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

Re: [civilwarwest] Re: John Bell Hood

Expand Messages
  • Bill Merritt
    As I said, it was his only alternative, next to surrender. As YOU said, if it had succeeded, he would have been a genius. I am sure he knew the odds, but that
    Message 1 of 136 , Mar 1, 2004
      As I said, it was his only alternative, next to surrender. As YOU said, if it had succeeded, he would have been a genius. I am sure he knew the odds, but that was all that was left to him.

      ron <ron@...> wrote:

      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@...>
      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
      >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)
      >> --- 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:

      >   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:

      >   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

    • 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

        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.