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!] ( )

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 ( )

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

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. ( )