Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

RE: [civilwarwest] Re: John Bell Hood

Expand Messages
  • tmix
    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
    Message 1 of 136 , Mar 1, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      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.
      Tom M.

      -----Original Message-----
      From: ron [mailto:ron@...]
      Sent: Sunday, February 29, 2004 10:30 PM
      To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: Re: [civilwarwest] Re: John Bell Hood

      Bill,

      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.

      Ron



      ---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
      From: Bill Merritt <bilmerritt@...>
      Reply-To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
      Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2004 09:42:06 -0800 (PST)

      >---------- Original Message ----------------------------------

      >Dick, an excellent post, and I quite agree with you, except that I
      think his actions WERE planned with skill. No one, here, has
      demonstrated a flaw in his planning. It is the excecution that was
      always faulty.
      >
      >What he lacked, what he didn't count on, what he really missed, was the
      Army of Northern Virginia, and its superb coterie of Brigade and
      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.
      >
      >One could suggest that Hood should have taken this into account but, to
      do so, would have meant retreating, since he could not count on his
      officers to maneuver, and staying in a defensive position would have
      been suicide. He was appointed specifically to attack, and he did his
      best.
      >
      >Dick Weeks <shotgun@...> wrote:
      >I have been following this Hood thread now and find it most interesting
      (not
      >that we haven't discussed it before). Normally I don't have the time
      to
      >really get involved in many of the threads, but since I have a few
      minutes
      >now I thought I would throw my feelings on the man out there.
      >
      >I don't think Hood's problems were drugs, alcohol, or being stupid. I
      think
      >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, more
      >courageous commander than John Bell Hood. However, there he was
      following
      >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 his
      commander
      >overcome odds that few commanders could have. He saw victory where a
      sure
      >defeat could have been. He saw Lee, though outnumbered, pull off minor
      >miracles. Then when he got under Johnston, since this commander did
      not
      >fight the same as Lee it followed that he must be wrong and therefore a
      bad
      >commander. Thus all attempts must be made to replace him. Then when
      Hood
      >himself took over he made probably his biggest mistake. He tried to
      emulate
      >Lee without his skill. Since he could not do it, it must be someone
      else's
      >fault, not his. If you really want to see Hood attack Johnston, read
      Hood's
      >Atlanta Campaign OR. Here's the link
      >
      >http://civilwarhome.com/hoodatlanta.htm
      >
      >Anyway, I know this is a very simplistic explanation for a fairly
      complex
      >problem and as always, it just my opinion.
      >
      >I am, very respectfully, your obedient servant,
      >Dick (a.k.a. Shotgun)
      >http://www.civilwarhome.com
      >>
      >> --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, Bill Merritt <bilmerritt@y...>
      >> wrote:
      >> > 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:
      >http://groups.yahoo.com/group/civilwarwest/
      >
      > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
      >civilwarwest-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
      >
      > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

      >
      >
      >




      Yahoo! Groups Links
    • Tom Mix
      No doubt about that, Steve. Tom M. ... From: lilsteve68@aol.com [mailto:lilsteve68@aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2004 1:56 PM To:
      Message 136 of 136 , Mar 4, 2004
      • 0 Attachment

        No doubt about that, Steve.

        Tom M.

         

        -----Original Message-----
        From: lilsteve68@... [mailto:lilsteve68@...]
        Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2004 1:56 PM
        To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
        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.


      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.