Customer Reviews

Nothing but Victory: The Army of the Tennessee, 1861-1865

5 star:		(15)
4 star:		(7)
3 star:		(6)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

This is an excellent and needed book in Civil War literature. Too

many folks seem to think the war was entirely in Virginia, between

the Army of Northern Virginia and the Army of the Potomac. In

fact, much of importance took place in the Western Theatre, where

one of the principal Union armies was the Army of the Tennessee.

It is almost shocking to consider that, until this book, no one

had written a history of the Army of the Tennessee. The army is

mostly associated with U.S. Grant and William Tecumseh Sherman;

it was formed from the force that Grant used to seize Paducah,

Kentucky, in the early days of the war and grew to the force

that took Forts Henry and Donelson, fought the savage action of

Shiloh, took Vicksburg, fought the Battle of Atlanta, and then

marched to the sea. The men came from Illinois, Indiana, Iowa,

Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Missouri, and Kentucky.

(There was even a regiment from Nebraska!)

The book starts out very well. Woodworth describes the war

fever in the Midwest which led so many men into the ranks and

provided the army with many of its leaders. He then progresses

into the narrative of campaigns, first under Grant, then under

Sherman. As a summary story of the western theatre of the war,

the book is outstanding.

Alas, the book is not perfect. Many have commented on the lack

of maps, a criticism I share. Woodworth's focus is also uneven.

At the beginning, the reader is treated to biographical sketches

of many of the men who would lead divisions in the army, but this

ceases after awhile, and the book is poorer for it. One could

also launch into a small list of omissions and errors, something

almost any book has. But the bottom line is that this is a

very well-written book which tells a story that needs to be

told. Buy it, read it, enjoy it. You'll be glad you did.

Reading the publication hype one gets the impression that you are getting a formal organizational history of the Army of the Tennessee. It's pretty apparent that's not the thrust of the book once you start reading. This is a memorial narrative of campaigning as seen through the eyes of the participants. Most of the book is a litany of battles. The larger perspective of Grand Operational affairs is scarcely bridged.

My first impulse is to disagree with this approach. It oversimplifies the reality of the period. For example. I get annoyed with the statement that western armies were smaller than the Army of the Potomac. Do all readers know that the Army of the Potomac was the only free standing field army built by the Union? Typically Military Departments were created to manage theaters of war and troops were allocated to the Departments. It was up to the Department Commander to determine the size of his field force consonant with risks and means he had on hand.

The Army of the Tennessee was an adjunct of the Department of the Tennessee and often contained less than half the troops that were in the Department, which extended over parts of five states.

There are some rather serious constraints imposed on this book as to its scope. Whether that was the authors choice or driven by the publisher I can't say. If you are willing to take what is offered at face value there is some very good writing and intersting perspectives to be had here. Regards graphics. The scope of the book makes such impracticable for a single volume work. And Steven Woodworth should be given credit for a woodcraft that overcomes the absence of such.

I rate this a three because its marketing misrepresents its scope and character as a work, and because the authors has to my mind also oversimplified the history surrounding the campaigning.

I've read it cover to cover twice and actually found I enjoyed the second reading better than the first. That says something in favor of this work. It's not a toss off.

"Nothing But Victory" is one of the finest and most ambitious books on the Civil War to be published in recent memory. The book is a comprehensive, one-volume operational history of the Army of the Tennessee, the Union army which operated in the the Mississipi valley and was, amazingly enough, successful in almost all of its battles. Woodworth covers campaign material, the experience of soldiering, of the army's day to day life, and the inner workings of the army's leadership as well, striking a balance between the army's commanders and the stories of individual field soldiers. Woodworth's central thesis is that the success of the army came from its cohesiveness - soldiers that trusted their commanders, commanders that aggressively used their command, and leaders that trusted each other and the abilities of the Army. The Army of the Tennessee's coherence and confidence were powerful force multipliers.

Woodworth argues convincingly that the AotT was a standout force due to its aggressive commanders, notably Grant and Sherman, working within in an atmosphere of mutual trust. Woodworth highlights a counterexample -- General McClernand and his scheming and politicking -- to illustrate internal conflicts that were far more prevelant in the Army of the Potomac. McClernand was the exception in the AotT, though. The other aspect of the Army's success was that Grant's strategy was built to take advantage of success. In other words, Grant's military options assumed that his forces were capable veterans, and that used aggressively they would unbalance their opponent. After initial Union victories and Confederate defeats, the cycle become self-fulfilling, as Confederate morale plummeted and Grant kept pressing this advantage.

In addition the thesis of coherence and morale, Woodworth convincingly explores the other entirely unique aspect of the AotT -- that it was an army built around foraging for its provisions, in duration and to an extent of no other army in the war. The book explores the destructiveness involved in foraging, and the complexity of the soldier's opinions on their path through the South.

As a final note the lack of maps (mentioned in the other reviews here) is a very real, genuine problem. I would suggest that McPherson's "Atlas of the Civil War" would be a very useful companion to this book to make up for this.

Any reading of U.S. Civil war history, especially if approached from the Union perspective, usually casts the casual student of the conflict by default into the ranks of the Army of the Potomac, which had a roster of army and corps commanders that, until Grant took overall command in 1863, ensured dysfunctionality. (See the enlightening volume by Stephen Taaffe, Commanding the Army of the Potomac (Modern War Studies), and my review of it dated 3/2/07.) Thus, it was somewhat refreshing to read NOTHING BUT VICTORY: THE ARMY OF THE TENNESSEE, 1861-1865.

This book is a weighty tome at 641 pages. It begins in April 1861 by sampling the experience of several units as they formed up in the then northwestern states (today's Midwest), including the very first company to rally round the flag, the Springfield Grays, which was to be incorporated into the 7th Illinois. These regiments from Iowa, Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Missouri, and Minnesota were to ultimately evolve into the Army of the Tennessee (AoT).

The history of the AoT is inseparable from that of Ulysses Grant, who made it the consistently successful fighting machine it became. Indeed, the AoT had the best combat record of any Union army in the war. Brigadier General Grant took control of the military District of Cairo and its embryonic fighting force - not yet designated an "Army" - in December 1861, and soon thereafter achieved his first victories at Forts Henry and Donelson. Promoted to Major General in February 1862, he won the gritty two-day slugfest at Shiloh with an upgraded command, the Army of West Tennessee. Then, as commander of the newly inaugurated Army of Tennessee, Grant won the battles associated with the Vicksburg campaign (Port Gibson, Jackson, and Champion's Hill), as well as taking the surrender of Vicksburg itself, in July 1863.

After Vicksburg, Grant was promoted two rungs, eventually to become the commander of all Federal armies and the first U.S. Lieutenant General since George Washington. In the meantime, Major General William Sherman took over the AoT to assault Missionary Ridge at Chattanooga, TN, and raid Meridian, MS. Then, when Sherman led an army group through Georgia to the Atlantic and north through the Carolinas, the AoT was commanded by Major General James McPherson during its approach to Atlanta, Major General Oliver Howard during the burning of Atlanta and the March to the Sea and northward, and, finally, Major General John Logan from the end of the war to the army's disbandment on August 1, 1865.

The Army of the Tennessee, for all intents and purposes, knew nothing but victory. If the AoT can be considered the hammer to the Army of the Potomac's anvil, President Lincoln was failed by the latter, at least until Grant became head blacksmith. The AoT, however, sustained Union morale with victories in its darkest hours. It can, perhaps, be argued that the AoT won the war.

Steven Woodworth's NOTHING BUT VICTORY is an eminently readable and prodigiously researched summation of the AoT's campaigns that, for the casual student, could rate as many as five stars. It includes two adequate but somewhat haphazard photo sections, primarily of the AoT's general officers. However, there's only one map in the book - that of the AoT's theater of operations (Illinois, Kentucky, Tennessee, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina). There are no battlefield maps. Not even the most rudimentary. None. Nada. Zip. In a work of this scope, into which the author apparently put a lot of time and effort, this is an egregious deficiency that almost compelled me to award but three stars instead of four before my sense of fair play prevailed over petulant annoyance. The missing maps aside, NOTHING BUT VICTORY is an engaging and instructive read. (If you want the perfect Civil War, non-fiction battle narrative, obtain Timothy Smith's Champion Hill: Decisive Battle for Vicksburg, and read my review of it dated 6/27/06.)

Why was the AoT so successful compared to its Eastern counterpart, the Army of the Potomac (AoP)? Some might argue that the former never faced General Robert Lee. However, I tend to think that it was the latter's proximity to Washington, D.C. that proved its albatross. Not only were the national government's leaders close enough to easily meddle, but the jockeying for prominence so close to the seat of Federal power encouraged incessant back-biting among the AoP's corps commanders. Moreover, the War Office constantly demanded that the AoP remain positioned between Lee's Army of Northern Virginia and the U.S. capital for the protection of the latter. The importance given to the city as a perceived military objective for the rebel army perhaps conversely made Richmond a greater objective than it should have been to Major General George McClellan when he commanded the AoP and embarked on the Peninsula Campaign. As Grant insisted when arrived on scene to set things aright, Lee's army was the objective, not the Confederate capital. And so it proved to be in 1865. Meanwhile, the Army of the Tennessee remained relatively unfettered by such concerns and got on with the business at hand.

"My goal has been to present a narrative of the army with attention to all levels, from that of commanding general all the way down to the newest recruit. It was the common soldiers that interested me most, and I have endeavored to convey the flavor of their thoughts, attitudes, and actions throughout this account."(P.xi) It is with these words, Dr. Woodworth embarked upon a noble and difficult path to tell the story of one of the American Civil War's most victorious and storied armies. Through exhaustive research and painstaking detail, Woodworth brought the Army of the Tennessee to life. His story begins with the development of the army. In doing so Woodworth drew upon copious sources including letters, diaries, and newspapers especially the National Tribune. By doing so, various recruits, regiments, leaders and even mascots were followed which did much to develop the story. As the Army of the Tennessee came into its own, Woodworth built a case for how important training and military life in general was for its leaders and recruits.

Woodworth demonstrated how the Army of the Tennessee's commanding General Ulysses S. Grant was its driving force and the Army of the Tennessee his mirror image. From Belmont to Vicksburg and Missionary Ridge, the reader moved along with the army through the many battles. Grant is examined as he struggled through each problem with General Henry W. Halleck, his frustrations with political generals such as John A. McClernand, and the never-ending rumors of his supposed drinking. After Missionary Ridge, President Lincoln finally realized that he had the General he needed in Grant. Grant became General-in-Chief and would command from the Eastern Theater. It was at this point that his friend and trusted subordinate, General William T. Sherman, took control of the Army of the Tennessee.

From this point, Woodworth followed the army through the Atlanta Campaign. His detail throughout the constant fighting from the area around Dalton to the last major battle of the campaign at Jonesboro was impeccable giving the reader an excellent account of the Union soldier's viewpoints and thoughts along with Sherman's military strategy. From Atlanta, Woodworth took the reader on a compelling journey through Georgia and the Carolinas for what would be known as the March to the Sea. Although there are numerous secondary sources on this march, Woodworth's vivid account is rich in detail that rivals any other resources known.

Within these 641 pages the reader will not find just another rehash of the history of the Army of the Tennessee. Instead, Woodworth has proven himself to be a master story- teller and Historian. Within these pages the reader is taken into the soldiers thoughts, emotions, and victories, in essence, the very heart of the Army of the Tennessee including why it fought, how it fought and how it forged an invincible attitude. Noteworthy were the vivid accounts of the many battles that were explained in great detail that never got bogged down by rabbit trailing off into other areas. Battles such as Iuka, Atlanta and Champion Hill were just a few that were rich in detail with incredible firsthand accounts that kept the reader's interest and made this a work hard to put down. Woodworth's goals for this work were definitely achieved. For those looking for an exhaustively researched, hard hitting, battle tested narrative on a Union army that reaches deep into the heart and soul of the soldier and the Union itself, you will find that this book lives up to its name.

With Nothing but Victory: The Army of the Tennessee, 1861-1865 Dr. Steven E. Woodworth continues showing he is an excellent writer. This is a long book, 641 pages. It took me about thirty two days to read it. Woodworth's writing is a refreshing, narrative style. His goal of giving attention to all levels of the army from private to general was accomplished. The thoughts, actions, and attitudes of the soldier he sought to communicate rang clear in his writing.

My undergraduate degree in history included course work in US Military History, Antebellum History, Civil War and Reconstruction History. I am well read in the area of personal memoirs and definitive biographies of key persons in the US Civil War. My point in sharing my background is this - Dr. Woodworth certainly heavily leaned on the Personal Memoirs of US Grant. I had read that book recently so it was very fresh in my memory. It would have been interesting to see more sources from the southern soldiers who fought the Army of the Tennessee. In some battles I found that some of the other Union Armies' contributions or lack of contribution were not covered in the detail I would have enjoyed. I believe this is a definitive work on the Civil War in the west.

With the above opinion stated, I still strongly recommend the book and will read it again. Steven Woodworth's writing style is so enjoyable that I fear academic historians may be jealous of him as has happened with other best selling historians.

The story of how the army develops is shared with many sources. I was distracted initially by all the footnoting, but after a while ignored most unless I was curious about the statement. It was interesting to learn of the training of the soldiers and the logistical skills of the leadership - Grant and Sherman.

Some may think there is too much focus on General Grant prior to his promotion in March of 1864. Grant was such a key figure that the coverage is merited. At times the author seems like a Grant apologist.

I found the treatment of General Henry Halleck's leadership role over Grant enlightening. I was previously unaware of General John A. McClernand and his never ending politicking and rumor spreading. Seeing the roles of generals like Dodge, Hampton, McPherson and Logan sowed the seeds for further reading on some of these men.

The narrative made feel like I was there with the army as they moved from Cairo to Fort Henry and Fort Donaldson, to Shiloh, to Corinth, to Vicksburg and that whole complex campaign including Port Gibson, Jackson, Champions Hill, Vicksburg and Meridian.

The battles around Chickamauga and Chattanooga were as clearly explained as I have every read. The coverage of the Atlanta campaign and movement through Georgia were excellent. There were had points of view and information I have not encountered. I twice have lived in Georgia (mid 1970's as a new second lieutenant and early 1980's fresh with Master's in hand living in Atlanta). I was always amazed at how Georgia natives acted as if Atlanta fell last week and the foraging was still happening. His narrative on the march across Georgia was enlightening. Woodworth's account of the movement from Savannah through South Carolina is rich in detail that rivals any other resources known. We understand why South Carolina was divested by the Sherman's army. Then the march through North Carolina, the way Logan keeps Raleigh from being burned and then ultimate the movement to Washington, DC and the May 24th pass in review was well done.

I did not find just another retelling of the history of the Army of the Tennessee. I found a fun narrative written by a good story teller. Thank goodness this is not just another lengthy, dry historical paper. History can be well written and interesting. He made it interesting by sharing the soldier's thoughts, emotions, and victories through the liberal use of diaries. We learned the heart of the Army of the Tennessee. We understand why and how it fought and how it developed esprit de corps.

I recommend adding this book to every library of those with an interest in the US Civil War.

Read and reviewed by Jimmie A. Kepler.

Woodworth's __Nothing But Victory: The Army of the Tennessee, 1861-1865__ is an excellent study of one of the foremost Union armies in the western theater.

The work is not an operational history of the battles and campaigns of the army (originally known as the Army of West Tennessee) but rather a comprehensive view of the men who saw action from Forts Henry and Donelson in 1862 to the Georgia and Carolina campaigns of 1865. By examining the officers and rank and file with equal care, Woodworth is able to achieve a study of the army which can appeal to readers interested in learning new perspectives about the Federal soldiers who fought in the Civil War. While the story of the Union armies in the west has been told recently by authors like Larry J. Daniel and Joseph T. Glaathaar in one capacity or another, the narrative that emerges from Woodworth's work only adds to the understanding of the Civil War soldiers and how they dealt with the myriad of challenges they faced beyond just simply marching and fighting.

The author's focus is not the battles, but the men themselves. From his study, the story of how the Union troops grew nervous in the days preceding the Battle of Shiloh and how the Federal soldiers slowly changed their attitudes toward slaves are among the many topics covered. Woodworth's ability to brighten the narrative with amusing anecdotes such as his recounting of a story of how some angry bees beleaguered a few Federal brigades near Jackson, Mississippi illustrate the added human dimension that the author brings to the traditional story of generals and troop movements. Ultimately this is a work that far surpasses the traditional military histories that focus on the "battles and bullets" and ventures into the realm of new studies focusing on the men "from the ground up."

The author has done an excellent job of combing through letters, diaries, and other works to provide new insights into the character and attitude of the Union's western fighting men. Standing at nearly 700 pages, the book is not for the faint of heart. Yet it is extremely well-written and its broad scope welcoming to both serious scholars and general readers alike.

Steven Woodworth has produced a book about the Union's most successful army that will stand the test of time. He has managed to show us both the big picture - the grand strategy and the movements of the armies, as well as the lives of the individual private soldiers. There is enough detail in "Nothing But Victory" to satisfy even the most detail-oriented Civil War buff, but the great sweep and panorama of the war are not lost in a morass of minutiae.

Most of all, the Civil War is a great story - and Steven Woodworth is a great story teller. "Nothing But Victory" is beautifully written and will take its well-earned place on my bookshelf next to Catton's Army of the Potomac Trilogy and Freeman's "Lee's Lieutenants".

I chanced upon this book in the new non-fiction section of our local branch of the Cuyahoga County Public Library. My great-great grandfather was a private in the 20th Ohio Volunteer Infantry during the Civil War, so the title immediately caught my attention. After I read it, I purchased a copy for my personal library and intend to give copies to several of my relatives at Christmas.

Over the years, I have read quite a few books about the Civil War. This book gives the reader a unique appreciation of what it must have been like for the average soldier to serve in the Army of the Tennessee. It is not a book about generals or specific troop movements during famous battles. It is a book about an entire Army, and how it was raised, fed, supplied and commanded, and how it triumphed during difficult times.

I think Woodworth's description of the preparations leading to the siege and capture of Vicksburg is particularly exceptional. I highly recommend the book.

This is an interesting approach to the history of a major field army. The book centers on the experience of The Army of the Tennessee from its recruiting days to mustering out. The book is lenghty with smallish print, so a quick read should not be expected. The interesting part is that the author concentrates only on the immediate activities of this one army. Battle descriptions really mention almost nothing about other Union or Confederate actions. This, combined with the absence of maps, often makes it difficult to follow the action of a major engagement. However, the author does a fine job of conveying the experience of battle from the perspective of the footsoldier.

Woodworth has written some superb books analyzing the Confederate leadership, particularly in the west. His earlier works provide great insights into the relationships between Polk, Johnston, Hood, and their colleagues. He also has demonstrated a good understanding of the Davis-Lee relationship. However, this book is a bit of a letdown in his analysis of Union leadership. Grant does get the praise he is due. However, Sherman, who refused to face reality at Shiloh until the battle was under way and never fought a good offensive battle, is still treated as a genius because of his logistic abilities. McPherson, who also missed every opportunity presented to him, is treated with leniency. Albert Castel, in Decision in the West, pointed out that the Atlanta campaign would have been over a lot sooner, with the complete destruction of Hood's army, had Thomas been in command.

The personal descriptions of combat are rousing. A serious student of the Civil War will want to look at this book. Those with less time to devote to the subject might want to look at the author's earlier works on Confederate command and stick with histories of the individual campaigns of one of America's finest field armies.