The Day Dixie Died: The Battle of Atlanta

The Battle Of Atlanta

On September 4, 1864, General W.T. Sherman sent a famous telegram to President Lincoln: "Atlanta is ours, and fairly won." The fall of Atlanta transformed what appeared to be an upcoming defeat for Lincoln's bid for reelection into a strong victory. In addition to its political impact, the Union's capture of Atlanta proved to be an integral part of the Union military victory.

Apart from Sherman's telegram and Jefferson Davis' decision to replace General Joseph Johnston with General John Hood, the military actions that led to the fall of Atlanta have received little attention. Hood was aggressive, perhaps reckless, where Johnston was extraordinarily cautious and defense-minded. Upon assuming command, Hood fought three battles within ten days at Peachtree Creek, Atlanta, and Ezra Church which resulted in severe losses to the Army of Tennessee and allowed Sherman to take the city on September 1.

In his book, "The Day Dixie Died: The Battle of Atlanta" (2010), Civil War historian Gary Ecelbarger offers a detailed account of the pivotal battle in the capture of Atlanta: the hard-fought Battle of Atlanta of June 22,1862. I have read detailed histories of many Civil War battles, but this book gave me my first close look at this battle.

Following the progress of a battle, including the troop movements and the geographical landmarks can be confusing, even for an experienced reader. A virtue of Ecelbarger's account is that it is, for the most part, easy to follow. Ecelbarger offers a clear account of complex movements over, for me, unfamiliar geographical terrain. I could follow the progression of events relatively well even though I hadn't studied the details of this engagement before.

Ecelbarger also admirably sets the stage for the battle and for the actions of the chief protagonists. His judgments appear nuanced, particularly as they involve Hood. The Confederate commander is frequently portrayed as simply reckless and thoughtlessly aggressive. Ecelbarger's history rehabilitates Hood, in part, by arguing for the need for aggressive countermeasures to stave off the Union advance.

Hood devised a plan to get in the rear or on the flank of the Army of the Tennessee East of Atlanta commanded by General James McPherson. Ecelbarger draws parallels to Stonewall Jackson's flank attack at Chancellorsville. He also points out critical differences: the route to the Union rear was longer than that of Chancellorsville, and Hood had little idea of the nature of the terrain his troops needed to cover. The attack was delayed for several hours and, with a good deal of luck, the Union made adjustments which had the unintended effect of blunting the attack when it came.

The battle was fought on several fronts and centered on the possession of an elevation called Bald Hill which changed hands several times. The Confederates attacked repeatedly and bravely and achieved some success before the Union rallied under General John Logan who had become the commander after McPherson was killed. Although Ecelberger does not draw the parallels, the course of the battle reminded me of Gettysburg in several ways. Hancock's rushing in of reinforcements to save the day against Longstreet on the second day of the battle has strong similarities to the way the Battle of Atlanta developed. I was reminded of the difficult Confederate attempts to take both Culps Hill and Cemetery Ridge at Gettysburg. At Gettysburg and at Atlanta, Confederate efforts to take an elevated position against a smaller defending force failed due to terrain and to the effective use of artillery. In addition, as was the case at Gettysburg, the Confederate attack was poorly coordinated among its various Corps commanders. This was Hood's responsibility as the coordination difficulties at Gettysburg were Lee's.

Ecelbarger's account emphasizes the tragedy of the Battle of Atlanta with its with its heavy loss of life on both sides. His concluding chapter describes the significance of the battle and includes a discussion of the Cyclorama of the Battle of Atlanta painted in the 1880's. The Cyclorama remains prominently displayed in Atlanta today.

The aspect of this campaign that most fascinates me remains the replacement of Johnston by Hood. Although Ecelberger makes a case for Hood's aggressiveness, I was unconvinced. His battle plan against the Army of the Tennessee strikes me as hastily conceived, flawed, and rash even though it had certain positive elements and even though Ecelberger attempts to rehabilitate it in part. Perhaps a better course for the Confederacy would have been a long siege defense with the aim of holding Sherman at bay until after the presidential election. Although many will disagree, I tend to be more sympathetic to Johnston. In any event, this is a well-written, thoughtful Civil War history. I learned a great deal as well from the many excellent reviewers of Civil War literature how have reviewed this book here on Amazon.

Robin Friedman