Winston Groom is best known for his book (and the hugely successful movie), Forrest Gump.  He is the author of six books as well as the co-author of the 1984 Pulitzer Prize nominee, Conversations with the Enemy.  In this excellent book, he focuses on the Confederate General John Bell Hood and his invasion of Tennessee late in the Civil War.

During that campaign, he attempted to distract Union General William Tecumseh Sherman from his famous campaign which burned out the very heart of the Confederacy during his march from Atlanta to the sea.  Hood was unsuccessful in deterring Sherman and managed at the same time to destroy his army in futile attacks against Union forces.

His failure was not preordained, for his record prior to the Battle of Atlanta had been one of a brave and ferocious fighter.  Although not the brightest of the Confederate generals (he graduated 44^th out of a class of 52), he had served well in several campaigns and was until the Battle of Atlanta, considered a dashing and rising Confederate star.

Although Hood was criticized for his failure to hold Atlanta, one must remember that he entered the campaign late in the game as his predecessor General Joseph E. Johnston had failed to stop Sherman as he advanced on Atlanta.  Yet, despite Hood’s experiences with the power of defensive firepower, Hood threw his army at Sherman in an effort to sweep him from the field.  The attack resulted in thousands of Confederate casualties at a point in the war where they could not be easily replaced.  Hood had to leave Atlanta and some of his glory was lost.

The invasion of Tennessee was a prime example of “what might have been”, as within a short span of forty-eight hours, Hood lost not one, not two, but six opportunities to destroy the Union army that would later turn and destroy his army.  The battle of Franklin decided the campaign but there would be one more defeat at Nashville and with it, the fate of the South was sealed.

Groom provides excellent cameo descriptions of many Union and Confederate leaders throughout the book and his descriptions of the battles will keep the reader going back to read passages for their excitement and detail.  He also goes into the politics and schemes of various senior officers as they attempt to enhance their reputations and positions through a variety of nasty and dubious tricks.

I have often wondered why, aside from an attempt to sooth Southern feelings, a major military based was named after a General who after years of war, did not understand the days of massed Napoleonic charges were over.  He, like General Lee, seemed to have a blind spot to the realities of not having a numeric advantage and the deadliness of “modern” weapons.  Perhaps it is well that the name of Fort Hood has been changed.  Hopefully it is to the name of a more realistic General.

If there is one consistent image that has come out of the Civil War, it has been of Robert E. Lee, the calm, brilliant strategist who fought for the Confederacy out of a sense of loyalty to his state of Virginia; a soft spoken man, opposed to slavery but believing more in State’s Rights and the honor of the South.

Many of these myths are exploded in this book as Nolan quotes from Lee’s pre-war letters regarding the institution of slavery; how the slaves were well looked after, how they were better off in their present condition than when they were in Africa as they had the opportunity, at some undisclosed date, to become better than they were (although they could not be as good as whites).  Yes, Lee admitted that there were abuses, but they were few and sometimes necessary to keep the blacks in check until that golden day in the future where they could move up the human food chain. 

Nolan also criticizes Lee as a general in that he failed to fully understand until too late the overwhelmingly destructive firepower of “modern” rifles and artillery.  A prime example of this could be seen at Gettysburg where Lee ignored the strategy put forth by General Longstreet to hit the U.S. army on its flanks.  Instead, Lee threw the fresh troops of Pickett into an assault on the center of the Union line with no reserves at hand so that even if Pickett’s troops had been successful, they would have been swamped by Meade bringing up reserves from both of his wings.  Lee believed in the power to the spirit and was certainly not the last General to fall prey to the idea; the French army in the beginning of World War I was another force that failed to comprehend the full implications of “modern” technology. 

After the Civil War, Lee held an honored place in the minds of most Southerners, even though he admitted that he realized after Gettysburg that the South could not win the conflict.  He fought on and kept his troop together in a cause that was lost against a foe that was more ruthless than he could be in the conduct of the war.  The hundreds of thousands who died after his realization must be in part, laid at his feet but the myth of Lee will not be laid to rest until sometime in the future.

A good book for the reader who is unfamiliar with revisionist history, but a revisionist history that has much merit.

At the end of last November, I posted a review by Victor David Hanson of the new biography by Allen C. Guelzo. I purchased the book although I thought I was familiar with Lee’s life, but I was very pleasantly surprised by this book. Although the author considers Lee a traitor, he is very even handed and treat Lee as a man full of doubts, cares, and desires so that you feel a connection with Lee.

Lee had his own devils, including adoring his father, Henry Lee, a hero of the Revolutionary War, also known as “Light Horse Henry,” for his daring wartime actions. A failed land speculator, Henry left his son early to escape creditors and each time Lee looked at a business venture, he always saw the image of his failed father over his shoulders. Those land failures were also at the base of Lees’ constant concern about money and attempts to safeguard his families’ small holdings in Virginia. In turn, those concerns were part of his reason to side with the Confederacy during the war. He was devastated when Arlington, his father-in-laws property (todays Arlington Cemetery) was seized by Federal troops, and he realized after the war that the property would never be his in anything except a dream and a memory.

Although we tend to think of Lee as a military man, he had never commanded troops in battle until the outbreak of the war and he was at heart, an engineer. Several times he thought of leaving the military with its low pay, slow promotion, and postings which he disliked (including Superintendent of West Point Academy). Each time, he pulled back due to the security of the army and its steady paycheck.

Victor David Hanson has published an excellent review of Robert E. Lee: A Life by Allen C. Guelzo. After the destruction of so many statues by the Woke Left, this seems to be a balanced scholarly examination of Lee who was considered as an icon for many in the South, the military and Civil War Historians.

I have always been skeptical of the leadership of Lee, as he was slow to learn the destructive fire power of state-of-the-art military hardware. General Longstreet understood the brutality of the weapons of the time before Lee as was proven by his reluctance to commit General Pickett to the suicidal charge at Gettysburg. Somehow, Lee failed to understand that the war had turned into a war of men against machines and that the South was doomed if Lee practiced a type of warfare that belonged to the previous century (this mistake would be repeated fifty years later by both the French and Germans during the opening phases of World War I). Amazingly enough, he failed to realize that even if the charge were successful, he had no reserves to consolidate any gains while his opponent who outnumbered him, could quickly move in reinforcements to swamp the tattered remains of his divisions.

The North won the Civil War for many reasons: more manpower, greater industrial strength, tremendous capital, a better idea. They also won because they had three generals who believed in total war. It was not enough to defeat an enemy in the field; no, one had to tear the insides out of the enemy. Bring war with its flames and cruelty to the very hearths of the enemy to make them realize what war really was and is to this day. Those three generals are Ulysses S. Grant, William Tecumseh Sherman, and Philip H. Sheridan. These men knew that with the material, industrial and manpower strength of the Union, they could win and were determined to ensure that there could be no future Civil War.

A lengthy biography of General and President Ulysses S. Grant (given name, Hiram Ulysses Grant), Mr. Chernow is enamored with the General.  Yet, it is hard to dispute that in many ways, both as General and as President, earlier revisionist historians and biographers have done a great disservice to Grant.

About every ten years or so I go on a Civil War binge and this binge has started with this excellent book by two fine military historians.  Murray is professor emeritus of history at Ohio State University and his many books closely examine the changes in military thinking and tactics as well as the culture of both the military and their society in which they exist.  Hsieh is associate professor of history at the United State Naval Academy.  Together they have created a fine work that not only gives the details on the various campaigns, but the strengths and weaknesses of commanders down to the regimental level as well as how both the North and the South responded to the size, scope and technology of the Civil War battlefield.