Steven E. WoodworthCritiques

Excellent regimental history, accomplishing the key task of the genre: making memorable characters out of the various soldiers through whose letters and memoirs the stories are told. The first-hand descriptions of combat are powerful. Succeeds in conveying the entire war experience of the men of the regiment, from early war fever to the bitter end at Appomattox.

A careful coat of paint cannot hide a revisionist history. This is a great read, as long as you don't look into what it says. (And as long as you don't look for such important helps as a sufficiency of maps and orders of battle.)

This might as easily have been titled "The Decline and Fall of Braxton Bragg." Most histories of the Civil War in the west in 1863 concentrate on the Battle of Chickamauga, or possibly on Chickamauga and its sequel Chattanooga. This book starts earlier -- with the aftermath of the battle of Stones River at the end of 1862, including the long stalemate which followed, the Tullahoma campaign which ended the stalemate, and then Chickamauga and Chattanooga. To accomplish this in a fairly short book, it has to pull back a little -- the descriptions of Chickamauga and Chattanooga, especially the latter, are relatively brief.

There is nothing wrong with that. You can't understand Chickamauga unless you understand how the armies got there! It's good to have such a careful examination of the whole campaign. But I can't bring myself to entirely like the result. It seems clear that author Woodworth has his favorite generals, and he wraps the entire history around them. And, almost uniquely, his absolute favorite is Braxton Bragg.

This is noteworthy because nobody likes Bragg. His subordinates despised him (as Woodworth readily admits). The press of the time savaged him. Historians have generally given him low marks. Woodworth seems convinced that Bragg would have been great -- if only someone, anyone, had obeyed his orders.

If one of a general's subordinates disobeys his commander, it's proper to blame it on the subordinate. If they all are alleged to have disobeyed, then surely one must conclude that the fault lies with the general! To paint his picture, Woodworth must portray all of Bragg's juniors as basically unruly children: Leonidas Polk as a pompous fool (OK, that one's partly right), William J. Hardee as a better man who somehow swallowed Polk's opinions entire, D. H. Hill as a carping fumbler (the carping is true, but Hill had been a fine division commander at least), James Longstreet as an ambitious blockhead (the fact that Longstreet was not suited for independent command does not change the fact that Robert E. Lee trusted Longstreet implicitly and gave him tasks he gave no other man -- and that Longstreet was the one who won Bragg's battle at Chickamauga for him!).

Woodworth isn't as biased about the Federals, but the amount of shade he casts on George H. Thomas is ridiculous. The fact that Ulysses S. Grant never liked Thomas doesn't change the fact that no Federal general in the entire war had a better record than Thomas. The fact that Thomas was methodical when circumstances permitted it doesn't change the fact that he was brilliantly methodical -- and that he could act fast when he had to, as e.g. when he saved the Union army at Chickamauga.

So this book becomes the story of how Bragg, after two tactical victories that proved strategic defeats (Perryville and Stones River) entered into his final campaign that resulted in one battle won and one lost, the latter of which ended with Bragg out of a job. It's almost like a Greek tragedy -- except that a Greek tragedy requires a hero with a tragic flaw. Flaws Braxton Bragg had. I can't see much sign of heroism.

I ended up feeling as if this was a good history of the campaign but a terrible history of the personalities involved. You can trust what happened. But as for the personal interactions that led to those events, I'd feel a lot more confident if they fit better with what every other historian says -- or, at minimum, if Woodworth explained why he thinks everyone else wrong.

[Correction made Dec. 20, 1863: Corrected "Hardy" to "Hardee"; I don't know what came over my fingers!]½

historical-places-events, historical-research, historical-figures, politics, military-history, socioeconomics, American Civil War *****

This historical presentation goes beyond the nuts and bolts of the complex military campaigns of the area and includes the background of the politics and other factors that created the perceived need for the combatants to meet in the Chattanooga area. The material is well researched and documented and the conclusions appear valid. The actions and blunders of the generals on both sides are very clearly presented.
I feel that this study would be an asset to both history geeks and students of militaria alike.
The narration is performed by Bill Nevitt whose no nonsense delivery only adds to the credibility of the material.
Note: I am not military, and our reenactments are American Revolutionary War

This book is supposed to be part of a series on "leadership" via generals, but what was there must be inferred...except for Sherman's use of maneuver warfare. That, was aptly demonstrated. In this audible book, Wesley Clark babbles through an introduction to little effect. I'll admit that this book was a good intro to his life and is fine work for those who want a quick and accessible entree, but it fell short of a leadership lessons. Instead of the usual writing about generals, i.e. details about their battles, I'd much rather read about the man, his motivations, background & integrity, which this book didn't really do. After reading about Sherman in other books, I conclude that his legacy was more than the pitiful conclusion stated in this one. For example, he also contributed to and influenced the US Army Air Corps and Naval strategy, to include 8th Air Force as well as MacArthur's and Nimitz' conduct of WWII. This was not even mentioned. Where are the lessons?

Great book! A masterful blend of detailed, primary-sourced research and compelling narrative.

This is a very thorough walk through of those three days in July as well as the period leading up to the clash. I think Woodworth delivered a wonderful concise battlefield history of this epic battle.

Great historical exploration of Manifest Destiny. Excessive details of Mexican War battle scenes and not enough explanation of macro-economic drivers and consequences of Manifest Destiny, but just the right amount describing the politics of the 1830s & 40s. Makes our current congress seem almost sane.

This is an edited collection of essays on different aspects of the Battle of Chickamauga. The first essay provides a thorough explanation of the troop movement leading up to and during the battle. I especially enjoyed the last essay about Henry Van Ness Boynton, who was instrumental in preserving the battlefield as a national military park.

While I don't have a lot to say about this book that hasn't been said by others, I do wish that it had existed about ten or fifteen years ago, as it does provide a good synopsis of the field force in question. If you've already done a fair amount of reading about the late unpleasantness between the states you might have that been there/done that feeling.

There is also no doubt that the author loves him some U.S. Grant, and could probably have stood to have been more critical. On the other hand it is refreshing to see Henry Halleck get the drubbing he so richly deserves. Woodworth's unvarnished attitude in regards to federal command politics is probably the main attraction for the experienced reader.

Finally, as has also been commented upon, one map for a whole war does not cut it.

Too summerized, good for the first book to read on this campaign.

If you're interested in the Civil War, I just finished reading Steven Woodworth's "Nothing But Victory: The Army of the Tennessee, 1861 - 1865," the first of his works I've read, and it's a great book. Woodworth focuses a lot on the private soldiers, and his research shows he's done a lot of reading of journals, diaries and letters written by the foot soldiers who served in the Army of the Tennessee (primarily from midwestern regiments - Iowa, Illinois, Missouri, Indiana, Ohio, etc.) These are the men who fought, whose names remain pretty much unknown, many of them who gave their lives for the survival of the United States as a whole, healthy and powerful country. Unlike some Civil War writers, Woodworth sees some of the humor in the war, and more than once I found myself laughing out loud at something he had written. Sometimes a little humor helps to lighten the serious and often nerve-wracking tales of violence and death. Of the Civil War writers that I admire, Steven Woodworth is right up there with Bruce Catton, James McPherson, Jeffry Wert and Shelby Foote. I'll be buying and reading more books by Woodworth.

A new two-volume, 600 page set, titled - Gale Library of Daily Life: American Civil War - has just been published and it is a vital addition for the serious student of the American Civil War. The Gale Group sought submission from scholars and historians to complete this excellent resource with over 200 articles included in the set. The publisher is Gale Cenage Learning.

The two-volume set focuses on the daily life of soldiers and civilians, North and South, during the Civil War.

A key feature of the essays will be excerpts from first-person accounts to illustrate the lives of men, women, and children, including slaves and their families, during the epic conflict that shaped America.

The writers were able to access Gale Group's proprietary database of primary resources including "memoirs, letters, diaries, newspaper accounts, excerpts from other published works." Professor and prolific author-historian Steven E. Woodworth at Texas Christian University was the senior editor for the work and also wrote a few of the articles.

The set breaks down into nine major areas, with numerous sub-areas under these major headings. Volume 1 is broken down into four major categories: A Soldier's Life, Family and Community, Religion, and Popular Culture. Volume 2 breaks down into five major categories: Health & Medicine, Work & Economy, Politics, Effects of the War on Slaves and Freedpeople.

The articles are well-written, readable and accessible, and expertly edited by Woodworth and the editorial team. Each article also lists 4-10 recommended reading sources at the end. There is also a very nice 10-page annotated bibliography in volume two.

There are a generous selection of original pictures or photos but not too many. There is also an eight-page chronology of the Civil War.

This two-volume set is a MUST for public libraries and should be a top priority for individuals who are serious about studying the Civil War. Subscribers to North & South Magazine or Civil War Times would be ideal readers of Gale Library of Daily Life: American Civil War.

Dr. Steven E. Woodworth is one of the best Civil War historians and author today. His writing is clean, concise, spot on, well-researched, easy to read, and he's not afraid to make his case regardless how controversial the topic is. It's hard to believe Dr. Woodworth - Professor of History at Texas Christian University - is just in his mid-40s.

This is a great intro-book for people not very familiar with the Western Theater during the Civil War. You can not go wrong with this book.

Steven Woodworth delivers a masterful Stephen Ambrose-like paean to the men and leaders of the Union Army of the Tennessee (named after the river not the state). While the Army of the Potomac was kept in check by Robert E. Lee, the men of the Army of the Tennessee criss-crossed the Confederate States from Fort Donelson to Pittsburgh Landing to Corinth to Vicksburg to Meridian to Chattanooga to Atlanta to Savannah to Columbia and finally to Washington DC. They defeated their opponents, because the Confederacy never reached a coherent decision about its defensive priorities. In defending everything, it defended nothing. The politcial priorities of the two contestants meant that the Union A team fought against the Confederate C team. The importance of the Army of the Tennessee shrank after its high tide at Vicksburg. Never a large force to begin with, its two to three corps were absorbed into Grant's and then Sherman's group of armies.

Woodworth's claim of "nothing but victory" is exaggerated as the Army of Tennessee witnessed a number of near disasters (Belmont, Ft Donelson, Shiloh) and setbacks (Chickasaw Bayou, Resaca, Kennesaw) distinguished from defeat only by the ineptitude of the Confederate leadership and Grant's unwillingness to quit.

Woodworth is soft on Grant and his boys and harsh about others (McClernand, Rosecrans, Thomas). Compare Woodworth's treatment of McPherson's hesitation in the Atlanta campaign and Rosecrans' caution at Corinth. Grant is a master strategist but a lousy tactician. If Grant had positioned himself at his weakest general's command post, he might have averted many mishaps and limited his casualties. Instead, he stayed with his favorites which further reduced the communication flow with the outsiders (McClernand, Rosecrans, Thomas) who then did not meet Grant's expectations, triggering the next round of alienation.

Overall, a magnificent book which gives voice both to the commanders and the common man. The book could be even better if it included more than a single map. A scarcity of maps seems to be a Woodworth trademark.½

Having a soft spot for Old Rosy's hard hitting brigades of Harker, Hazen, Turchin, van Derveer, Willich and Wilder, I picked this book up in the Manassas national park gift shop. At 220 pages, it is a concise, well written introduction to the Tullahoma, Chickamauga, Chattanooga and Knoxville campaign. Combining the Tullahoma and Chickamauga campaign is an excellent choice. It reveals Rosy's evolving daring in developing a sort of lightning campaign which did not achieve the proper results due to conservative subordinates. If the Union had only raised more lightning brigades ... The author does not shy away from controversial judgments, one might disagree with. I think he is too harsh on the defensive generals (Thomas, Longstreet). Casting them in offensive positions is a mistake of their commanding officer. It is also interesting how much Bragg's subordinates crushed his sound plans. Nevertheless, Bragg is still to be blamed. If success of the battle of Chickamauga depends on D. H. Hill being in position at sunrise, it is the CIC's duty to personally check this or at least have staff officers control it. Especially in the dysfunctional family that is the Confederate high command of the Army of Tennessee.

Overall, an interesting read that is a little bit too complicated for civil war beginners. Furthermore the book suffers from some puzzling defects (which should have been remedied): The author cites mostly secondary sources. The book lacks maps about the battles of Chickamauga and Chattanooga (otherwise, the maps are well made, although some lack a scale.) and it does not include an order of battle. The Knoxville campaign chapter feels tacked on. Burnside's actions are not well developed and the chapter is not integrated into the rest of the book. Recommended for the advanced ACW reader.

Woodworth examines the generals in the western theater. He is a huge fan of Albert Sidney Johnston. However with his death at Shiloh, Woodworth claims that Jefferson Davis took too great a role in managing affairs in the West. He did not trust his generals, especially Joe Johnston, and instead hung his star on Braxton Bragg who was not competent for independent command. More meddling led to greater disaster.

IFYAA