Re: John Bell Hood
- Is there evidence that Hood saw an opportunity in the poor deployment
of the US forces?
Two US brigades placed well in front and astride the Columbia Pike
masked the attack from the main line. The CS forces managed to follow
these retreating units well into the main US line until repulsed by
Opdycke. Remember also that Opdycke's brigade was *supposed* to be
the 3rd brigade in the forward line, but Opdycke saw the foolishness
in such a position and continued up the pike to the Carter
Unlike Pickett's charge, Hood continued to attack long after the main
effort was repulsed...
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "tmix" <tmix@i...> wrote:
> Not to be piling on, but Hood gets plenty of blame from me for
> Hill as well. Hood may have regarded it as his "master stroke" but
> darn little to see that it was carried out. He told Cheatham one
> then 2 of Cheatham's Brigadiers something else without informing
> Cheatham who then tried to correct the situation by reverting the
> to their original objective as previously detailed by Hood to
> The break down in communications falls in Hood's lap as it was he
> issued the old and new orders without telling all who needed to
> When informed of the confusion he did nothing, just stayed in bed.
> has been mentioned that he had a rough day. I wonder what kind of
> it was or would have been for troops who had to carry out Hood's
> They did not get to stay in bed. Let alone get blamed the next AM
> the Spring Hill failures.
> Franklin was an unmitigated disaster. There is no excusing or
> it. They almost broke the lines because of the bravery and tenacity
> the doomed Confederate soldier. And credit must be given to the
> Union troops who held that area around the Carter House.
> Tom M.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ron [mailto:ron@s...]
> Sent: Sunday, February 29, 2004 10:30 PM
> To: email@example.com
> Subject: Re: [civilwarwest] Re: John Bell Hood
> I do not see, under any circumstacnes, how you can justify his
> to attack at Franklin because it was a better choice than facing
> superior numbers at Nashville. CSA General Francis Cockrell, wrote
> the attack was so folly, he actually considered refusing to obey -
> a momentous statement from one of the most courageous, combative,
> generals of the war. Hood made the boneheaded decision to attack a
> fortified positon over a wide expanse of open ground. It was
> Dick's explanation is spot on, but it is an explanation for the
> that Hood IS RESPONSIBLE FOR and he therefore cannot be given a
> history as a great leader.
> ---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
> From: Bill Merritt <bilmerritt@y...>
> Reply-To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> 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,
> 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
> enemy, yet the Army of Tennessee let him down by simply not being
> when they were supposed to be there. The blame has to be pointed
> directly at Division and Corps command. Hood could not be
> every time, and, when he wasn't there, his plans fell apart.
> >One could suggest that Hood should have taken this into account
> 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
> >Dick Weeks <shotgun@c...> wrote:
> >I have been following this Hood thread now and find it most
> >that we haven't discussed it before). Normally I don't have the
> >really get involved in many of the threads, but since I have a few
> >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
> >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
> >orders, not developing them, he was following a plan, not making
> he was
> >leading men, not ordering them. When he was with Lee he saw his
> >overcome odds that few commanders could have. He saw victory
> >defeat could have been. He saw Lee, though outnumbered, pull off
> >miracles. Then when he got under Johnston, since this commander
> >fight the same as Lee it followed that he must be wrong and
> >commander. Thus all attempts must be made to replace him. Then
> >himself took over he made probably his biggest mistake. He tried
> >Lee without his skill. Since he could not do it, it must be
> >fault, not his. If you really want to see Hood attack Johnston,
> >Atlanta Campaign OR. Here's the link
> >Anyway, I know this is a very simplistic explanation for a fairly
> >problem and as always, it just my opinion.
> >I am, very respectfully, your obedient servant,
> >Dick (a.k.a. Shotgun)
> >> --- In email@example.com, Bill Merritt
> >> 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
> >> 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
> Yahoo! Groups Links
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.