Thomas Lawrence ConnellyBesprekingen

He makes his point. Again, and again, and again. And again.
In the Epilogue he attempts a psychological biography of Lee that he claims has never been done. It’s a stretch and also repetitive. The best parts were the description of how Early and other Lost Cause myth makers exaggerated Lee’s achievements to cover up their own failures. I was hoping he would do a more in depth critique of Freeman but it was not very much.

Virtually impossible to do this topic justice in a book this short. The author provided as much detail as he could squeeze in about the major battles, but there were many things about the war in Tennessee he pretty much had to gloss over. I'm sure reading his "Army of the Heartland" and "Autumn of Glory" would be much more informative.

Though people often don't make the distinction, there is an important difference between history and the past. Simply put, the past is everything that happened before now, while history is how we interpret it. The past has happened and cannot be changed; how we interpret it, though, changes constantly. Sometimes this is because of different perspectives or a greater awareness of the effects or changing values. But there are also times when history changes because of the determination of a few to cement a particular interpretation that serves a specific set of goals.

At its core Thomas Connelly's book is about one such effort. In it he describes how a small group of dedicated people committed themselves to the goal of iconizing Robert E. Lee. Their very success is reflected in the enduring perception of Lee as one of the great commanders of military history, one whose ability might have enabled the Confederate cause to endure. As Connolly explains, such perceptions were far from universal in the immediate aftermath of the war, as figures such as Albert Sidney Johnston, P. G. T. Beauregard, and (especially) Stonewall Jackson were esteemed just as highly or even more so by Southerners. Upon Lee’s death in 1870, however, a small gathering consisting mainly of former officers of the Army of Northern Virginia and people associated with Washington College united in agreement to preserve Lee's memory, beginning a process that would define how Americans remembered not just Lee, but the entire Civil War.

Though many of the people involved in this effort did so out of admiration for Lee, Connelly highlights the self-interested motivations of many of the key participants. Foremost among them was Jubal Early, a former subordinate of Lee's and one of the leading proponents of the "Lost Cause." Connelly notes that Early's championing of Lee's reputation as a military commander not incidentally had the effect of bolstering his own stature, helping to gloss over his mistakes at the battle of Gettysburg. He and others became zealous defenders of Lee's reputation, campaigning for statues and producing laudatory descriptions of Lee's life and generalship while savaging any accounts which argued otherwise. One effect of this was to turn the Virginia theater into the decisive one of the war — a shift which reflected the Virginia-centric leadership of the Lee memorialization movement and which often came at the expense of the role of the other states of the Confederacy. By the turn of the century, Lee's image was undergoing a further transformation from a Southern hero into a national one, as a new generation romanticized his seemingly flawless personality and military genius, cementing his ironic status as an American hero. Though this image has since come under increasing criticism,their efforts endure today both in the republished books that embody this view and in the statuary prominently displayed throughout the country.

Though originally published four decades ago, Connelly's book remains a valuable study of Lee. His description of the posthumous sanctification of Lee provides a perceptive explanation of how the general became the preeminent symbol of the Lost Cause, eclipsing even the leader of the Confederacy himself. The recent controversy over Confederate monuments demonstrates just how relevant Connolly's analysis remains to understanding our nation today, as anyone seeking to understand it or the development of popular perceptions of the Civil War more generally cannot afford to ignore this important and unique book.

This is a relatively short, compact book filled with 34 pages of photographic images, numerous battle maps, and an appendix with an excellent Order of Battle summary. General Hood’s battle strategies are explained and analyzed pertaining to his reasoning or his rationale in expert detail.
The book served as my textbook and guide as I walked the battlefield, wondering of my great grandfather’s thoughts as he was shot in the head by a minie ball. He survived this carnage but never once spoke of that day on 30 November, 1864, or of any other day in his two years in battle as a 17 year old boy.
I would also recommend Wiley Sword’s book on Franklin, The Confedracy’s Last Hurrah, as a companion piece. Both deliver, if one has the courage to know the facts.

This is not a comic history of the Civil War (as I thought when I ordered it). It is a comic study of the Confederate-commemoration movement, especially as encouraged by the Civil War centennial in the 1960s. The author was a very serious southern historian who wrote a very depressing history of the Confederate Army of Tennessee in two volumes focusing on its command problems. This book is much lighter, though it varies from laugh out loud funny to fairly feeble -- the author's dedication to his wife says she even laughed at the parts that weren't funny, which may have been a mistake if it encouraged him to include them. Its illustrator also illustrated Richard Armour's rather silly attempts at comic history, and as in that case the illustrators are often the best part. I especially like the series on Lincoln dealing with his generals.½

Read this many years ago but still remember it as being excellent.

Excellent telling of the final days of the Army of Tennessee under Gen. John Bell Hood, CSA. After reading this and other civil war treatises I wonder why the fort in Texas bears Gen. Hood's name. Very readable, once started I couldn't put it down.

This was a quick read. The authors did a good job of describing the battle. There was very personal information on each ot the generals listed. There was hardly any data from diary's and letters. Its basically a summary of the battle with information gleened from other noted sourcses such as Stanley Horn (The Army of Tennessee 1861-1865) and Thomas Connelly (Autumn of the Heartland and The Army of Tennessee).

This book will stir your emotions. The author gave new insite to the failures of the Confederate Army of Tennessee. He details out the many egoes of the players and the bickering that played havoc to is mission. He does a good job on providing both the strength and weaknesses of each of the major commanders and the policical leaders.

This is by far one of the best histories of the Army of Tennessee. The author gets the reader involved in the emotion of the events. His narrative style has the reader involved in the poor decisions made by the Confederates. He also dispells some of the myth of these events with convincing documentation and logic. This book is part one of two series. This book covers how the Army of Tennessee was formed and its early commanders including Isham Harris, govenor of TN and Polk, A S Johnston, and finally Bragg. It covers the Kentucky campaign and Bragg's and Kirby Smith retreat from Kentucky after the battle of Perryville. The second series book is "Autumn of Glory"

Winner of the Fletcher Pratt Award and the Jefferson Davis Award

Connelly continues the work he began with Marble Man, questioning many of the Lost Cause myths of the Confederacy.

Marble Man was the first critical examination of Robert E. Lee. The title comes from our perception of Robert E. Lee as the unflawed general commanding that we see on equestrian statues in Richmond, or even Washington, D.C. Though Conelly does not do a lot of digging, or make a lot of accusations as does Alan Nolan in "Lee Considered," he does assert that our understanding of Lee does not penetrate the myth that surrounds him, or our perception of him as nothing more than the man portrayed in the statue.