postage thing is cited to the Scott's Stamp Catalog, but it's unclear which exact year or page is being cited, as they make new ones of those every year. There are several instances where entire books are cited without giving page numbers. One of the citations is just an unsourced footnote. From a spot check, the "Bust of Sherman" references doesn't support most of the text it is citing. There are significant issues here, that I just don't have the time or sources to handle myself. Hog Farm Bacon 18:56, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

"Tecumseh Sherman" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Tecumseh Sherman. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 20#Tecumseh Sherman until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. NotReallySoroka (talk) (formerly DePlume) 23:24, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Notable errors in the article

Sherman did not distinguish himself at Bull Run -- his unit broke and fled.

Sherman did not have a nervous breakdown because of pessimism. This was related first to a lack of battlefield experience. Whereas many other officers both in the Union and Confederacy had gotten combat experience during the Mexican/American War -- Sherman had not. His only experience was a single battle at Bull Run where he was directly across from the considerably more experienced, Stonewall Jackson. Secondly, he was suffering from sleep deprivation either because he lacked experience with or was overly cautious about delegating.

Sherman also did not recover by forging a relationship with Grant. What happened was that Buell was suggested as supporting Grant during the Donnelson campaign. However, Halleck saw Buell as a rival, so he suggested that Sherman (whom he did not see as a rival) provide support since he was senior to Buell. Sherman did not meet Grant until after the Donnelson campaign was over. However, Grant who had been a quartermaster was impressed with Sherman's detailed attention to supply. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brehmel (talk • contribs) 21:05, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

lol neocon —66.154.208.12 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 21:07, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Typo in Indian Wars Section

Apologies if this isn’t the correct route to report this, I’ve never made an edit on Wikipedia and I’ve never used the talk pages, but I wanted to correct a typo in the Indian Wars section. It says “he was called away Washington during the negotiations.” Whereas it should say “he was called away to Washington during the negotiations.” You can see it is missing the word “to”. I tried to make the edit but it shows the page is semi-locked and I’m not allowed to publish it so hopefully someone here can correct that. Largactylmyxamatosis (talk) 01:00, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Done. Welcome and thanks for the fresh eyes. I've put a set of links on your talkpage. Please edit boldly. If you need help, feel invited to call on me. BusterD (talk) 01:06, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Five brigades in Tyler's division at First Bull Run

The article current states It was one of the five brigades in the division commanded by General Daniel Tyler,, but in trying to source this for the FAR, I'm not sure what the 5th one is suppose to be. NPS has only four (Richardson, Tyler, Sherman, Schenck). I don't have a book specifically about First Bull Run, so I can't really check that, but it's also interesting that our orbat for the battle only has four brigades in Tyler's division. And this is totally original research, but my childhood memories of Battleground 7: Bull Run only recall four brigades, as well. Who's the fifth brigade? Hog Farm Talk 07:25, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

I think that I was the one who introduced the counting of the brigades and divisions into this article, in response to a request in the ongoing FAR to clarify Sherman's role at Bull Run. I was simply using the information in the Wikipedia article on First Bull Run Union order of battle. I'm not sure how the four brigades indicated there became a "five", but it was probably either a simple typo or a confusion with the number of divisions. By all means please fix this and give the NPS webpage as reference. - Eb.hoop2 (talk) 07:41, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
This is done now. Hog Farm Talk 03:03, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

 Done SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:32, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Liddell Hart

"Liddell Hart also declared that the study of Sherman's campaigns had contributed significantly to his own "theory of strategy and tactics in mechanized warfare", which had in turn influenced Heinz Guderian's doctrine of Blitzkrieg and Rommel's use of tanks during the Second World War."

While the first half may be correct, the second half of the sentence is open to two interpretations. Is it Liddell Hart claiming that he influenced Guderian and Rommel, or is it a statement in wikipedia's voice? There is a fair bit of thinking that Liddell Hart tweaked Guderian's and Rommel's texts to big up his contribution to military strategy. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:56, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

I have added this to the FAR; maybe we can keep discussion centralized there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:04, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
I think it's clear that the whole sentence is summarizing what Liddell Hart himself claimed. The second source given is Edmund Wilson, who wrote the following:

A British expert on military matters and the author of a book on Sherman, Captain B. H. Liddell Hart, has discussed Sherman's innovations in a recent introduction to a reprint of the Memoirs. Liddell Hart acknowledges his own indebtedness for his "theory of strategy and tactics in mechanized warfare" to the study of Sherman's campaigns, and he asserts that the methods of Rommel and other German commanders in World War II were influenced by translations of his, Liddell Hart's writings. The perpetrator of "the march to the sea" does seem to have invented Blitzkrieg.

If someone can provide a countervailing source, without sending us into an extended coverage of controversies surrounding Liddell Hart himself, please do so. - Eb.hoop2 (talk) 14:13, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
@Eb.hoop2, SandyGeorgia, and GraemeLeggett: - I think it is a valid question if we should be citing Liddell Hart for anything related to WW2 Germany at all, given that he was a proponent of the Myth of the clean Wehrmacht and the Rommel myth. I don't see anything wrong with citing Liddell Hart for content in general about Sherman, and he was a significant thinker in military strategy and should be given due weight, but he should generally be avoided for things WW2-related, given that he got pretty fringy in that area after the war. Hog Farm Talk 14:32, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
My question is whether he really deserves a place in the lead here; you all know better than I do on that, and I defer to your content knowledge. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:27, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
I'd suggest that if we're going to quote someone specifically in the lead (and we don't have to), that Holden-Reid or Marszalek are better candidates for that. Hog Farm Talk 15:32, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

British military theorist and historian B. H. Liddell Hart declared that Sherman was "the first modern general". Why does this belong in the lead? How the heck does this contribute to reader understanding? What is a "modern general" anyway? (t · c) buidhe 15:48, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Liddell Hart, though certainly controversial, is one of the best known and most influential military theorists ever. By any standard, his views on Sherman are notable and should be covered in this article. The quote in the lead about Sherman being "the first modern general" does not concern any of the controversies regarding L H's work on WW2. It's also widely quoted all over the modern secondary literature on Sherman. Even L H's claim that Sherman had something to do with Blitzkrieg (via L H himself) is notable and deserves to be mentioned, as it currently is. However, it could well be balanced by some reference to the controversy over L H's claims for his own influence on German tactics and operations in WW2. - Eb.hoop2 (talk) 16:04, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
In the case of the particular sentence I referred to, we could trim it to "Liddell Hart also declared that the study of Sherman's campaigns had contributed significantly to his own 'theory of strategy and tactics in mechanized warfare' ". And that would do what is required - state how Sherman influenced later thinkers without having to deal with those later thinkers claims as to their own effect on military strategy. GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:32, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
As I stated, my issue with this statement isn't the sourcing, it's that it's devoid of any meaning for the average reader and serves no purpose in the lead. (t · c) buidhe 17:10, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
I think that the meaning and relevance of that quote is adequately discussed in the body of the article, specifically in the section on "Strategies". I've also now added references to three important military theorists and historians who've explicitly endorsed the bulk of L H's claims for the historical significance of Sherman. As for GraemeLeggett's original concern, I've clarified the referencing and added a note pointing out that controversy attaches to L H's own influence upon and relations with Wehrmacht leaders, which is of course not something that this article can or should delve into much further. - Eb.hoop2 (talk) 07:58, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
Can we move him out of the first paragraph? I agree that it is intrusive there. The first paragraph should focus on Sherman exclusively but Liddell Hart is almost given the same weight as the subject of the article. How about moving it to the end of the lead? DrKay (talk) 16:44, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 May 2022

The last sentence in the section Civil War Service, just before Slavery and Emancipation, reads, “Sherman proceeded with some his troops to Washington, where they marched in the Grand Review of the Armies, on May 24, 1865.”

The word of is missing in “some of his troops” and should be changed to “Sherman proceeded with some of his troops to Washington, where they marched in the Grand Review of the Armies, on May 24, 1865.” 73.13.89.64 (talk) 15:30, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

 Done - Thanks for pointing out the mistake! Hog Farm Talk 15:34, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Typo

Under Historical Reputation, "role the Civil War" should read "role in the Civil War"

71.253.115.147 (talk) 02:13, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for catching that. Hog Farm Talk 02:46, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Chinese translation needs to be expanded

The current article is barebone and reads like Southern propaganda. 68.174.155.22 (talk) 23:06, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Sherman

the name sounds very similar to "german". Does anybody knows where they are from? 2003:CA:A74F:1000:F8D0:CB38:EB8A:5564 (talk) 14:18, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Tecumseh Sherman was no hero

Permission to edit

There are quite a few small errors in this article. Since his home is only a few miles from me I would like to correct them. How can this be done Moravian1415 (talk) 17:20, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

@Moravian1415: - What spots are you concerned with? Any changes will need to be supported by a reliable source, rather than just added through original research. I've got a handful of the print sources and can check them to find a citation if you need help getting a reliable source for something. Hog Farm Talk 17:40, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 June 2022

I suggest providing more detail under the "Slavery and Emancipation" subsection of this article, regarding the 1888 essay General Sherman wrote defending civil rights for African Americans. Having read the essay, I suggest including that Sherman predicted another Civil War if white southerners continued to block Afr. American suffrage through violence. To quote Sherman: "Ask the abrogration of Article XIV. of the Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, or allow the negro to vote, and count his vote. Otherwise, so sure as there is a God in Heaven, you will have another war, more cruel than the last, when the torch and dagger will take the place of the muskets of well-ordered battalions" (p. 366)

Here is a source for the full, primary source article: Sherman, W. T. “Old Shady, with a Moral.” The North American Review 147, no. 383 (1888): 361–68. http://www.jstor.org/stable/25101627. BJAllTheWay (talk) 05:14, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: Please provide secondary sources showing that this is noteworthy. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:19, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 Done I added the quote in the form that it's used at the end of a recently published and well reviewed book (Dickey's Rising in Flames, from 2018). - Eb.hoop2 (talk) 06:01, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 November 2023

The opening paragraph opines negatively on the supposed scorched earth strategy General Sherman employed against the confederate states in open rebellion against the union. It should be rewritten without this pro-confederate bias. For example: “General Sherman used tactics that, while extreme, were permissible under the law of war as it was read at the time. While controversial, his strategies were critical in ensuring a Confederate surrender, reunification of the Union, and a lasting peace.” 100.16.234.26 (talk) 09:13, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. •Cyberwolf•talk? 15:36, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
  1. ^ Cozzens, Peter. Smithsonian Mag https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/ulysses-grant-launched-illegal-war-plains-indians-180960787/. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:William_Tecumseh_Sherman/Archive_2&oldid=1257535088"