Civil War Generals in Defeat (Modern War Studies) [Hardcover]

Steven E. Woodworth (Editor)

Book Description

Publication Date: April 1, 1999 | Series: Modern War Studies

Commanders who serve on the losing side of a battle, campaign, or war are often harshly viewed by posterity. Labeled as mere "losers," they go unrecognized for their very real abilities and achievements in other engagements. The writers in this volume challenge such simplistic notions. By looking more closely at Civil War generals who have borne the stigma of failure, these authors reject the reductionist view that significant defeats were due simply to poor generalship. Analyzing men who might be considered "capable failures"-officers of high pre-war reputation, some with distinguished records in the Civil War-they examine the various reasons these men suffered defeat, whether flaws of character, errors of judgment, lack of preparation, or circumstance beyond their control. These seven case studies consider Confederate and Union generals evenhandedly. They show how Albert Sidney Johnston failed in the face of extreme conditions and inadequate support; how Joe Hooker and John C. Pemberton were outmatched in confrontations with Lee and Grant; how George B. McClellan in the Peninsula Campaign and Don Carlos Buell at Chattanooga faced political as well as military complications; and how Joseph E. Johnston failed to adapt to challenges in Virginia. An additional chapter looks at generals from both sides at the Battle of Gettysburg, showing how failure to adjust to circumstances can thwart even the most seasoned leader's expectations. "There is far more to be learned in trying to understand how and why a general fell short," observes Steven Woodworth, "than there is in multiplying denunciations of his alleged stupidity." Civil War Generals in Defeat successfully addresses that need. It is a provocative book that seeks not to rehabilitate reputations but to enlarge our understanding of the nature and limitations of military command.

Editorial Reviews

From Library Journal

This collection of case studies argues that success as the standard of merit in combat distorts an objective appraisal of the pivotal decisions made in battle. In provocative essays examining the careers of Union generals George B. McClellan, Don Carlos Buell, and Joseph Hooker and Confederates Albert Sidney Johnston, Joseph E. Johnston, and John C. Pemberton, editor Woodworth (Jefferson Davis and His Generals, LJ 7/90) provides a deeper understanding of the two armies. The reasons for rebel and federal military failures offered here are surprisingly uniform: formidable antagonists, difficulties with subordinates and superiors, the inability to read and adapt to changing battle conditions, a lack of resources, conflicting military philosophies, and low morale. A final chapter demonstrates how Gen. George G. Meade overcame some of these difficulties while his counterpart Robert E. Lee fell victim to spotty intelligence, staff recalcitrance, and personal indecision. The essays are authoritative and engagingly written. Recommended for Civil War buffs as well as public and academic libraries.AJohn Carver Edwards, Univ. of Georgia Libs., Athens
Copyright 1999 Reed Business Information, Inc.

From Kirkus Reviews

A wide-ranging look at various Civil War generals and their defeats, as well as their places in the accepted Civil War history, edited by Texas Christian University historian Woodworth (Six Armies in Tennessee: The Chickamauga and Chattanooga Campaigns, 1998). Woodworths contributors, academics from throughout the US, look at how and why a variety of Northern and Southern generals were defeated and what those defeats did to their military careers. The generals studied, including such notables as Albert Sidney Johnston, Joe Hooker, and George B. McClellan, are all considered ``capable failures,'' with excellent prewar reputations and whose defeats make them ripe for analytical study. Essays cover such ground as ``In Defense of Joe Hooker,'' ``Misused Merit: The Tragedy of Joh Pemberton,'' and ``If Properly Led: Command Relationships at Gettysburg,'' a look at both Northern and Southern commands. Throughout the volume, the guiding idea is to look at what exactly constituted failure and how hindsight has shaped our perceptions of them, notably in the case of Hooker. Stephen Sears looks at Hookers famous loss of nerve at the battle of Chancellorsville and debunks the myth of a post-battle confession by Hooker to Abner Doubleday that he lost faith in himself. Sears looks at the details of that reported conversation and determines that it could not have taken place, thus altering the historical record. Although it doesnt change what took place at Chancellorsville, it certainly does change historys perception of Hooker and casts him in a far better light. As in many edited volumes, writing quality and style vary from piece to piece, but overall, Woodworth offers a worthy look at Civil War command by looking at the losers. (History Book Club alternate selection) -- Copyright ©1999, Kirkus Associates, LP. All rights reserved.

See all Editorial Reviews

Product Details

• Hardcover: 250 pages
• Publisher: University Press Of Kansas (April 1, 1999)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0700609431
• ISBN-13: 978-0700609437
• Product Dimensions: 9.1 x 6.2 x 1 inches
• Shipping Weight: 1.3 pounds (View shipping rates and policies)
• Average Customer Review: 3.2 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (6 customer reviews)
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #1,826,535 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

More About the Author

Steven E. Woodworth is a professor of history at Texas Christian University, and an acknowledged expert on the Civil War. He has written a number of well-received books on the topic, including Nothing But Victory. He lives in Fort Worth, Texas.

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

6 of 6 people found the following review helpful:

4.0 out of 5 stars Worthwhile addition to your library, August 7, 2006

By 

James W. Durney (Tampa Bay area) - See all my reviews
(VINE VOICE)    (TOP 500 REVIEWER)   

Amazon Verified Purchase

This review is from: Civil War Generals in Defeat (Modern War Studies) (Hardcover)

A.S. Johnston, J.E. Johnston, McClellan, Don Carlos Buell, "Fighting Joe" Hooker, John Pemberton and Robert E. Lee, seven generals that suffered defeat. The format is twenty to forty pages on each man by a respected historian. This is both the strength and the weakness of the book, as the format forces the author to be brief but allows him sufficient room to develop his idea.

Pemberton is the weakest essay not because Michael Ballard does a poor job but because Pemberton is doomed by temperament, circumstances and U.S. Grant being such a superior general.

Stephen Sears' thought provoking essay on Hooker presents some unexpected ideas even after reading his book on Chancellorsville.

The two Johnston essays are well written, very informative while staying within the norms for these men. ASJ is over whelmed by the size of his command and unable to gain control over his subordinates. Alan Downs' JEJ is more aggressive than we normally accept but still unable or unwilling to accommodate civilian controls.

I enjoyed Stephen Engle's essay on Buell and the theory of conciliation. Buell is trapped by his ideas, unwilling and unable to make adjustments losses everything. The Campaign to Chattanooga is the basis for his failure presenting the idea of conciliation facing the reality of secession.

The essay on McClellan by Ethan Rafuse is a treat. His "McClellan's War" is in the forefront of our rethinking of this man. This is the earliest publications of his work I have read and enjoyed seeing the development of his ideas.

Brooks Simpson's essay on Lee at Gettysburg is excellent. Accepting the role of the small boy who says the Emperor is naked, he presents a well-balanced historically accurate picture of Lee's battle management. The approach to battle management of Meade gives the reader an excellent view of what he did and how the different approaches influenced the battle. The small essay on Jackson at Gettysburg is excellent and may cause some to rethink this idea. His ideas on how the Army of the Potomac was different at Gettysburg highlight Lee's failure to make adjustments and contribute to his defeat. This is the strongest essay in the book and the most enjoyable.

This is a worthwhile book and a valuable addition to your library. Each essay is well thought out and written by a top shelf historians. Little of the presented is new or groundbreaking but all of it is informative and some of it thought provoking.

1 of 1 people found the following review helpful:

4.0 out of 5 stars Interesting, but a bit uneven, October 18, 2009

By 

Steven A. Peterson (Hershey, PA (Born in Kewanee, IL)) - See all my reviews
(VINE VOICE)    (TOP 500 REVIEWER)    (REAL NAME)   

This review is from: Civil War Generals in Defeat (Modern War Studies) (Hardcover)

This is an interesting compilation of essays on generals in defeat in the Civil War. The editor, Steven Woodworth is a fine scholar of the Civil War, and this book makes a nice addition to a Civil War library. The book states at the outset (Page 2): "War is a hard business, and well may its rule, its test of merit, be hard. . . .Most of all, [a general] had better produce results. The general is not employed to make a good attempt, fight nobly, and lose impressively."

The first chapter, by Woodworth himself, focuses on Albert Sidney Johnston. Johnston's reputation coming into the Civil War was impressive. Jefferson David made him commander-in-chief of the western Confederacy. However, with the fall of Forts Henry and Donelson, things unraveled, and Johnston took a lot of criticism. The chapter outlines the arc of his career, ending with the defeat at Shiloh. There is a nice evaluation of Johnston's strengths and weaknesses.

A second chapter feature Joseph Johnston's command in the east until his wounding at Seven Pines. Alan Downs does a nice job crediting Johnston with more aggressiveness than he is normally granted. However, Johnston's prickliness and political ineptitude are chronicled nicely here.

Other chapters consider George McClellan's Peninsula Campaign and his retreat to the James, Don Carlos Buell's poor performance at Chattanooga, Fighting Joe Hooker's generalship at Chancellorsville (where he comes of, in Stephen Sears' view, as less inept than normally considered). There is an almost poignant consideration of John Pemberton, who would have made a fine staff officer but had no business being named a combat commander.

Finally, Robert E. Lee at Gettysburg, a chapter authored by Brooks Simpson. Many have been blamed for the failure of the Confederate forces at Gettysburg. Simpson focuses on Lee's style of delegation at this bloody fight. This is hardly a revolutionary judgment, as others have made a similar argument. But his analysis, nonetheless, appears pretty solid.

Overall, this volume works pretty well. Some of the chapters do not seem quite as well developed as I would like. The writing is a bit uneven. Nonetheless this is an interesting work of unsuccessful command.

7 of 10 people found the following review helpful:

4.0 out of 5 stars Even-handed review and good logic, June 6, 1999

By A Customer

This review is from: Civil War Generals in Defeat (Modern War Studies) (Hardcover)

Interesting perspective on the generals examined, & very logical. Stephan Sears' discussion of Hooker's performance at Chancellorsville was the most interesting, and made me reconsider my previous opinions on him. The writers also bring to the table solid analysis, such as Albert Sidney Johnston's management style. I found much of their assertions convincing.