Albert CastelBesprekingen

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.

Another classic from Castel. The military narrative is standard, but his insight into the rivalries and interactions among the Federal high command is fascinating and outstanding. I was concerned about the dual authorship, as Castel stated in the preface that Simpson helped with the final five chapters. Fortunately, those chapters still retain Castel’s sometimes caustic wit. Castel maintains his unforgiving critique of the over-rated Sherman but his evaluation of Grant seems to have been boosted by Grant fan-boy Simpson. Castel even fails to make clear that Grant’s horse accident in New Orleans after Vicksburg was another drunken episode. Halleck, especially, is fleshed out in this book much more fully than the usual caricature he receives. And Rosecrans receives much praise, all of it well deserved.

Must read for insight into the interactions of the Federal high command.

A classic account from the estimable Albert Castel. Very balanced, he establishes Quantrill as a great guerrilla leader while at the same time acknowledging he was a cold blooded killer. But there were many far more murderous men in his gang. Castel provides blow by blow accounts of Quantrill’s raids with exciting detail... if exclamation marks in history books bothers you, consider yourself forewarned! There is also great context, with a prequel describing the Kansas-Missouri prewar violence which is essential to understanding why the civil war in Missouri and Kansas was so bloody and merciless, and a concluding sequel describing the post-Quantrill gang, especially the legendary but actually rather pathetic James-Younger gang.

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.

About a dozen articles originally published over the course of five decades in such places as Strategy and Tactics and American Heritage, mostly about the lives and careers of civil war generals. The first and longest chapter's about Fort Sumter and its political context. I found the first 60% or so of the book deadly boring; then things got more interesting. The chapters about Bloody Kansas partisans Jim Lane and William Quantrill were especially interesting.

All in all a disappointment. I liked Castel's Victors in Blue far better.½

Many (many!) years ago I took a couple classes from Albert Castel. The first, a major-required history survey, I only barely recall; the second, a joint HIST/ROTC offering, was a mistake on my part. I found it boring.

This book is not boring. It's more fun that its topic perhaps deserves, full of asides and opinions and occasional wordplay. It's also an excellent, albeit limited, overview of the Civil War's major battles, and of the northern army's command issues. Frankly it's as much about military (and "real") politics as it is about warfare, and valuable precisely because of this.

Because it's decidedly a "blue" book, the command structure and issues on the grey side don't get as much discussion as I might have liked, though they're by no means completely ignored.

Castel warns the reader at the beginning that his views are a bit controversial. Some of the controversy I recognize, but mostly I suspect I missed it; this book's outside my usual reading, and far from my expertise.

Glad I read it. And glad it showed me a side of Professor Castel I missed in the mid-1970s when I was a student.

Being an account of the Sunflower State during the War of the Rebellion, incorporating a brief summary of the Bleeding Kansas years, of which he is rather dismissive. This is a very straightforward book which is clearly and professionally written and argued. It is difficult to envision it being superseded as the definitive telling of an interesting and important history.

Considered to be the premier work on the Atlanta campaign. The work is well written with maps to show the movements throughout the campaign. The work is written in the present tense. The author is critical but fair of different generals of both armies. He is especially critical of Sherman and his weaknesses. He is very supportive of George Thomas and his contributions to the victory of the Atlanta campaign. Good for a source of reference to this campaign.

Decision in the West: The Atlanta Campaign of 1864, by Albert Castel (read 10 Apr 1993) This is a 1992 book on the Atlanta campaign of 1864. It is told in the present tense and is masterfully done. I admit the detail is more than I needed, but it oozes research and seems very good. He has little good to say for Sherman and his criticisms all seem logical. I have never read such a detailed study of the Atlanta campaign before. It is well-done.½

The internecine strife of the War of Northern Aggression was nowhere more savage than in Missouri and Kansas, where Redlegs and Bushwhackers murdered each other long before war broke out elsewhere. Bloody Bill Anderson was a product of this vicious conflict. The author does a good job in tracing the causes and relating the details of his rise and fall.

CFYAA