344 pp., 6.125 x 9.25, 19 halftones, 20 maps, notes, bibl., index
Paperback ISBN: 978-1-4696-6149-0
Published: August 2020
Hardcover ISBN: 978-1-4696-3419-7
Published: September 2017
eBook ISBN: 978-1-4696-3420-3
Published: August 2017
Paperback Available August 2020, but pre-order your copy today!
Buy this Book
Free E-Exam Copies
Offering new and definitive interpretations of the battle’s place within the Atlanta campaign, Earl J. Hess describes how several Confederate regiments and brigades made a pretense of advancing but then stopped partway to the objective and took cover for the rest of the afternoon on July 20. Hess shows that morale played an unusually important role in determining the outcome at Peach Tree Creek--a soured mood among the Confederates and overwhelming confidence among the Federals spelled disaster for one side and victory for the other.
About the Author
Award-winning historian Earl J. Hess is author of many books on Civil War history, including Braxton Bragg: The Most Hated Man of the Confederacy.
For more information about Earl J. Hess, visit the Author Page.
“Should be regarded as the new standard history of John Bell Hood’s first battle as defender of Atlanta.”--Civil War Books and Authors
"An exquisitely detailed case study of one of the Confederacy's worst military disasters. Highly recommended for Civil War and military historians, subject enthusiasts, and all libraries."--Library Journal starred review
“Hess carefully evaluates all the factors that separated victory from defeat.”--Civil War Times
“For Civil War readers, students of the Atlanta campaign, and fans of Earl J. Hess, this is a must-read.”--The Journal of America’s Military Past
“Logical and easily readable . . . Civil War students or enthusiasts will appreciate.”--On Point, the Journal of Army History
“Hess’s description of the battle is solid and immensely detailed, down to the regimental level. He has mined seemingly every available primary source. Readers also will appreciate his wise nuance in matters that often elicit only blanket generalizations.”--The Journal of American History