DOC The Battle of Peach Tree Creek: Hood's First Sortie; July 20; 1864 by Robert D. Jenkins Sr. in History

Review

32 of 33 people found the following review helpful. An unbalanced tactical studyBy Chase NewmanAs we enter the sesquicentennial of the Atlanta Campaign; it is great to see a book like this appear. Peachtree Creek as a battle is often overlooked as a key opportunity by General John Bell Hood to strike a blow at a significant part of Major General George Thomas's divided Army of the Cumberland as it crossed the creek in an effort to turn back Sherman's encircling Federal armies from Atlanta. Mr. Jenkins tries to document the story of the battle that resulted.One of the first things I noticed with the book is that it veers away from traditional narratives of the battle like Albert Castel's Decisions in the West by giving more attention to the part of the attack made on Hooker's 20th Corps by Stewart's Army of Mississippi; whereas more focus is usually placed on the effort made by Hardee's corps against Newton's division of Howard's 4th Corps in the opening and middle parts of the battle.However; this focus also comes at the cost of balance in the book. There is great deal of focus placed on the Confederates of Featherston's brigade of Loring's division (Stewart's Army of Mississippi). The author had a relative in the 31st Mississippi of this brigade.This isn't problematic at first; until the author begins devoting a lot more space than is usually to be expected in a general battle history to this particular unit; especially in the first half of the book when the action was generally on Hardee's front. While the attention to the Army of Mississippi is refreshing; and the case can be argued that Featherston's brigade was important as it was slotted as the lead brigade for Stewart's part of the attack; it seems a little excessive at times. He devotes two whole pages to a biography of Loring and devotes a paragraph to a physical description. Which is fine and dandy in itself. But Loring is the only division commander to receive this treatment. The only other commander at the battle detailed so far in the book is Hardee. William Bate; W.H.T. Walker; George Maney; E.C. Walthall; and even Loring's corps commander Stewart plus critical Union commanders like Thomas; Howard; Hooker; and Newton are skipped over in this area.This unbalance continues into the tactical descriptions of the battle. For instance; the author details the actions of the 31st Mississippi down to the company level. This is not something he does with any other regiment and its conspicuous.In spite of the unbalanced narrative; the author does well in his tactical descriptions of the action; and I must give him full props for this. However; the book could strongly use strengthening in its praise and criticism of certain commanders and the decisions they made. While Hood and Hardee are somewhat criticized in the ending chapter of the book; no such review is given for Federal commander George Thomas; or corps commanders Oliver Howard; Joseph Hooker; or A.P. Stewart and division commanders William Bate; John Newton; William Loring; etc. There are also parts in the narrative where it seemed the author was positioning himself for such language; but didn't follow through. While I strongly believe there is a fine line between criticism for the sake of criticism (which some historians today seem to do) and I strongly believe that historical works should be balanced and historical in representing historical personages; I think the author lays out the groundwork for reasonable critique(e.g. in context of what the commanders knew then as opposed to just hindsight); but then doesn't follow up; perhaps with the chapter on the attack of Bate's division being the biggest example of that. There was also room to praise the actions of commanders like Stewart and Emerson Opdyke who did well in the framework of the battle; and again the author did not follow up.My third criticism would be something that isn't the authors fault; and much more with the editors. Whoever edited this book wasn't as thorough as they could have been. I saw some editing/printing miscues; which to me were minor; but could potentially (and your mileage may vary) detract from the reading experience of someone else.The fourth criticism I have is that for a tactical history this book commits an almost unforgivable sin in the lack of an order of battle in the appendix.Now to the point of the review. Should you buy this book? Yes; but with qualifications. If you are studying the Atlanta Campaign; or one of the figures of the Atlanta campaign; then yes. This book is great as a supplement to a campaign study; such as Castel's or McMurray's for those wanting a little more tactical meat. This isn't a bad history; but the weaknesses I found with it prevent me from more fully endorsing it.20 of 22 people found the following review helpful. A Creek Runs Through ItBy Amanda WarrenI awaited this book anxiously as the battles around Atlanta are of particular interest to me. This is a rare battle treatment for its depth; detail; and heart. The complaint raised by another reviewer that the author takes us right down to the ground-level view of companies; even individuals; is to me one of the book's great strengths. I have read numerous books and other writings on this battle; but learned some fundamental truths here never before encountered or so clearly conveyed; for example:1. Other authors have glossed over anything that happened east of Peachtree Road as some variation of "Bate's division got lost and wandered through the woods for hours." Here we learn that fighting took place in that sector--plenty of it.2. This author communicated very effectively Hood's plan for Bate's force to come up on Thomas's flank by surprise; thus we get the underlying reason why the battle floundered. I have never understood that; having read previously that it was simply because the Confederates were surprised to find Thomas across the creek. In fact; they were blindsided by the extent of Yankee fortification; but not that they had crossed. And I never understood why the Confederates; especially some units; fought so hard and heroically but failed. Bate's delay rendered the whole battle plan moot. Without the flank attack; the subsequent wave of advances down the line came across as piecemeal.3. For the first time this author explains Johnston's reason for urging evacuation of Andersonville. Other authors seem to have simply interpreted in the same way as Davis; et al. rather than dig for Johnston's angle. Granted; he did not give it up easily; but it is there and this author provides it.4. I'm not going to give anything away here; but for the first time I learned that something happened in this battle that was the real reason for the end of Hood and Buck Preston's relationship.The author gives us the rare; moment-to-moment glimpses of the battle as it impacted the individuals who fought it. Far from being tiresome as another reviewer implied; I found it gripping and compelling. Mr. Jenkins does not limit this kind of vivid description to soldiers in the ranks. We are treated to a number of poignant quotes and scenes involving generals and officers.My only criticism pertains to organization and sequential flow. The overall organization is excellent and clear; beginning at the Confederate right; then moving down brigade by brigade until we are at the far left. But sometimes within paragraphs he will jump to some point without apparent connection. There are some typos as another reviewer points out which; it seems to me; is a curse of spell check's failure to pick up when a typo spells another word.The negative reviewer takes issue with pinpointing operations using streets and locations of today. However; I was very thankful for it. Since neighborhoods cover most of the battleground; these provide the only point of reference. I found myself consulting Google maps and satellite views several times during the reading of this book as a handy map reference. Contrary to the title of said review; the book is not a tour guide; for example; no step-by-step driving directions are given. These references serve simply as a method of placing what happened on the ground.In fact; one beautiful aspect of the book is how it weds the story to the terrain. We get such a tangible feel for every ravine; the thick; tangled woods; the creeks; knolls; ridges; bogs; roads; and even eroded crevasses in the hillsides that provide cover for trapped soldiers. A field hospital sets up in a desperate position down a ravine under fire!This is a battle of which you feel every sensation. Your heart bleeds for each man lost because every one has a story; loved ones at home; comrades in arms who are forever impacted by his absence.I also felt that this author was fair in his assessment of generals. A couple of times he came across as overly harsh toward Hardee; in my opinion; but he did not seem to impose on us some grossly slanted viewpoint against anyone. He did not abstain from criticism; but spread it around pretty evenly.If you desire only the general; overall view this book is not for you. If you crave detail and depth; then by all means read this book. It is one that I will pull off the shelf repeatedly to drink in the scenes of bravery and heroism and missteps and tragedy.0 of 0 people found the following review helpful. Hits and MissesBy KJAGThe book details the battle along the south side of Peach Tree Creek on 20 July; 1864 as the new Confederate Army of Tennessee commander John Bell Hood ordered two of his corps (Hardee’s and Stewart’s) to come out of their defensive positions and spring a surprise attack on Thomas’ Army of the Cumberland while it was crossing the creek at multiple locations and sufficiently distant from the support of Sherman’s other two Armies near Atlanta. Although the strategic planning appeared sound; the attack failed for a number of reasons. The research is very thorough; including the use of regimental histories on both sides; as well as journals; diaries; letters; newspaper articles; memoirs; and official records.The tactical details and physical observations of the battle are excellent; told from the viewpoints of both Confederate and Union troops in the thick of the fighting; as well as journalists and general officers and staff observing the battle; and the information is relatively even-handed. Obviously; some viewpoints are biased on both sides; but these can be easily distinguished. Selfless acts of heroism; terrible wounds and suffering; and costly mistakes on both sides are well described.The author ends with a fairly convincing analysis; albeit somewhat one-sided; regarding why the battle was lost. Much of the blame is focused on Hardee; who failed to reconnoiter; bring on a general engagement as directed by Hood; and provide sufficient directives to; and oversight of; his division and brigade commanders who failed to appropriately coordinate with each other. Blame is also directed at Jefferson Davis. The narrative is more sympathetic towards Hood; perhaps overly so. While the blame is focused on the mistakes of a handful of Confederate leaders; it becomes obvious that the outcome was also determined by a cool-headed George Thomas; who maintained active control of his commanders while personally directing the placement and re-shifting of artillery batteries as the battle progressed. There are also many instances of sound leadership by Union brigade and regimental commanders; and stiff resistance by their veteran troops.Unfortunately; the previous afternoon and evening’s action at Moore’s Mill along Peach Tree Creek is ignored. Although the author dedicates a number of pages in the back identifying the well over 200 casualties of this action by the 85th IL and 52nd OH regiments; and the Arkansas regiments who opposed them upon their single-file crossing over a log—the action itself is only mentioned in the book; without any details. This opening action of the battle enabled Palmer's XIV Corp to establish the first Union bridgehead on the south side of the large creek and build a bridge over night; enabling them to become established before the main attack commenced the following day.The book is uniquely organized for one whose topic is a Civil War battle. I liked the notes and references at the end of each chapter; which are usually consolidated in the back of the book; and I also liked the names and specifics of the casualties of both sides included in an Appendix; organized by regiment down to the company level. Also unique; the maps are consolidated at the front of the book. I would rather have them in appropriate locations within the text; so as not to have to turn half or three quarters of the book each time I referenced back to them; then having to determine the appropriate map. Some maps are detailed rather well down to the regimental level and their movement; but maps of other major actions are too generic. The topography played an important part in this battle; especially certain ridges; ravines; and vegetation; but they are lacking in the maps. A decisive part of the battle occurs along a large ravine between Collier Road and the creek; but it is not represented on a map. Also; inclusion of one or two larger area maps would have helped put the battlefield in perspective showing the battlefield in relation to Atlanta and major railroads; roadways; waterways; and other towns and cities that are referenced within the narrative; and perhaps the locations of other large Union and Confederate forces in relation to those taking part in the battle.Also unique is that the author chose to devote an extraordinary amount of narrativel on Mississippi regiments and companies in which the author’s relatives and their friends served; including many personal details on the individuals themselves. The author tries to add balance by giving some similar treatment to other units; including some Union ones; but not nearly to the same extent. The author explains at the beginning that his intent at first was to write a regimental history to honor them; then it morphed into a book about this particular battle where so many of them were wounded; killed; or captured.The book is not an easy read relative to other Civil War battle-topic books. It includes extensive points of reference throughout the narrative to modern-day streets; buildings; golf course; tennis center; etc. So much so that it frequently interrupts the flow of the action and becomes distracting and then annoying. The few readers familiar with the area may find this convenient; but because they are located throughout the book's narrative; it is not convenient as a guide for visitors. It would have been better to provide a separate guide as an Appendix; as found in other battle-topic books of the war.There are various editing oversights within the narrative such as missing words; and the narrative often jumps back and forth instead of a straight-forward chronological timeline of events. At times I found myself wondering when the events being described are occurring and in what sequence in relation to others. Timelines are not always clear. New information regarding various actions is sometimes presented 100 or more pages later on after other actions are discussed. There is also much repetition. Better editing could have improved organization of the material; flow; wordsmithing; and eliminated typos (this does not refer to historical quoted material; where misspellings and poor sentence structure is expected).This book is a valuable historical record of the battle; which signified the beginning of a new strategy to save Atlanta; turn the tide of the war in the western arena; and perhaps the outcome of the war. Those who fought the battle and sacrificed should be recognized; honored; and remembered. And the author did a fine job in helping to achieve this.