- As this thread indicates everyone has their own favorite books on the
so-called 'Chattanooga Campaign'. I for one, if I only had ONE book
to recommend it would be "Six Armies". It is the one book that even
attempts to give an overall description of the so-called Campaign for
I certainly agree with Mr. White that all the battles of the so-
called campaign are each in need of definitive books.
Certainly, Cozzen's works are very good and they are far superior to
most of the 'generalized' works that preceeded. Cozzen's attention to
telling the story of the Union army at Stone's River, Chickamauga,
and Chattanooga were long over due and I think were really ground
breaking achievements. Having said that they are not and I do not
think they even purport to be the 'definitive' stories of those
battles. All of Cozzen's works emphasize the Union side of the story.
Even though Wiley Sword's work 'Mountain Touched by Fire' does not
limit itself in the same way Cozzen's does, I feel like Sword has a
definite southern emphasis. At least that was my impression when I
finished it the first time. Comparing the way the two authors present
the fighting on the North End of Missionary Ridge I believe is good
evidence of their differing approaches to their battle studies and
The Sword and Cozzen books on Chattanooga in my personal opinion both
suffer slightly from their often rumored race to printing.
Sword I believe is a more entertaining writer than Cozzen. Once again
that is just a personal opinion. I also feel that Woodworth is an
easier read than either Cozzen or Sword.
Two other books out there that have not been mentioned by others but
which are very valuable to a detailed study of these actions are 'The
Confederate Collapse at the Battle of Missionalry Ridge'(the
previously unpublished battle reports from Bate's and Anderson's
Confederate Divisions) and 'The Truth about Chickamauga' by Archibald
Gracie. These two books can periodically be purchased from
Morningside Press. Gracie's book was written in the 19th century and
as a result its style is rather laborious. However, if you want to
understand what and why things actually occurred on Horseshoe Ridge
on September 20, 1863 this work is invaluable.(Also it has great
- Thnk you, I was under the impression that Cleburne was pretty much alone in the defence of the northern end.
--- In email@example.com, SDE80@... wrote:
> Well, the whole point of Sherman assaulting the north end of the Ridge was
> to both capture Chickamauga Station and cut Bragg off from Longstreet at
> Knoxville. That, too, would have made MR untenable. Bragg properly
> discerned that was Grant's main effort and concentrated 4 divisions in a
> relatively small area. He counted on the natural strength and defensibility of MR
> to try to hold the rest of it with three divisions. A. P. Stewart's
> division basically had responsibility for three miles of ridge with only enough
> men in a single rank to hold a little over a mile.
> Sam Elliott
> In a message dated 10/25/2010 3:45:37 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
> banbruner@... writes:
> I was thinking also of Sherman's force to the north which was much larger
> and much closer to Chickamauga Station.
> Bill Bruner
> --- In firstname.lastname@example.org_ (mailto:email@example.com)
> , SDE80@ wrote:
> > Bragg would have indeed had a hard time holding MR with a Federal corps
> > (Hooker's "column" had three divisions" at Rossville. Of course, Grant's
> > original plan did not contemplate Hooker being a part of the attack, or
> > having more than one division.
> > Sam Elliott
> > In a message dated 10/25/2010 10:35:20 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
> > banbruner@ writes:
> > I am looking forward to a trip in Nov. celebrating the Battle of
> > Chattanooga.
> > Looking the map in preparation, a peculiar thought occurred to me.
> > That once Lookout Mountain and Rossville had been taken Braggs position
> > Missionary Ridge was untenable. With both Lookout and Chattanooga
> > in union control and large forces on both north and southern flanks in
> > position to move to his (Braggs) rear and cut his communications and
> > of retreat he would have been forced to retire after dark on the 15th
> > if no charge had been made on his front.
> > I'm wondering if this analysis has been put forth before or if I am
> > completely wrongheaded.
> > Bill Bruner