Sherman and Cleburne at Tunnel Hill : the myth of the inevitability of Confederate defeat at Chattanooga, November 23-25, 1863 / by Robert D. Goforth.
| Author/creator | Goforth, Robert D. author. |
| Other author | Still, William N., Jr. (William Norwood), 1932-2023 degree supervisor. |
| Other author | East Carolina University. Department of History. |
| Format | Theses and dissertations |
| Production | 1992. |
| Description | viii, 141 leaves : maps ; 28 cm |
| Supplemental Content | Access via ScholarShip |
| Subjects |
| Summary | The purpose of this thesis is to disprove the inevitability of Confederate defeat at the battle of Chattanooga, November 23-25, 1863, during the American Civil War. Confederate Major General Patrick R. Cleburne held the right flank of the Confederate line on Missionary Ridge with his one division against superior forces of Major General William T. Sherman's Army of the Tennessee on November 25. Cleburne's stubborn defense demonstrates that the forces holding the entire Confederate line, had they enjoyed similar leadership, could have held. The true blame for the fall of Missionary Ridge lays upon the shoulders of General Braxton Bragg, the commander of the Confederate Army of Tennessee. Through a series of inept command decisions, including dispatching a third of his army on an ill-advised movement on Knoxville less than a month before the battle, the positioning of his troops in three lines on the ridge, two of them below the crest and in the line of fire of the one above, and singlehandedly destroying the morale of the army through his abrasive actions towards officers and men, thus losing the respect of his subordinates, Bragg lost the battle for the Confederacy. Ulysses S. Grant, the commander of Union forces at Chattanooga, enjoyed a relatively easy victory but was forced to alter his plan of battle, despite the fact that after the battle Grant and Sherman attempted to advance the view that the battle had been fought as planned. Sherman, who was seeking to save face. and Grant, who was attempting to defend a friend, misrepresented the facts surrounding the planning of the battle and the execution of the plan. In contrast to a defeated general who lies as an excuse for failure. Grant and Sherman distorted the truth in the light of a great victory but ultimately the fact remains that the Federals won the battle. |
| General note | Submitted to the faculty of the Department of History. |
| General note | Advisor: William N. Still, Jr. |
| Dissertation note | M.A. East Carolina University 1992 |
| Bibliography note | Includes bibliographical references (leaves 138-141). |
| Genre/form | Academic theses. |
| Genre/form | History. |
| Genre/form | Academic theses. |
| Genre/form | Thèses et écrits académiques. |
Availability
| Library | Location | Call Number | Status | Item Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Joyner | University Archives | ASK AT SPECIAL COLLECTIONS DESK | ✔ Available | Request Material |
| Electronic Resources | Access Content Online | ✔ Available |