RE: [civilwarwest] Re: John Bell Hood
- Not to be piling on, but Hood gets plenty of blame from me for Spring
Hill as well. Hood may have regarded it as his "master stroke" but did
darn little to see that it was carried out. He told Cheatham one thing
then 2 of Cheatham's Brigadiers something else without informing
Cheatham who then tried to correct the situation by reverting the troops
to their original objective as previously detailed by Hood to Cheatham.
The break down in communications falls in Hood's lap as it was he who
issued the old and new orders without telling all who needed to know.
When informed of the confusion he did nothing, just stayed in bed. It
has been mentioned that he had a rough day. I wonder what kind of night
it was or would have been for troops who had to carry out Hood's orders.
They did not get to stay in bed. Let alone get blamed the next AM for
the Spring Hill failures.
Franklin was an unmitigated disaster. There is no excusing or explaining
it. They almost broke the lines because of the bravery and tenacity of
the doomed Confederate soldier. And credit must be given to the brave
Union troops who held that area around the Carter House.
From: ron [mailto:ron@...]
Sent: Sunday, February 29, 2004 10:30 PM
Subject: Re: [civilwarwest] Re: John Bell Hood
I do not see, under any circumstacnes, how you can justify his decision
to attack at Franklin because it was a better choice than facing
superior numbers at Nashville. CSA General Francis Cockrell, wrote that
the attack was so folly, he actually considered refusing to obey -quite
a momentous statement from one of the most courageous, combative, field
generals of the war. Hood made the boneheaded decision to attack a
fortified positon over a wide expanse of open ground. It was suicide.
Dick's explanation is spot on, but it is an explanation for the failures
that Hood IS RESPONSIBLE FOR and he therefore cannot be given a place in
history as a great leader.
---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
From: Bill Merritt <bilmerritt@...>
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2004 09:42:06 -0800 (PST)
>---------- Original Message ----------------------------------think his actions WERE planned with skill. No one, here, has
>Dick, an excellent post, and I quite agree with you, except that I
demonstrated a flaw in his planning. It is the excecution that was
>Army of Northern Virginia, and its superb coterie of Brigade and
>What he lacked, what he didn't count on, what he really missed, was the
Division commanders. Time and time again, Hood planned to have a
superior force at the point of attack that could have overwhelmed the
enemy, yet the Army of Tennessee let him down by simply not being there
when they were supposed to be there. The blame has to be pointed
directly at Division and Corps command. Hood could not be everywhere at
every time, and, when he wasn't there, his plans fell apart.
>do so, would have meant retreating, since he could not count on his
>One could suggest that Hood should have taken this into account but, to
officers to maneuver, and staying in a defensive position would have
been suicide. He was appointed specifically to attack, and he did his
>Dick Weeks <shotgun@...> wrote:
>I have been following this Hood thread now and find it most interesting
>that we haven't discussed it before). Normally I don't have the timeto
>really get involved in many of the threads, but since I have a fewminutes
>now I thought I would throw my feelings on the man out there.think
>I don't think Hood's problems were drugs, alcohol, or being stupid. I
>Hood's problem was Robert E. Lee. Huh???? Let me try to explain.When he
>was in Lee's Army of Northern Virginia there was not a finer, morefollowing
>courageous commander than John Bell Hood. However, there he was
>orders, not developing them, he was following a plan, not making one,he was
>leading men, not ordering them. When he was with Lee he saw hiscommander
>overcome odds that few commanders could have. He saw victory where asure
>defeat could have been. He saw Lee, though outnumbered, pull off minornot
>miracles. Then when he got under Johnston, since this commander did
>fight the same as Lee it followed that he must be wrong and therefore abad
>commander. Thus all attempts must be made to replace him. Then whenHood
>himself took over he made probably his biggest mistake. He tried toemulate
>Lee without his skill. Since he could not do it, it must be someoneelse's
>fault, not his. If you really want to see Hood attack Johnston, readHood's
>Atlanta Campaign OR. Here's the linkcomplex
>Anyway, I know this is a very simplistic explanation for a fairly
>problem and as always, it just my opinion.Yahoo! Groups Links
>I am, very respectfully, your obedient servant,
>Dick (a.k.a. Shotgun)
>> --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, Bill Merritt <bilmerritt@y...>
>> > How do people feel about Hood as an army general? Most people
>> denigrate him for his actions after being appointed commander in
>> Chief to replace Johnson, in front of Atlanta, but it seems to me
>> that his plans were good, he simply suffered from incompetent
>> subordinates; in each of his actions, his plans would have brought
>> superior forces at the point of attack, IF his troops had gotten
>> there in time.
>Yahoo! Groups Links
> To visit your group on the web, go to:
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
No doubt about that, Steve.
From: lilsteve68@... [mailto:lilsteve68@...]
Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2004 1:56 PM
Subject: Re: [civilwarwest] Re: John Bell Hood
In a message dated 3/2/04 11:33:16 AM Central Standard Time, tmix@... writes:
When told a problem existed Hood stayed in bed and did nothing. That is not leadership.
And either is placing a one legged, one arm man in command of a Army.
I place the Plame were it belongs Jefferson Davis.