Decision in the West: The Atlanta Campaign of 1864

Modern War Studies

by Albert E. Castel

Following a skirmish on June 28, 1864, a truce is called so the North can remove their dead and wounded. For two hours, Yankees and Rebels mingle, with some of the latter even assisting the former in their grisly work. Newspapers are exchanged. Northern coffee is swapped for Southern tobacco. Yanks crowd around two Rebel generals, soliciting and obtaining autographs.

As they part, a Confederate calls to a Yankee, "I hope to miss you, Yank, if I happen to shoot in your direction." "May I, never hit you Johnny if we fight again," comes the reply.

The reprieve is short. A couple of months, dozens of battles, and more than 30,000 casualties later, the North takes Atlanta.

One of the most dramatic and decisive episodes of the Civil War, the Atlanta Campaign was a military operation carried out on a grand scale across a spectacular landscape that pitted some of the war's best (and worst) general against each other.

In Decision in the West, Albert Castel provides the first detailed history of the Campaign published since Jacob D. Cox's version appeared in 1882. Unlike Cox, who was a general in Sherman's army, Castel provides an objective perspective and a comprehensive account based on primary and secondary sources that have become available in the past 110 years.

Castel gives a full and balanced treatment to the operations of both the Union and Confederate armies from the perspective of the common soldiers as well as the top generals. He offers new accounts and analyses of many of the major events of the campaign, and, in the process, corrects many long-standing myths, misconceptions, and mistakes. In particular, he challenges the standard view of Sherman's performance.

Written in present tense to give a sense of immediacy and greater realism, Decision in the West demonstrates more definitively than any previous book how the capture of Atlanta by Sherman's army occurred and why it assured Northern victory in the Civil War.

Genres: Civil War, American Civil War, History, Military Fiction, Civil War Western Theater, Military History, War

688 pages, Paperback

First published November 1, 1992

About the author

One of the leading authorities on the Civil War in the western theater, Albert Edward Castel earned his B.A. and M.A. from Wichita State University and his Ph.D. in History and Political Science from the University of Chicago. He taught at UCLA and Waynesburg College before accepting a position at Western Michigan University, where he taught from 1960 until his retirement in 1991.

Reviews

[Theo Logos · Rating 5 out of 5]

Albert Castel has not only written the most thoroughly researched and most comprehensive history of the Atlanta Campaign, but has also done it with clear, captivating prose that flows easily across the page, keeping the reader enthralled to the very end. He uses the present tense throughout the book, which lends a fascinating immediacy to the story, even though we know the outcome.

Were I to try to sketch all of the many virtues of this brilliant book here, this review would be prohibitively long, so I will limit myself to two. First, Castel has written what is arguably the best, most objective modern account of the actual battles of the campaign. In the preface he writes that as he was researching this book, he was:
“astonished, then exasperated, when, upon delving into the sources, I discovered that all of the existing descriptions of these battles, ...were to a greater or lesser degree filled with mistakes, misconceptions, and myths."
His research reaches beyond the myths and self-serving memoirs of the participants. He compared all the available sources against each other to arrive as close as is objectively possible at the actual facts of these battles. He presents each battle and his analysis of it in a clear fashion, complete with easy to read, truly helpful maps. This alone would qualify Decision in the West as a must-read book.

Secondly, Castel provides a thoughtful reassessment of the commanders involved. His take on the Confederate General Johnston is the closest to received wisdom. His Johnston is a skilled general when on the defensive, whose fatal flaw was being over-awed when outnumbered, and prone to surrendering to a defeatist attitude that assured his failure. General Hood fares better here than in most histories. Castel believes that Hood's major mistake was in consistently trying to accomplish too much with too little, but doesn't believe that he had much of any alternative, considering the situation that he inherited, and what his government expected of him. Hood emerges from Castel's book as a man who did as much as could possibly be expected of him with his admittedly limited talent.

It is the Union commanders who receive the greatest reevaluation here. General Hooker was hated by Sherman, and is usually greatly underrated by historians. Yet, Castel views him as one of the most effective of Sherman's generals during the Atlanta campaign, and presents evidence to prove it. General McPherson, personal friend of both Sherman and Grant, and greatly respected by both, receives the harshest reevaluation. Castel writes of him:
"his record throughout the campaign demonstrates that in commanding what in effect was a large corp, he had reached and perhaps exceeded the limits of his military ability: he worried too much about what might be on the other side of the hill."
After reading Castel's accounts of McPherson's missed opportunities, it is hard to disagree. Of General Thomas, Castel writes, "had Thomas's personal relationship with Grant permitted him to command in Georgia in 1864, almost surely the Union victory would have been easier, quicker, and more complete." He clearly believes Thomas to be the unutilized genius of the campaign. Finally, General Sherman appears more tarnished than golden in Castel's pages. He writes that Sherman was a general who did not like to fight, preferred raiding over fighting, and was unwilling to engage his full force. Though he acknowledges that Sherman accomplished what was expected of him, he gives ample evidence that he did not do it nearly as efficiently as he could have, and questions his reputation as a military genius, second only to Grant in the Union.

Decision in the West should be required reading for anyone with an interest in the Atlanta campaign. It is well written, fascinating, exhaustively researched, and thought provoking. It cannot be considered anything other than the decisive existing volume on this crucial Civil War campaign.

[Creighton · Rating 5 out of 5]

Decision in the West is an overall solid work on the Atlanta Campaign and I thoroughly enjoyed reading it. It gives a great analysis about the campaign, and it's connection to the bigger picture of the American Civil War - that being the election of 1864, Grant's Overland campaign, and how the Atlanta campaign ended up being vitally important for the Union. I definitely recommend this for every American Civil War history buff.

[Bill · Rating 4 out of 5]

What if Gen. Sherman hadn’t captured Atlanta, and hadn’t done so when he did? The outcome of that fall’s presidential election might have been different, a President McClellan might have reached a negotiated peace with the Confederate States of America, potentially precipitating “a further breakup of the Union,” Castel argues in this book.

Looking back in history, we’ve come so close to fulfilling this and other unimaginable counterfactuals. Thank goodness our country survived and thrived and everything always works out for the best!

Well, okay. Not always.

It was somewhat difficult to read a history book in a vacuum this week and appreciate how we got ourselves out of this jam while we seem to be getting ourselves into another one, without having the benefit of hindsight to know how it’s all going to turn out.

Nevertheless, back to the book, since at least we know how its story ended. The first thing that jumps out to anyone who reads this is superficial, but not easily overlooked - Castel’s decision to write in the present tense. He did so, he explains, to lend urgency and immediacy to his narrative. But that technique has since been adopted by writers of less-distinguished popular histories like Bill O’Reilly and Brad Meltzer, so I found it hard to take here. Eventually it became less jarring, but I never really got used to it.

Verb tenses aside, the writing is otherwise very good and Castel’s telling of the Atlanta campaign is certainly thorough. He counters the shorthand narrative that the bold and heroic Sherman slashed and burned his way to Atlanta as the hapless Confederate Gen. Johnston offered token resistance while helplessly retreating. Early chapters of the book discuss the logistics, planning and strategy that went into the campaign, while later chapters detail the fighting, the maneuvering, the setbacks and recalibrations that occurred along the way. Castel periodically checks in on what’s happening in the war in Virginia, and what’s happening politically leading up to the presidential election. And throughout, he offers plenty of analysis after each phase of the campaign, not only at the end of a chapter or the book.

I should point out that one other minor stylistic complaint is that the book is structured as a month-by-month account, with each month in 1864 getting its own chapter. For a campaign that didn’t even begin until May, that means the January through April chapters can sometimes feel padded, with detailed discussions about things like the armies’ organizational structures and weaponry. Once things do really get underway, the 133-page chapter on May alone is longer than the first four chapters combined. Another superficial complaint, I suppose, but the chapter breaks seemed arbitrary and affected the book’s pacing, so the verb tenses weren’t the only things that I found distracting.

In the preface, Castel announces that he’s going to be hard on Sherman. He does challenge the notion that Sherman was one of the war’s greatest generals, pointing out his mistakes and faults, so as not to hero worship him. At times, though, I thought he seemed to strain to find fault, pointing out what Sherman could have and should have done better, before acknowledging that “the pluses outweigh the minuses.” He’s left to ask “whether the same results, or perhaps better ones, could have been achieved more quickly and at smaller cost,” before conceding that at least “he is fulfilling his strategic mission” (there's that present tense again).

That mission, at first, was merely to keep Johnston busy so he couldn’t reinforce Lee while Grant fought him in Virginia. When his mission changed and Sherman went on the offensive, he was generally more focused on gaining ground and capturing Atlanta than on destroying the enemy, for which Castel faults him the most. I couldn’t help but wonder if this was really fair, though. Sure, it would have been great had Sherman been able to destroy Johnston’s army and capture Atlanta at the same time. But if it had to be one or the other, was gaining ground, capturing a key city and helping to destroy the Confederacy’s fighting spirit and ability to operate as a functioning government, while minimizing losses, really such a bad thing? Compare this strategy to Grant’s in Virginia, which was the opposite. If, say, Grant had captured Richmond and sent the Confederates scrambling without the horrifying battle losses that caused him to be derided as a butcher, would he have been similarly second-guessed for not being more aggressive?

In the end, Castel does have to acknowledge that Sherman has earned “a distinguished place in the history of the Civil War and of his nation,” having succeeded, apparently, in spite of himself. So I had some stylistic concerns, and wasn’t always convinced by Castel’s arguments. But this is overall a well-written, well-reasoned book about how Sherman’s success helped us avoid a presidency that could have imperiled the country as we know it. Thank goodness our country survived and thrived and everything always works out for the best. Right?

[Sean Chick · Rating 5 out of 5]

A masterpiece of scholarship, writing, and analysis. Castel pulls no punches but sometimes he seems to go overboard in his attacks on Sherman. Overly long and only for those obsessed with the Civil War, like myself.

[Avis Black · Rating 2 out of 5]

This book has two problems. One, it's written in the present tense, though that's the lesser difficulty. The second problem is more serious. This is Castel's treatise about how Sherman kept making poor battle plans that went awry, and how Johnston and Hood were better opponents. This leaves unanswered the sticky question of how Sherman ended up winning. You are left with the impression that Castel simply does not understand Sherman, or grasp that Sherman was essentially an improviser who took advantage of his opportunities and built on them until he finally won his compaign. Castel is ultimately blocked from achieving logical analysis by the fact that he's a Southern sympathizer.

[Josh Liller · Rating 5 out of 5]

"Decision in the West" covers Sherman's campaign in Georgia from May 1864 to September 1864. It also delves into many of the events and decisions earlier in the year (January-April) leading up to the campaign. Hood's Nashville campaign and Sherman's March to the Sea are briefly summarized in the last chapter.

This is a predominately military history, but it generally doesn't go deeper than the brigade level. It is very much concerned with the decisions of the generals - what they tried to do, why they tried to do it, if they succeeded, and what might they have done differently. It certainly has some interesting but fair opinions of Sherman, Johnston, and Hood. The experiences of the soldiers are covered as well and they demonstrate that Sherman's campaign was every bit as grinding for both sides as the campaigns in Virginia at the time and for the same reason (near constant contact with the opposing army and increased reliance on entrenchments).

This book is now more than 2 decades old, but the content seems to have held up pretty well. The Atlanta Campaign has received some more recent writing, but while they often delve deeper into the occupation and burning of Atlanta than Castel does they also often gloss over the events prior to Sherman's crossing of the Chattahoochee and Hood replacing Johnston. As a result, books like War Like the Thunderbolt: The Battle and Burning of Atlanta make for interesting companions to "Decision in the West" rather than successors.

One very odd decision that actually works out well is that this entire book is written in the present tense. History books are written about the past and as such are normally written in the past tense. It certainly captures the feeling of "immediacy" that is mentioned in the Preface.

Classic campaign study that is a must-read for any Civil War buff.

[James Murphy · Rating 4 out of 5]

Back in the days before the big chain bookstores invaded the South, a more peaceful and welcome invasion than that by Sherman's armies, it used to be an exciting trip to visit Atlanta on a book-buying expedition. Before the arrival of the monolithic chains the Atlanta area had several bookstores offering a rich literary variety not found outside the big cities. My favorite was called The Oxford Bookstore, in the heart of the city on Peachtree Street. It was at the bottom of a valley very near Peachtree Creek. To the north stretches a long, high slope leading to Buckhead and the Lenox Square area, and to Marietta farther away. In July of 1864 part of Sherman's huge army was attacked exactly in that spot by the Confederate Army of Tennessee led by John B Hood. I don't know of any reminders of that battle present today in the form of cemeteries or memorials. Today it's downtown Atlanta, though I'd suspect most who live and work in the Peachtree Creek area are aware of the history. Albert Castel, an Atlanta native and historian, has written a big military history of the 1864 campaign in which Sherman's 3 armies attacked through northwestern Georgia to Atlanta and beyond, fought at least 10 pitched battles, including Peachtree Creek, and finally defeated the Confederates, thereby occupying and ultimately destroying the important industrial center and rail hub. It's finely detailed in personality and in the conduct of the military operations, tactical and strategic. His history is interesting in a couple of ways. First, like Shelby Foote's masterful Civil War trilogy, Castel's account is gently slanted toward a positive view of the Confederacy while being generally less favorable of the Union. Historical perspectives shift like loose sand. They can be molded into this picture or that slant. Whereas Sherman is by and large considered a hero and one of the stronger Union commanders of the war, here his campaign is criticized as being sluggish and unimaginative. Despite his successful offensive pressure against a hapless but stubborn defense, Castel finds ways to pettily find fault with the way Sherman conducted the campaign. Hood, the final commander of the Army of Tennessee, was given the command because Jefferson Davis wanted a more aggressive defense after Joseph E Johnston had been outmaneuvered and backed up to the city. Hood is thought to've been reckless but Castel praises him for denying Sherman Atlanta for over a month. Sherman, according to Castel, does little right. Hood and Johnston make few mistakes but are simply overwhelmed by the weight of a larger army. It's only because his history is so comprehensive and rich that such blatant championing of the Confederates doesn't mar it. Like Foote's trilogy, it's storytelling so well done that it becomes epic and, in the end, fully human and tragic. Secondly, the book's interesting because it's history told in the first person. Castel cites two purposes for this: to provide the reader a sense of immediacy and to give a feel for the military operations as the commanders themselves perceived them. In the end, despite the historical slant by a native with perhaps an interest slanted toward the Cause, it's good history. In the end he shows how Sherman's numerically superior and better-equipped forces were inexorably able to overcome the Army of Tennessee, no matter who commanded. Just as Barnes & Noble and Borders, over a hundred years later, triumphed over The Oxford Bookstore along Peachtree Creek.

[Gerry · Rating 4 out of 5]

This, in 572 pages, is as complete an account of Sherman’s campaign to take Atlanta as can be found. Of the author’s use of the present tense in relating the story, it neither enchanted nor annoyed me; it was different, that’s all.

The maps depicting the battles are excellent. They make it easy to follow what happened and the campaign maps are satisfactory. The descriptions of most of the actions make them easy to follow (I had some trouble during the post-fall of Atlanta moves).

The American Civil War is this country’s Iliad. Its generals stride across our history like Achilles and Hector of old. Therefore, students enjoy reading of their favorites and are quick to find satisfaction or displeasure in the way their favorites are handled. Retreatin’ Joe Johnston does not come off so well, as viewed by his president. McPherson was almost every bit as cautious as McClellan and I wish the author had included the poignant story of McPherson and Emily Hoffman in his narrative. Sam Hood gets a gentler treatment than in most other narratives; in effect, he’s excused; also not covered are the details of his personal campaign to attain command of the Army of Tennessee. Sherman, well, Sherman does not come off so brilliantly as in other histories. Like the proverbial armchair quarterback, Castel finds much to criticize on his style and tactics, but, in the end, is forced to admit, despite them, Sherman won. Conducting the campaign required enormous planning and logistics and we don’t know much of the details behind that and how much was as a result of Sherman’s knowledge and efforts (he travelled throughout the area as a junior officer). What Southern cavalry failed to do is treated well; there was little threat to Sherman’s supply lines.

Of interest strategically, Atlanta was not the original object of the campaign. Sherman’s goal, as prescribed by Grant, was simply to give Johnston enough play to prevent him sending reinforcements to Lee, who would be prevented from reciprocating by Grant. Later, it became obvious that the Confederate armies weren’t going to be able to help each other, and Atlanta became Sherman’s objective.

Recommended for the Civil War enthusiast.

[Gregory · Rating 4 out of 5]

Historian Albert Castel puts General William T. Sherman's 1864 campaign to capture Atlanta in the context of General Ulysses Grant's Overland campaign in Virginia and Abraham Lincoln's re-election bid that fall. The author describes what the various commanders thought, what they knew, what they did not know, what options were before them, and what they actually did. He is critical of many people in their conduct during this campaign, including Sherman, whose objective was Atlanta and not to destroy the Confederate army before him. On the Union side, he is much more favorable towards George Thomas who made many wise and prescient observations and tactical/strategical suggestions that Sherman generally ignored. On the Confederate side, he singles out Generals S.D. Lee and Leonidas Polk for their deficiencies on the battlefield, but also Generals John Hood and Braxton Bragg for their scheming (as well as some oft their decisions). Confederate President Jefferson Davis is faulted for picking commanders based on their relationship to him, not competency, and for harboring some unrealistic expectations. Decisions in the West is told in present tense, which is unusual for a history book. There are ten chapters. One for each month from January through September, plus a last one about the fall. Because of this strict chronological format, the size of the chapters fluctuate from 13 to 134 pages.

[Skip Unger · Rating 5 out of 5]

As a lifelong Civil War history enthusiast, this may be the single best campaign book I've ever read. Castel provides a fascinating and detailed account of the Atlanta campaign of 1864 from June to the fall of the city in September. He puts the campaign in context of the politico-military situation at the time and relates it to the contemporaneous Richmond/Petersburg campaign in Virginia. He does not, thankfully, wallow in peripheral social commentary or context that so many modern historians seem to do. Castel was gotten some criticism for his unorthodox use of the present tense throughout the account but it did not bother me and may have actually enhanced the narrative flow. He is famously hard on Sherman in his evaluation which in my opinion may have been a bit too critical. He criticizes Sherman for not being more aggressive and seeking to destroy the Confederate Army of Tennessee but criticizes CSA command Gen Hood for doing exactly that against Sherman. Anyway, overall a superb rendition of the campaign - Castel was a gifted historian who wrote a few books on the Western theater. It is is a pity he did not write many more. Highly recommended.

[Brian · Rating 3 out of 5]

I know this is one of the definitive accounts of the Atlanta campaign, but I didn't connect well with it. I personally don't well with the style (first person, real time), and I think this format detracts from the overall analysis. My other significant issue is that while Castel's authoritative style makes the book more readable, I do think there are times where he glosses over or plays down key historical points that are not resolved.

[Jw · Rating 4 out of 5]

It took a little while to get used to a history written in the present tense, but after a few dozen pages I didn't notice anymore and was just caught up in the narrative. Castel has written a definitive account, with great character studies of the leading figures in the Atlanta Campaign. I've read other overviews of this period of the war and been confused by the movements of the armies through Georgia, but this one really gave me an understanding of both the tactical and strategic events.

[Mark Harden · Rating 5 out of 5]

I avoided this book for a long time because it is written in the present tense and that just seemed weird. But, as the author explains, it does lend an immediacy to the narrative. This is the authoritative, definitive account of the Atlanta Campaign. The balance of tactical, strategic, political and logistical aspects is very well done. The writing flows well and the book is very readable.

[JeffParrotte · Rating 4 out of 5]

Positives: Mostly concise and well researched. Would definitely recommend as a survey for the movements and actions of the Atlanta campaign.

Negatives: A woeful lack of maps, the present-tense writing style, and the over-dramatizing of the situation to support the author's thesis about the importance of the campaign.

[Gary T · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a stunningly brilliant work of history. While day-by-day, minute-by-minute Civil War military history can often be tedious and obsessive, there is something about this one that just works. First, the writing is top notch, especially use of the present tense. Second, the story unfolds like episodes of a show that you binge watch, with mighty characters rising and falling. I had read much about the Atlanta campaign within larger histories such as Foote’s, and thought I had a decent grasp of the bloody push through North Georgia to the fires of Atlanta. But this book made me feel like I knew nothing! I hadn’t appreciated how Sherman doesn’t deserve as much credit as many give to him, though he deserves a lot. I learned that Joe Hooker deserves more. I learned that MacPherson was not perfect, and missed some key opportunities, but I rooted for him, as everyone did and does, and shed a tear at his tragic death scene. I learned yet again that George Thomas was the single best military general in the war, unless you credit Grant with having the guts to make the biggest grind of all. I grew in respect for Joe Johnston, and of course knew that Hood was the skunk. In the end, the capture of Atlanta, at least before the November election, seems surprising — not the foregone conclusion that we think. Thank goodness Davis made the blunders that he did, micromanaging next to his toadie Bragg and throwing Hood into the lead. Above all, I credit the author with delivering one of the finest works of Civil War military history (strictly military), that has been written to date.

[Steve · Rating 5 out of 5]

It’s a masterpiece, a gem and a fantastic read. The book takes you inside high command meetings as you travel down the Western and Atlantic Railroad, the Union Army struggling to turn the Confederate flanks. The armies on both sides and their suffering, the blood thirsty sounds of battle, the strange moments when the Johnnies and Billys had informal meetings and truces are vividly described. The burning of Atlanta, the re-election of President Lincoln are among a dozen ongoing events in the narrative. I plan to re-read this remarkable book.

[Jimmy · Rating 4 out of 5]

Good history of the Atlanta Campaign, with a ton of pre-campaign background and biographical sketches of the major commanders of both armies. However, I don't think that writing the book in the present tense really helped. Also, nearly one-fifth of the actual text of the book covers the four months before the campaign actually started. An order of battle would have helped with remembering the structure of each army.

[Nick Black]

Amazon 2009-09-06.

[Kosar7480 · Rating 5 out of 5]

Outstanding detail. Thorough. Readable. Go-to book for the Atlanta Campaign.