Customer Reviews

Atlanta Will Fall: Sherman, Joe Johnston, and the Yankee Heavy Battalions (The American Crisis Series: Books on the Civil War Era)

5 star:		(3)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Stephen Davis has written a lucid account of the dark days of the Army of Tennessee as it was outmaneuvered and outgeneraled by W.T. Sherman during the campaign for Atlanta in 1864. Davis has introduced new primary research to support his assertions that Atlanta was lost in December 1863 when Johnston was appointed commander of the Army of Tennessee. History has castigated John Bell Hood for the loss and Davis does everything he can to dispel this claim and more. Very well written and full of the authors conclusions, it makes the reader think about what he is reading. Highly recommended for anyone who knows anything at all about the Georgia campaign. The passages on Johnston, Hardee, and Hood are especially interesting.

Stephen Davis systematically tackles the old myths surrounding the Atlanta campaign and its subsequent capture by the North. His analysis of Johnston's tactical decisions clearly elucidates where responsibility for Atlanta's loss truly lay. It is obvious that Davis has spent a great deal of time researching this work and his efforts show. A must read for anyone who enjoys a gripping, thoroughly researched account of a major historical event.

Atlanta Will Fall: Sherman, Joe Johnston, and the Yankee Heavy Bandits is a sharp overview of the entire Atlanta campaign during the American Civil War, from Dalton to Jonesboro. The battles are described and the strategies analyzed, with detailed evaluations of the three major generals involved. In particular, author Davis argues that between the Confederate leaders Joe Johnston and John Bell Hood, it was Johnston who lost Atlanta due to overcaution, while Hood got the bad rap. Atlanta Will Fall is strongly recommended reading for Civil War buffs.

Most people who follow the Civil War would say that Joe Johnson was a very capable general for the Confederacy. In Davis's book, Johnson is shown as a general who was cautious and to a certain extent defeatist in his dealings with Sherman. I think the author makes a good case that Johnson's conservative generalship led to the forordained loss of Atlanta, and that the three weeks of Hood's command was an attempt to change the fate of Atlanta. Davis makes a good case by examining the records and correspondence of the loss of Atlanta. Hood's later reckless assault against Unionist forces in Tennessee clouded his capable handling of the forces around Atlanta.

This is revisionist history, but I think the author makes a solid case that Johnson's defense was not good for a nation wanting an active defense of one of their largest cities. Hood's
offensive was much more appreciated by the military and civil authorities in Richmond and Atlanta. Johnson's own conduct after the war plus the esteem his soldiers held him caused his redemption.

A nice little book about the defense of Atlanta. Sherman would have won ultimately because of his numbers. However the theory of Johnson's conservative strategy resulted in the fall of Atlanta.