The Battle of 22 July, 160 Years On
To commemorate the 160th anniversary of what I consider to be the most remarkable feat of arms in the Civil War I am reposting my 2010 post on the battle. I also wrote an extended and heavily illustrated thread on X:
The Battle of Atlanta was the quintessential soldier’s battle. At the end of the X thread I quote Joseph Johnston’s statement that there had been no such army as Sherman’s since Caesar’s. The Army of the Tennessee’s repulse of attacks from front flank and rear does bear some similarities to some of Caesar’s most desperate battles, notably Alesia.
The difference was that (at least by Caesar’s telling) his personal leadership was instrumental in winning: on 22 July 1864 Sherman had nothing to do with it, McPherson was killed at the outset, and with the exception of Black Jack Logan making an inspirational appearance on his black charger and directing some forces to counterattack, generals had little to do with it. It was the colonels, regimental field officers, company officers, and especially the soldiers who responded to the daunting tactical challenges.
The same was true of the Confederates. Leadership above the brigade level exerted no control on the battle.
On both sides, veterans steeled by two-and-one-half years of combat knew how to fight, and on their own hook. They proved it 160 years ago today.
Though it will never catch on I have been persuaded that The War Between The States is a more accurate label than The American Civil War.
For us The War of the Three Kingdoms is likewise a better label than The English Civil War but I don’t think it’ll catch on either.
Comment by dearieme — July 24, 2024 @ 9:57 am
@dearieme. You are correct, with the possible exception of Missouri and other Border areas (Kentucky, east Tennessee, north Alabama). Those areas saw true neighbor-against-neighbor, intra-family conflicts characteristic of what we usually consider a civil war proper.
The problem is that “War Between the States” is redolent of “States’ Rights” which is verbotten to mention as a cause of the War. Even though there is no real conflict between the war being about States’ Rights and the war being about slavery, since slavery was the main “right” that motivated the seceding states.
The Official Records published by the War Department decades after Appomattox used “War of the Rebellion” in the title. That’s also accurate.
Comment by cpirrong — July 24, 2024 @ 4:05 pm
I do think that sometimes that history is too hard on John Bell Hood. With better tactical command by his subordinate commanders, including his cavalry commander Fighting Joe Wheeler, he might have shattered Sherman’s army that significantly outnumbered his. Assuming army command at just 33 years old, his initial assault on Thomas at Peachtree Creek was close to a success and then the 2nd “The Battle of Atlanta” which killed his classmate James McPherson almost destroyed the Army of the Tennessee. His other offensives from Atlanta were not as succesful, but the problem was his choice was to either take the offensive and hope to win a decisive battle, sit back in the city and be besieged by a much larger army, or when all the assaults failed, slip away and strike for Sherman’s logistical trail.
Remember also, we are talking about an individual who had suffered a wound from an artillery shell which shattered his left arm on 7/2/1863 and then having his leg amputated just below his hip on 9.20.1863. That he returned to duty newly promoted to Lt. General and commanding a corps in the Army of Tennessee by the spring of 1864 is remarkable. His biggest problem was that he was promoted too quickly with not enough experience at the corps level which required much more administration, and then to army command which exceeded even that level of experience. The lack of staff work in the coordination of his army units in the attack was the result of this inexperience. I believe the impacts of his wounds impacted his ability to command and some of this was manifested in a level of impatience that resulted in the failure at Franklin and a stubborness that resulted in the disaster at Nashville.
Comment by MARK — July 24, 2024 @ 5:41 pm
@MARK. I don’t disagree. I think that a major reason for the criticisms of Hood at Atlanta (criticisms that I do not make, in fact) are because history is read backwards and the unquestionable disasters of Hood’s generalship at Franklin and Nashville color interpretations of his earlier actions.
I am going to do an X thread on Ezra Church on Saturday (the 160th anniversary). The conduct of that battle is less defensible than Peachtree Creek and July 22. But mainly because Hood delegated execution of a less than fully baked plan (and one based on an obsolete understanding of the operational situation) to another man who was promoted too far too fast–Stephen D. Lee. Remarkably, exactly two weeks before Ezra Church Lee had launched ill-considered piecemeal attacks against tough veterans at Tupelo, resulting in a bloody repulse. He did the same at Ezra Church.
Comment by cpirrong — July 25, 2024 @ 11:05 am