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

Peachtree Creek and The Battle of Atlanta

Expand Messages
  • Bill Bruner
    Just wondering. It seems at first blush that the Battles of Peacchtree Creek amd the Battle of Atlanta were fought out of secquence. The dictum being, that
    Message 1 of 25 , Dec 30, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      Just wondering. It seems at first blush that the Battles of
      Peacchtree Creek amd the Battle of Atlanta were fought out of
      secquence.

      The dictum being, that if possible, when the adversary is devided,
      you attack the weaker element. After destroying or routing this
      weaker element you turn on the other with your full force.

      As Sherman's Armies approached the defenses of Atlanta after
      crossing the Chattahoochie at several points they were seperated:
      Thomas' Army of the Cumberland approached from the North,
      Mcpherson's AotT coming from the East (Decatur). They were far
      enough apart that they could not support one another.

      Hood's Army was concentrated within the defenses of Atlanta and had
      interior lines. And could have chosen either wing of the union army
      to have attacked on his first sally.

      They chose the stronger, a force about equal to their own ,
      commanded by a proven veteran of the war. Sherman was concerned
      about his Eastern wing. saying that he was confident that Thomas
      could handle anything thrown against him . Which he did, with some
      dificulty.


      My question is why the stronger element (much stronger ) was chosen
      over the weaker for the first sally.

      The second sally was directed to the East, against the AotT, the
      weaker wing. I do not pretend to know a damn thing about military
      tactics or strategey and JEJ and JBH knew a great deal. I would
      just like to know the reasoning behind these decisions .

      Bill Bruner
    • Carl Williams
      just guessing, but perhaps Intel was faulty on which the stronger/weaker?
      Message 2 of 25 , Dec 31, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        just guessing, but perhaps Intel was faulty on which the stronger/weaker?

        --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "Bill Bruner" <banbruner@...> wrote:
        >
        > Just wondering. It seems at first blush that the Battles of
        > Peacchtree Creek amd the Battle of Atlanta were fought out of
        > secquence.
        >
        > The dictum being, that if possible, when the adversary is devided,
        > you attack the weaker element. After destroying or routing this
        > weaker element you turn on the other with your full force.
        >
        > As Sherman's Armies approached the defenses of Atlanta after
        > crossing the Chattahoochie at several points they were seperated:
        > Thomas' Army of the Cumberland approached from the North,
        > Mcpherson's AotT coming from the East (Decatur). They were far
        > enough apart that they could not support one another.
        >
        > Hood's Army was concentrated within the defenses of Atlanta and had
        > interior lines. And could have chosen either wing of the union army
        > to have attacked on his first sally.
        >
        > They chose the stronger, a force about equal to their own ,
        > commanded by a proven veteran of the war. Sherman was concerned
        > about his Eastern wing. saying that he was confident that Thomas
        > could handle anything thrown against him . Which he did, with some
        > dificulty.
        >
        >
        > My question is why the stronger element (much stronger ) was chosen
        > over the weaker for the first sally.
        >
        > The second sally was directed to the East, against the AotT, the
        > weaker wing. I do not pretend to know a damn thing about military
        > tactics or strategey and JEJ and JBH knew a great deal. I would
        > just like to know the reasoning behind these decisions .
        >
        > Bill Bruner
        >
      • James W. Durney
        ... More often than not the reason why is bad luck. Poor intellgence always seems to play a part but bad luck seems to rule the battlefield. Who got lost,
        Message 3 of 25 , Dec 31, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "Bill Bruner" <banbruner@...>
          wrote:
          >
          > I would just like to know the reasoning behind these decisions.
          >

          More often than not "the reason why" is bad luck. Poor intellgence
          always seems to play a part but bad luck seems to rule the
          battlefield. Who got lost, slowed down, didn't start on time or at all
          is a major factor time after time.

          Simple misunderstanding is another major factor.

          James
        • keeno2@aol.com
          So long as we re in the speculative phase, I ll throw in that Thomas army presented the greater, more immediate threat. McP was still a ways off while Thomas
          Message 4 of 25 , Dec 31, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            So long as we're in the speculative phase, I'll throw in that Thomas' army presented the greater, more immediate threat. McP was still a ways off while Thomas was preparing to cross a major creek at a critical point in Atlanta's defenses. Catching a body of troops crossing, preparing to cross, or just crossed usually offers a fine advantage. Hood's (or Johnston's) plan appears to have been sound -- at least in theory.
            Ken
          • William H Keene
            The Army of the Cumberland was in the process of crossing the creek thus the intent was to be able to attack it while it was divided. The Army of the Tennessee
            Message 5 of 25 , Dec 31, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              The Army of the Cumberland was in the process of crossing the creek
              thus the intent was to be able to attack it while it was divided.
              The Army of the Tennessee (also commanded by a proven veteran) was
              not as easy to reach at that time.

              --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "Bill Bruner" <banbruner@...>
              wrote:
              > ...
              > As Sherman's Armies approached the defenses of Atlanta after
              > crossing the Chattahoochie at several points they were seperated:
              > Thomas' Army of the Cumberland approached from the North,
              > Mcpherson's AotT coming from the East (Decatur). They were far
              > enough apart that they could not support one another.
              >
              > Hood's Army was concentrated within the defenses of Atlanta and had
              > interior lines. And could have chosen either wing of the union
              army
              > to have attacked on his first sally.
              >
              > They chose the stronger, a force about equal to their own ,
              > commanded by a proven veteran of the war. Sherman was concerned
              > about his Eastern wing. saying that he was confident that Thomas
              > could handle anything thrown against him . Which he did, with some
              >
              dificulty.
              >
              >
              > My question is why the stronger element (much stronger ) was chosen
              > over the weaker for the first sally.
              >
              > The second sally was directed to the East, against the AotT, the
              > weaker wing. I do not pretend to know a damn thing about
              military
              > tactics or strategey and JEJ and JBH knew a great deal. I would
              > just like to know the reasoning behind these decisions .
              >
              > Bill Bruner
              >
            • Bill Bruner
              ... creek ... Actually the Army of the Cumberland was not in the process of crossing the creek. Thomas had rapidly moved them across the creek and quickly
              Message 6 of 25 , Dec 31, 2006
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "William H Keene"
                <wh_keene@...> wrote:
                >
                > The Army of the Cumberland was in the process of crossing the
                creek
                > thus the intent was to be able to attack it while it was divided.
                > The Army of the Tennessee (also commanded by a proven veteran) was
                > not as easy to reach at that time.

                Actually the Army of the Cumberland was not in the process of
                crossing the creek. Thomas had rapidly moved them across the creek
                and quickly erected field works before the Confederates could mount
                their attacks.

                Hood had little respect for these hastily erected works and
                specifically and vigorously ordered, and urged, his troops to ignore
                them, not to stop and to overrun them and drive the yankees into the
                black waters of the creek. But troops on both sides had learned by
                this time in the war that it "didn't pay" to frontally charge field
                works, no matter how hastily erected. I don't recall any other time
                that the loss of a battle was blamed on the timidity of the
                Confederate soldier.

                Bill Bruner

                P S My big what if here is: That if Hood had been the whole man,
                the bold and carismatic leader he had been before his wounds at
                Chackamauga and had led in person from the front, things may have
                turned out quite differently at Peachtree Creek. Maybe not, maybe
                better, maybe worse.
              • keeno2@aol.com
                In a message dated 12/31/2006 5:22:57 PM Central Standard Time, banbruner@bellsouth.net writes: Thomas had rapidly moved them across the creek and quickly
                Message 7 of 25 , Dec 31, 2006
                • 0 Attachment
                  In a message dated 12/31/2006 5:22:57 PM Central Standard Time, banbruner@... writes:
                  Thomas had rapidly moved them across the creek and quickly erected field works before the Confederates could mount their attacks.
                  The best time to have interfered with Thomas was in the act of crossing -- the "plan" Johnston claimed to have had. I don't understand Hood's intention to let them cross and then attack before they could fortify. Someone will have to explain that to me. What was Hood thinking? What he apparently chose to do required a timing and precision that he did not command.
                  Just thinking out loud.
                  Ken
                • Bill Bruner
                  Ken, this makes sense to me. Perhaps Thomas was just a bit faster on the uptake than Hood. Or perhaps there a military or tactical principle involved that I
                  Message 8 of 25 , Dec 31, 2006
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Ken, this makes sense to me. Perhaps Thomas was just a bit faster
                    on the uptake than Hood. Or perhaps there a military or tactical
                    principle involved that I don't understand.

                    Bill Bruner


                    --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, keeno2@... wrote
                    > The best time to have interfered with Thomas was in the act of
                    crossing --
                    > the "plan" Johnston claimed to have had. I don't understand Hood's
                    intention to
                    > let them cross and then attack before they could fortify. Someone
                    will have to
                    > explain that to me. What was Hood thinking? What he apparently
                    chose to do
                    > required a timing and precision that he did not command.
                    > Just thinking out loud.
                    > Ken
                    >
                  • keeno2@aol.com
                    In a message dated 12/31/2006 7:19:27 PM Central Standard Time, banbruner@bellsouth.net writes: Or perhaps there a military or tactical principle involved that
                    Message 9 of 25 , Dec 31, 2006
                    • 0 Attachment
                      In a message dated 12/31/2006 7:19:27 PM Central Standard Time, banbruner@... writes:
                      Or perhaps there a military or tactical principle involved that I don't understand.
                      That would make two of us.
                      Ken
                    • gnrljejohnston
                      ... Here is another example of Hood not caring on how many of his troops would be killed. It was the same at Kolb s Farm and at Franklin. For him it was
                      Message 10 of 25 , Jan 1, 2007
                      • 0 Attachment
                        --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "Bill Bruner" <banbruner@...>
                        wrote:
                        >
                        > Hood had little respect for these hastily erected works and
                        > specifically and vigorously ordered, and urged, his troops to ignore
                        > them, not to stop and to overrun them and drive the yankees into the
                        > black waters of the creek. But troops on both sides had learned by
                        > this time in the war that it "didn't pay" to frontally charge field
                        > works, no matter how hastily erected. >
                        > Bill Bruner
                        >

                        Here is another example of Hood not caring on how many of his troops
                        would be killed. It was the same at Kolb's Farm and at Franklin. For
                        him it was "Damn the fortifications, charge full speed ahead"

                        JEJ
                      • William H Keene
                        ... divided. ... was ... It had been in the process on the 19th and Hood intended that he would hit it while it was still part across [ I determined to strike
                        Message 11 of 25 , Jan 1, 2007
                        • 0 Attachment
                          --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "Bill Bruner" <banbruner@...>
                          wrote:
                          >
                          > --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "William H Keene"
                          > <wh_keene@> wrote:
                          > >
                          > > The Army of the Cumberland was in the process of crossing the
                          > creek
                          > > thus the intent was to be able to attack it while it was
                          divided.
                          > > The Army of the Tennessee (also commanded by a proven veteran)
                          was
                          > > not as easy to reach at that time.
                          >
                          > Actually the Army of the Cumberland was not in the process of
                          > crossing the creek.

                          It had been in the process on the 19th and Hood intended that he
                          would hit it while it was still part across ["I determined to strike
                          the enemy while attempting to cross this stream"]. But as you point
                          out, by the 20th it was all the way across.
                        • gist1864
                          ... ignore ... the ... by ... field ... troops ... For ... That is pretty strong language, accusing Hood of not caring how many lives were lost. Guess you
                          Message 12 of 25 , Jan 1, 2007
                          • 0 Attachment
                            --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "gnrljejohnston"
                            <GnrlJEJohnston@...> wrote:
                            >
                            > --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "Bill Bruner" <banbruner@>
                            > wrote:
                            > >
                            > > Hood had little respect for these hastily erected works and
                            > > specifically and vigorously ordered, and urged, his troops to
                            ignore
                            > > them, not to stop and to overrun them and drive the yankees into
                            the
                            > > black waters of the creek. But troops on both sides had learned
                            by
                            > > this time in the war that it "didn't pay" to frontally charge
                            field
                            > > works, no matter how hastily erected. >
                            > > Bill Bruner
                            > >
                            >
                            > Here is another example of Hood not caring on how many of his
                            troops
                            > would be killed. It was the same at Kolb's Farm and at Franklin.
                            For
                            > him it was "Damn the fortifications, charge full speed ahead"
                            >
                            > JEJ


                            That is pretty strong language, accusing Hood of not caring how many
                            lives were lost. Guess you could probably lump some of the best
                            Civil War generals into that category, i.e. Grant, Sherman, and Lee
                            who threw their men into frontal assaults more than once. McClellan
                            and Johnston and their like tiptoed around and never accomplished
                            much of anything.

                            But instead of taking cheap shots, let's evaluate the facts.
                            Johnston had done nothing to halt Sherman's advance. By mid-July
                            1864 the Yankees were literally at the gates of Atlanta. Hood had
                            few options. Zone defense when Sherman had first and goal at the
                            five yard line wasn't going to work.

                            Peachtree Creek and the Battle of Atlanta were both desperate efforts
                            to blunt Sherman's progress. Peachtree Creek was supposed to be an
                            in echelon attack, but it never unfolded that way. Delays, etc
                            doomed the Rebels at both places, not Hood's desire to charge enemy
                            works. When Scott's Brigade was pummeling the 33rd New Jersey south
                            of Peachtree Creek there were more than a few Yankee troops who
                            immediately understood the tenor of fighting had changed.
                          • keeno2@aol.com
                            In a message dated 1/1/2007 9:17:48 PM Central Standard Time, jacobson@swlink.net writes: Peachtree Creek and the Battle of Atlanta were both desperate efforts
                            Message 13 of 25 , Jan 1, 2007
                            • 0 Attachment
                              In a message dated 1/1/2007 9:17:48 PM Central Standard Time, jacobson@... writes:
                              Peachtree Creek and the Battle of Atlanta were both desperate efforts to blunt Sherman's progress.  Peachtree Creek was supposed to be an in echelon attack, but it never unfolded that way.  Delays, etc doomed the Rebels at both places, not Hood's desire to charge enemy works.
                              I'll buy "desperate," Mr. Jacobson. Hood was expected to do something and he desparately wanted to prove that he could deliver -- that is not unlike any other commander on either side. But Hood's entire resume was based on his "fight." There is little evidence of maneuver, logistics, training, discipline, loyalty, inspiration. Hood's forte was the fight. It's mostly why he was chosen to replace Johnston -- Davis needed a fighter at that political point. He got a fighter who had few capabilities beyond that particular talent.
                               
                              To be clear, I have no desire to bash Hood -- he was simply the only choice Davis had at that time and place, and that was the fault of Davis and the CS gummint. Hood was an adequate division commander thrust into army command. He was well beyond his level of competence. And we might -- just might -- factor in that he was facing a man who had earned his stars by directing highly competent lieutenants in a somewhat masterful campaign to put Hood where he was: in a quite impossible situation. Damned if he did; damned if he didn't.
                               
                              Just as a sidebar, I will interject that Sherman had the good sense to stop in his ambitious drive to save the nation at the point at which he know someone else was a better director. He pressed his level, and he knew to stop. That doesn't happen very often in real life.
                               
                              But, I ramble. Happy new year, everybody. May this be the year things swing toward your dream.
                              Ken
                               
                               
                            • Ronald black
                              Ken: Good post. It explains why President Davis selected Hood for the job. However, Hood was beyond his level of effectiveness, being a good division
                              Message 14 of 25 , Jan 2, 2007
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Ken:
                                Good post.  It explains why President Davis selected Hood for the job.  However, Hood was beyond his level of effectiveness, being a good division commander but only a fair corps commander.  Events were to occur to answer the question of his ability as a army commander. 
                                 
                                You mention his reputation as a "fighter" that appealed to Davis but did not mention Hood's political moves to get a command, during his period of recovery from the Chickamauga wound.  He befriended Davis in Richmond , rode around Richmond with Davis in a carriage, and went to the Army of Tennessee as a corps commander with Davis's blessings.  He went with the instructions from Davis to communicate with him directly and not through Johnston in a official manner.  It is now known that these reports injuried Joseph Johnston and pumped up Hood in Davis' estimation. It is believed that at least one other top officer had the same instructions to communicate directly with Davis but I forget who for now.  Everything considered, Johnston's days in command were doomed very early in the Atlanta campaign, only the actual date was not known. 
                                Davis, in this manner, established a very poor and dangerous command arrangement in the Army of Tennessee and this directly led to the results achieved.  He undermined Johnston's authority at least by May, 1864.   
                                 
                                Question for everyone?  If Davis had in mind the replacement of Johnston with Hood, why did he not do it earlier with Longstreet being appointed to replace Bragg.  Longstreet would have been the better appointment to command in Georgia when compared with Hood. 
                                 
                                Ron  
                                ----- Original Message -----
                                Sent: Tuesday, January 02, 2007 12:44 AM
                                Subject: Re: [civilwarwest] Re: Peachtree Creek and The Battle of Atlanta

                                In a message dated 1/1/2007 9:17:48 PM Central Standard Time, jacobson@swlink. net writes:
                                Peachtree Creek and the Battle of Atlanta were both desperate efforts to blunt Sherman's progress.  Peachtree Creek was supposed to be an in echelon attack, but it never unfolded that way.  Delays, etc doomed the Rebels at both places, not Hood's desire to charge enemy works.
                                I'll buy "desperate," Mr. Jacobson. Hood was expected to do something and he desparately wanted to prove that he could deliver -- that is not unlike any other commander on either side. But Hood's entire resume was based on his "fight." There is little evidence of maneuver, logistics, training, discipline, loyalty, inspiration. Hood's forte was the fight. It's mostly why he was chosen to replace Johnston -- Davis needed a fighter at that political point. He got a fighter who had few capabilities beyond that particular talent.
                                 
                                To be clear, I have no desire to bash Hood -- he was simply the only choice Davis had at that time and place, and that was the fault of Davis and the CS gummint. Hood was an adequate division commander thrust into army command. He was well beyond his level of competence. And we might -- just might -- factor in that he was facing a man who had earned his stars by directing highly competent lieutenants in a somewhat masterful campaign to put Hood where he was: in a quite impossible situation. Damned if he did; damned if he didn't.
                                 
                                Just as a sidebar, I will interject that Sherman had the good sense to stop in his ambitious drive to save the nation at the point at which he know someone else was a better director. He pressed his level, and he knew to stop. That doesn't happen very often in real life.
                                 
                                But, I ramble. Happy new year, everybody. May this be the year things swing toward your dream.
                                Ken
                                 
                                 


                                No virus found in this incoming message.
                                Checked by AVG Free Edition.
                                Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.16.1/611 - Release Date: 12/31/2006
                              • Eric Jacobson
                                It is well established that both William Hardee and A. P. Stewart were doing largely what Hood was doing. That does not exonerate Hood, but it puts his
                                Message 15 of 25 , Jan 2, 2007
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  It is well established that both William Hardee and A. P. Stewart
                                  were doing largely what Hood was doing. That does not exonerate
                                  Hood, but it puts his behavior in context. Frankly Davis had little
                                  confidence in Johnston and wanted information he felt he could rely
                                  on. In fact both Stewart's and Hardee's letters cover the same basic
                                  ground as Hood's.

                                  I think Longstreet had doomed himself with his performance at
                                  Knoxville. He had his chance at semi-independent command and did not
                                  do well with it. So after Chattanooga, Davis places Hardee in
                                  temporary command of the army. Hardee said he did not want permanent
                                  command and in comes Johnston. Then when Johnston is replaced Davis
                                  does not go back to Hardee because he had already passed on permanent
                                  command once before. None of the other Army of Tennessee commanders
                                  had the experience Hood did at high level command, i.e. corps, and so
                                  Davis picks him. As I wrote in my book, Hood was the "best of a bad
                                  lot."

                                  Eric

                                  --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "Ronald black" <rblack0981@...>
                                  wrote:
                                  >
                                  > Ken:
                                  > Good post. It explains why President Davis selected Hood for the
                                  job. However, Hood was beyond his level of effectiveness, being a
                                  good division commander but only a fair corps commander. Events were
                                  to occur to answer the question of his ability as a army commander.
                                  >
                                  > You mention his reputation as a "fighter" that appealed to Davis
                                  but did not mention Hood's political moves to get a command, during
                                  his period of recovery from the Chickamauga wound. He befriended
                                  Davis in Richmond , rode around Richmond with Davis in a carriage,
                                  and went to the Army of Tennessee as a corps commander with Davis's
                                  blessings. He went with the instructions from Davis to communicate
                                  with him directly and not through Johnston in a official manner. It
                                  is now known that these reports injuried Joseph Johnston and pumped
                                  up Hood in Davis' estimation. It is believed that at least one other
                                  top officer had the same instructions to communicate directly with
                                  Davis but I forget who for now. Everything considered, Johnston's
                                  days in command were doomed very early in the Atlanta campaign, only
                                  the actual date was not known.
                                  > Davis, in this manner, established a very poor and dangerous
                                  command arrangement in the Army of Tennessee and this directly led to
                                  the results achieved. He undermined Johnston's authority at least by
                                  May, 1864.
                                  >
                                  > Question for everyone? If Davis had in mind the replacement of
                                  Johnston with Hood, why did he not do it earlier with Longstreet
                                  being appointed to replace Bragg. Longstreet would have been the
                                  better appointment to command in Georgia when compared with Hood.
                                  >
                                  > Ron
                                  > ----- Original Message -----
                                  > From: keeno2@...
                                  > To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
                                  > Sent: Tuesday, January 02, 2007 12:44 AM
                                  > Subject: Re: [civilwarwest] Re: Peachtree Creek and The Battle of
                                  Atlanta
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > In a message dated 1/1/2007 9:17:48 PM Central Standard Time,
                                  jacobson@... writes:
                                  > Peachtree Creek and the Battle of Atlanta were both desperate
                                  efforts to blunt Sherman's progress. Peachtree Creek was supposed to
                                  be an in echelon attack, but it never unfolded that way. Delays, etc
                                  doomed the Rebels at both places, not Hood's desire to charge enemy
                                  works.
                                  > I'll buy "desperate," Mr. Jacobson. Hood was expected to do
                                  something and he desparately wanted to prove that he could deliver --
                                  that is not unlike any other commander on either side. But Hood's
                                  entire resume was based on his "fight." There is little evidence of
                                  maneuver, logistics, training, discipline, loyalty, inspiration.
                                  Hood's forte was the fight. It's mostly why he was chosen to replace
                                  Johnston -- Davis needed a fighter at that political point. He got a
                                  fighter who had few capabilities beyond that particular talent.
                                  >
                                  > To be clear, I have no desire to bash Hood -- he was simply the
                                  only choice Davis had at that time and place, and that was the fault
                                  of Davis and the CS gummint. Hood was an adequate division commander
                                  thrust into army command. He was well beyond his level of competence.
                                  And we might -- just might -- factor in that he was facing a man who
                                  had earned his stars by directing highly competent lieutenants in a
                                  somewhat masterful campaign to put Hood where he was: in a quite
                                  impossible situation. Damned if he did; damned if he didn't.
                                  >
                                  > Just as a sidebar, I will interject that Sherman had the good
                                  sense to stop in his ambitious drive to save the nation at the point
                                  at which he know someone else was a better director. He pressed his
                                  level, and he knew to stop. That doesn't happen very often in real
                                  life.
                                  >
                                  > But, I ramble. Happy new year, everybody. May this be the year
                                  things swing toward your dream.
                                  > Ken
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > --------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  ----------
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > No virus found in this incoming message.
                                  > Checked by AVG Free Edition.
                                  > Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.16.1/611 - Release Date:
                                  12/31/2006
                                  >
                                  > No virus found in this outgoing message.
                                  > Checked by AVG Free Edition.
                                  > Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.16.2/613 - Release Date:
                                  1/1/2007
                                  >
                                • SDE80@aol.com
                                  In a message dated 1/2/2007 7:19:50 PM Eastern Standard Time, jacobson@swlink.net writes: It is well established that both William Hardee and A. P. Stewart
                                  Message 16 of 25 , Jan 2, 2007
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    In a message dated 1/2/2007 7:19:50 PM Eastern Standard Time, jacobson@... writes:

                                    It is well established that both William Hardee and A. P. Stewart
                                    were doing largely what Hood was doing. That does not exonerate
                                    Hood, but it puts his behavior in context.

                                    I beg to differ.  Stewart's one letter to Bragg at Richmond was dated March 19, 1864.  There was not a single word critical of Johnston in that letter--it asks Bragg to use his influence to see that the Army of Tennessee was reinforced so it could assume the offensive while Sherman was thought to be heading off into the Red River area.  And, Stewart added, if Sherman were not and came back to N. Ga., the AOT would need the reinforcements in any event.   Joe Johnston could not have asked for anything more himself.
                                     
                                    Remember, when the order came to relieve Johnston and place Hood in command, Stewart led an effort to get it suspended.
                                     
                                    Sam Elliott
                                  • Eric Jacobson
                                    Sam, Nice to correspond with you. I think your book about A. P. Stewart is among the best bios out there. I defer to your knowledge about Stewart s letter; I
                                    Message 17 of 25 , Jan 2, 2007
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      Sam,

                                      Nice to correspond with you. I think your book about A. P. Stewart
                                      is among the best bios out there. I defer to your knowledge about
                                      Stewart's letter; I thought there was a June letter as well.
                                      However, I will say that those who demonize Hood use ANY
                                      correspondence he had with Richmond as evidence of dishonesty or
                                      inside maneuvering. But again, Hood was largely doing what Davis had
                                      asked. Some may think him a dupe or worse, but the President had
                                      made the request.

                                      Also, I think Stewart's effort to suspend Johnston's removal was as
                                      much the result of his happening to show up at Old Joe's headquarters
                                      that night as anything else. I think perhaps Hardee and even Hood
                                      might have done the same.

                                      Eric

                                      --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, SDE80@... wrote:
                                      >
                                      > In a message dated 1/2/2007 7:19:50 PM Eastern Standard Time,
                                      > jacobson@... writes:
                                      > It is well established that both William Hardee and A. P. Stewart
                                      > were doing largely what Hood was doing. That does not exonerate
                                      > Hood, but it puts his behavior in context.
                                      > I beg to differ. Stewart's one letter to Bragg at Richmond was
                                      dated March
                                      > 19, 1864. There was not a single word critical of Johnston in that
                                      letter--it
                                      > asks Bragg to use his influence to see that the Army of Tennessee
                                      was
                                      > reinforced so it could assume the offensive while Sherman was
                                      thought to be heading
                                      > off into the Red River area. And, Stewart added, if Sherman were
                                      not and came
                                      > back to N. Ga., the AOT would need the reinforcements in any
                                      event. Joe
                                      > Johnston could not have asked for anything more himself.
                                      >
                                      > Remember, when the order came to relieve Johnston and place Hood in
                                      command,
                                      > Stewart led an effort to get it suspended.
                                      >
                                      > Sam Elliott
                                      >
                                    • SDE80@aol.com
                                      In a message dated 1/2/2007 8:27:48 PM Eastern Standard Time, jacobson@swlink.net writes: Sam, Nice to correspond with you. I think your book about A. P.
                                      Message 18 of 25 , Jan 2, 2007
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        In a message dated 1/2/2007 8:27:48 PM Eastern Standard Time, jacobson@... writes:

                                        Sam,

                                        Nice to correspond with you. I think your book about A. P. Stewart
                                        is among the best bios out there. I defer to your knowledge about
                                        Stewart's letter; I thought there was a June letter as well.
                                        However, I will say that those who demonize Hood use ANY
                                        correspondence he had with Richmond as evidence of dishonesty or
                                        inside maneuvering. But again, Hood was largely doing what Davis had
                                        asked. Some may think him a dupe or worse, but the President had
                                        made the request.

                                        Also, I think Stewart's effort to suspend Johnston's removal was as
                                        much the result of his happening to show up at Old Joe's headquarters
                                        that night as anything else. I think perhaps Hardee and even Hood
                                        might have done the same.

                                        Eric, thanks for your kind words.  I have not come across a June letter.   And Richard McMurry thought Hood's correspondence with Richmond was dishonest, although I am sure Davis was glad to get Hood's letters. 
                                         
                                        I don't really agree with your last statement, from all I have ever seen Stewart was a Johnston supporter, and as the most competent of Hood's division commanders, had perhaps seen that Hood had no business commanding the army.  
                                         
                                        Sam Elliott
                                      • Ronald black
                                        Eric: I second your comment about Sam s book concerning A. P. Stewart, a very good read. Having said that, I must disagree with your comments about Hood,
                                        Message 19 of 25 , Jan 2, 2007
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          Eric:
                                          I second your comment about Sam's book concerning A. P. Stewart, a very good read. 
                                           
                                          Having said that, I must disagree with your comments about Hood, Hardee and Stewart.  I do not understand how Stewart and Hardee could be doing the same thing as Hood.  It just does not add up.  Hood was on a personal basis with Davis and was ambitious.  It is obvious that Hood's letters to Davis were injuring Johnston while no such thing resulted by any correspondence between Davis and Hardee and Stewart.  The character of these three men clarifies the situation. 
                                           
                                          I agree with your second paragraph, mainly concerning Longstreet.  My question was to spark some interest among the members.  However, I must disagree with your statement in the same paragraph, that Hood had more command expericience.  Hood had risen to the level of corps commander, only by commanding a temporary ad-hoc corps at Chickamauga.  There were other officers that had as much expericience as Hood.  As outlined earlier, Hood's promotion was of personal reasons and his reputation as a fighter.  In any event, the time was upon the confederacy and President Davis to breed and create more high level commanders.   
                                           
                                          Ron  
                                          ----- Original Message -----
                                          Sent: Tuesday, January 02, 2007 8:18 PM
                                          Subject: [civilwarwest] Re: Peachtree Creek and The Battle of Atlanta

                                          Sam,

                                          Nice to correspond with you. I think your book about A. P. Stewart
                                          is among the best bios out there. I defer to your knowledge about
                                          Stewart's letter; I thought there was a June letter as well.
                                          However, I will say that those who demonize Hood use ANY
                                          correspondence he had with Richmond as evidence of dishonesty or
                                          inside maneuvering. But again, Hood was largely doing what Davis had
                                          asked. Some may think him a dupe or worse, but the President had
                                          made the request.

                                          Also, I think Stewart's effort to suspend Johnston's removal was as
                                          much the result of his happening to show up at Old Joe's headquarters
                                          that night as anything else. I think perhaps Hardee and even Hood
                                          might have done the same.

                                          Eric

                                          --- In civilwarwest@ yahoogroups. com, SDE80@... wrote:
                                          >
                                          > In a message dated 1/2/2007 7:19:50 PM Eastern Standard Time,
                                          > jacobson@... writes:
                                          > It is well established that both William Hardee and A. P. Stewart
                                          > were doing largely what Hood was doing. That does not exonerate
                                          > Hood, but it puts his behavior in context.
                                          > I beg to differ. Stewart's one letter to Bragg at Richmond was
                                          dated March
                                          > 19, 1864. There was not a single word critical of Johnston in that
                                          letter--it
                                          > asks Bragg to use his influence to see that the Army of Tennessee
                                          was
                                          > reinforced so it could assume the offensive while Sherman was
                                          thought to be heading
                                          > off into the Red River area. And, Stewart added, if Sherman were
                                          not and came
                                          > back to N. Ga., the AOT would need the reinforcements in any
                                          event. Joe
                                          > Johnston could not have asked for anything more himself.
                                          >
                                          > Remember, when the order came to relieve Johnston and place Hood in
                                          command,
                                          > Stewart led an effort to get it suspended.
                                          >
                                          > Sam Elliott
                                          >


                                          No virus found in this incoming message.
                                          Checked by AVG Free Edition.
                                          Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.16.2/613 - Release Date: 1/1/2007
                                        • Eric Jacobson
                                          Sam, Just a question.... Do you believe that Davis should perhaps have chosen Stewart to command the army? If not Stewart or Hood then who? Eric ... had ...
                                          Message 20 of 25 , Jan 2, 2007
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            Sam,

                                            Just a question....

                                            Do you believe that Davis should perhaps have chosen Stewart to
                                            command the army? If not Stewart or Hood then who?

                                            Eric

                                            --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, SDE80@... wrote:
                                            >
                                            > In a message dated 1/2/2007 8:27:48 PM Eastern Standard Time,
                                            > jacobson@... writes:
                                            > Sam,
                                            >
                                            > Nice to correspond with you. I think your book about A. P. Stewart
                                            > is among the best bios out there. I defer to your knowledge about
                                            > Stewart's letter; I thought there was a June letter as well.
                                            > However, I will say that those who demonize Hood use ANY
                                            > correspondence he had with Richmond as evidence of dishonesty or
                                            > inside maneuvering. But again, Hood was largely doing what Davis
                                            had
                                            > asked. Some may think him a dupe or worse, but the President had
                                            > made the request.
                                            >
                                            > Also, I think Stewart's effort to suspend Johnston's removal was as
                                            > much the result of his happening to show up at Old Joe's
                                            headquarters
                                            > that night as anything else. I think perhaps Hardee and even Hood
                                            > might have done the same.
                                            >
                                            > Eric, thanks for your kind words. I have not come across a June
                                            letter.
                                            > And Richard McMurry thought Hood's correspondence with Richmond was
                                            dishonest,
                                            > although I am sure Davis was glad to get Hood's letters.
                                            >
                                            > I don't really agree with your last statement, from all I have ever
                                            seen
                                            > Stewart was a Johnston supporter, and as the most competent of
                                            Hood's division
                                            > commanders, had perhaps seen that Hood had no business commanding
                                            the army.
                                            >
                                            > Sam Elliott
                                            >
                                          • Eric Jacobson
                                            Ron, Agreed that Hood s letters probably did more damage than anyone. But I guess my main point is that Hood was not the only one corresponding directly with
                                            Message 21 of 25 , Jan 2, 2007
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              Ron,

                                              Agreed that Hood's letters probably did more damage than anyone. But
                                              I guess my main point is that Hood was not the only one corresponding
                                              directly with Richmond, that is, without going through Johnston. I
                                              guess perhaps I have seen too many posts or being involved in too
                                              many conversations where Hood is alluded to be the only person who
                                              ever engaged in such activity.

                                              As to Hood's experience I have to maintain my position. In the Army
                                              of Tennessee in mid-1864 there was no one in the army, aside from
                                              Hardee who had already passed up the opportunity, who had Hood's
                                              experience and length of time in corps command at the very minimum.
                                              I think Hood's physical limitations may have precluded him, but Davis
                                              obviously looked beyond that. By mid-1864 A. P. Stewart was about
                                              the only other person with at least corps command experience who
                                              Davis could have turned to. S. D. Lee was new to the scene and
                                              neither Frank Cheatham or Patrick Cleburne had experience beyond
                                              division command. Forrest is a cavalryman, no one way he could be
                                              considered. Maybe Richard Taylor could have been brought in, but he
                                              wasn't. Edmund Kirby Smith.....no. R. E. Lee wasn't coming west and
                                              Longstreet didn't fit the bill. Beauregard definitely wasn't going
                                              to get the nod. So Davis is fed up with Johnston. Who's left?

                                              Eric

                                              --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "Ronald black" <rblack0981@...>
                                              wrote:
                                              >
                                              > Eric:
                                              > I second your comment about Sam's book concerning A. P. Stewart, a
                                              very good read.
                                              >
                                              > Having said that, I must disagree with your comments about Hood,
                                              Hardee and Stewart. I do not understand how Stewart and Hardee could
                                              be doing the same thing as Hood. It just does not add up. Hood was
                                              on a personal basis with Davis and was ambitious. It is obvious that
                                              Hood's letters to Davis were injuring Johnston while no such thing
                                              resulted by any correspondence between Davis and Hardee and Stewart.
                                              The character of these three men clarifies the situation.
                                              >
                                              > I agree with your second paragraph, mainly concerning Longstreet.
                                              My question was to spark some interest among the members. However, I
                                              must disagree with your statement in the same paragraph, that Hood
                                              had more command expericience. Hood had risen to the level of corps
                                              commander, only by commanding a temporary ad-hoc corps at
                                              Chickamauga. There were other officers that had as much expericience
                                              as Hood. As outlined earlier, Hood's promotion was of personal
                                              reasons and his reputation as a fighter. In any event, the time was
                                              upon the confederacy and President Davis to breed and create more
                                              high level commanders.
                                              >
                                              > Ron
                                              > ----- Original Message -----
                                              > From: Eric Jacobson
                                              > To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
                                              > Sent: Tuesday, January 02, 2007 8:18 PM
                                              > Subject: [civilwarwest] Re: Peachtree Creek and The Battle of
                                              Atlanta
                                              >
                                              >
                                              > Sam,
                                              >
                                              > Nice to correspond with you. I think your book about A. P.
                                              Stewart
                                              > is among the best bios out there. I defer to your knowledge about
                                              > Stewart's letter; I thought there was a June letter as well.
                                              > However, I will say that those who demonize Hood use ANY
                                              > correspondence he had with Richmond as evidence of dishonesty or
                                              > inside maneuvering. But again, Hood was largely doing what Davis
                                              had
                                              > asked. Some may think him a dupe or worse, but the President had
                                              > made the request.
                                              >
                                              > Also, I think Stewart's effort to suspend Johnston's removal was
                                              as
                                              > much the result of his happening to show up at Old Joe's
                                              headquarters
                                              > that night as anything else. I think perhaps Hardee and even Hood
                                              > might have done the same.
                                              >
                                              > Eric
                                              >
                                              > --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, SDE80@ wrote:
                                              > >
                                              > > In a message dated 1/2/2007 7:19:50 PM Eastern Standard Time,
                                              > > jacobson@ writes:
                                              > > It is well established that both William Hardee and A. P.
                                              Stewart
                                              > > were doing largely what Hood was doing. That does not exonerate
                                              > > Hood, but it puts his behavior in context.
                                              > > I beg to differ. Stewart's one letter to Bragg at Richmond was
                                              > dated March
                                              > > 19, 1864. There was not a single word critical of Johnston in
                                              that
                                              > letter--it
                                              > > asks Bragg to use his influence to see that the Army of
                                              Tennessee
                                              > was
                                              > > reinforced so it could assume the offensive while Sherman was
                                              > thought to be heading
                                              > > off into the Red River area. And, Stewart added, if Sherman
                                              were
                                              > not and came
                                              > > back to N. Ga., the AOT would need the reinforcements in any
                                              > event. Joe
                                              > > Johnston could not have asked for anything more himself.
                                              > >
                                              > > Remember, when the order came to relieve Johnston and place
                                              Hood in
                                              > command,
                                              > > Stewart led an effort to get it suspended.
                                              > >
                                              > > Sam Elliott
                                              > >
                                              >
                                              >
                                              >
                                              >
                                              >
                                              >
                                              > --------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              ----------
                                              >
                                              >
                                              > No virus found in this incoming message.
                                              > Checked by AVG Free Edition.
                                              > Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.16.2/613 - Release Date:
                                              1/1/2007
                                              >
                                              > No virus found in this outgoing message.
                                              > Checked by AVG Free Edition.
                                              > Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.16.2/613 - Release Date:
                                              1/1/2007
                                              >
                                            • SDE80@aol.com
                                              In a message dated 1/3/2007 12:31:41 AM Eastern Standard Time, jacobson@swlink.net writes: Sam, Just a question.... Do you believe that Davis should perhaps
                                              Message 22 of 25 , Jan 3, 2007
                                              • 0 Attachment
                                                In a message dated 1/3/2007 12:31:41 AM Eastern Standard Time, jacobson@... writes:
                                                Sam,

                                                Just a question....

                                                Do you believe that Davis should perhaps have chosen Stewart to
                                                command the army? If not Stewart or Hood then who?
                                                Hardee, notwithstanding his stepping aside for Joe the previous December. 
                                                 
                                                Stewart just wasn't ready.  He was readier than Hood, but not ready yet.  Remember, even if you count the period in early 1863 that he commanded McCown's Division, he had only been in division command for about 18 months at that point.  If, as Steve Woodworth suggests, he was given a corps command in January or February, 1864, and had commanded a corps during the first two months of the Atlanta campaign, probably so.  
                                                 
                                                Interestingly, Johnston thought the AOT's 7 divisions (before Polk came) should be divided into 3 corps, one of 3 divisions and two of two.   Stewart was given the defense of Mill Creek Gap with his division and that of Bate--effectively commanding a corps during the fighting in Feb. 1864 and in the first few days of the Atlanta campaign.
                                                 
                                                Sam Elliott
                                              • Ronald black
                                                Eric: Please let me eat my words as I find I answered your earlier comment concerning Hood s command expericience as the situation existed (in September, 1863.
                                                Message 23 of 25 , Jan 3, 2007
                                                • 0 Attachment
                                                  Eric:
                                                   
                                                  Please let me eat my words as I find I answered your earlier comment concerning Hood's command expericience as the situation existed (in September, 1863.  I forgot he commanded a corps in summer 1864.  After this revision, I now rank Hood and Stewart as about equal.  I would love to mention his (Hood's) disabilities would effect his role as a army commander, but in justice to him, these have not manifested themselves yet.  Certainly, not like they did later.  So, (begrudingly) Hood and Stewart rank equally, but Hood was still Davis' favorite for reasons already mentioned. 
                                                  When we think of a situation in terms of that time and not with factors or events that came to light later, it greatly clarifies the thinking of those who made the decisions then.    
                                                  If you must eat your words, choose the flavor of ink and paper carefully.
                                                   
                                                  Ron  
                                                  ----- Original Message -----
                                                  Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 12:31 AM
                                                  Subject: [civilwarwest] Re: Peachtree Creek and The Battle of Atlanta

                                                  Ron,

                                                  Agreed that Hood's letters probably did more damage than anyone. But
                                                  I guess my main point is that Hood was not the only one corresponding
                                                  directly with Richmond, that is, without going through Johnston. I
                                                  guess perhaps I have seen too many posts or being involved in too
                                                  many conversations where Hood is alluded to be the only person who
                                                  ever engaged in such activity.

                                                  As to Hood's experience I have to maintain my position. In the Army
                                                  of Tennessee in mid-1864 there was no one in the army, aside from
                                                  Hardee who had already passed up the opportunity, who had Hood's
                                                  experience and length of time in corps command at the very minimum.
                                                  I think Hood's physical limitations may have precluded him, but Davis
                                                  obviously looked beyond that. By mid-1864 A. P. Stewart was about
                                                  the only other person with at least corps command experience who
                                                  Davis could have turned to. S. D. Lee was new to the scene and
                                                  neither Frank Cheatham or Patrick Cleburne had experience beyond
                                                  division command. Forrest is a cavalryman, no one way he could be
                                                  considered. Maybe Richard Taylor could have been brought in, but he
                                                  wasn't. Edmund Kirby Smith.....no. R. E. Lee wasn't coming west and
                                                  Longstreet didn't fit the bill. Beauregard definitely wasn't going
                                                  to get the nod. So Davis is fed up with Johnston. Who's left?

                                                  Eric

                                                  --- In civilwarwest@ yahoogroups. com, "Ronald black" <rblack0981@ ...>
                                                  wrote:
                                                  >
                                                  > Eric:
                                                  > I second your comment about Sam's book concerning A. P. Stewart, a
                                                  very good read.
                                                  >
                                                  > Having said that, I must disagree with your comments about Hood,
                                                  Hardee and Stewart. I do not understand how Stewart and Hardee could
                                                  be doing the same thing as Hood. It just does not add up. Hood was
                                                  on a personal basis with Davis and was ambitious. It is obvious that
                                                  Hood's letters to Davis were injuring Johnston while no such thing
                                                  resulted by any correspondence between Davis and Hardee and Stewart.
                                                  The character of these three men clarifies the situation.
                                                  >
                                                  > I agree with your second paragraph, mainly concerning Longstreet.
                                                  My question was to spark some interest among the members. However, I
                                                  must disagree with your statement in the same paragraph, that Hood
                                                  had more command expericience. Hood had risen to the level of corps
                                                  commander, only by commanding a temporary ad-hoc corps at
                                                  Chickamauga. There were other officers that had as much expericience
                                                  as Hood. As outlined earlier, Hood's promotion was of personal
                                                  reasons and his reputation as a fighter. In any event, the time was
                                                  upon the confederacy and President Davis to breed and create more
                                                  high level commanders.
                                                  >
                                                  > Ron
                                                  > ----- Original Message -----
                                                  > From: Eric Jacobson
                                                  > To: civilwarwest@ yahoogroups. com
                                                  > Sent: Tuesday, January 02, 2007 8:18 PM
                                                  > Subject: [civilwarwest] Re: Peachtree Creek and The Battle of
                                                  Atlanta
                                                  >
                                                  >
                                                  > Sam,
                                                  >
                                                  > Nice to correspond with you. I think your book about A. P.
                                                  Stewart
                                                  > is among the best bios out there. I defer to your knowledge about
                                                  > Stewart's letter; I thought there was a June letter as well.
                                                  > However, I will say that those who demonize Hood use ANY
                                                  > correspondence he had with Richmond as evidence of dishonesty or
                                                  > inside maneuvering. But again, Hood was largely doing what Davis
                                                  had
                                                  > asked. Some may think him a dupe or worse, but the President had
                                                  > made the request.
                                                  >
                                                  > Also, I think Stewart's effort to suspend Johnston's removal was
                                                  as
                                                  > much the result of his happening to show up at Old Joe's
                                                  headquarters
                                                  > that night as anything else. I think perhaps Hardee and even Hood
                                                  > might have done the same.
                                                  >
                                                  > Eric
                                                  >
                                                  > --- In civilwarwest@ yahoogroups. com, SDE80@ wrote:
                                                  > >
                                                  > > In a message dated 1/2/2007 7:19:50 PM Eastern Standard Time,
                                                  > > jacobson@ writes:
                                                  > > It is well established that both William Hardee and A. P.
                                                  Stewart
                                                  > > were doing largely what Hood was doing. That does not exonerate
                                                  > > Hood, but it puts his behavior in context.
                                                  > > I beg to differ. Stewart's one letter to Bragg at Richmond was
                                                  > dated March
                                                  > > 19, 1864. There was not a single word critical of Johnston in
                                                  that
                                                  > letter--it
                                                  > > asks Bragg to use his influence to see that the Army of
                                                  Tennessee
                                                  > was
                                                  > > reinforced so it could assume the offensive while Sherman was
                                                  > thought to be heading
                                                  > > off into the Red River area. And, Stewart added, if Sherman
                                                  were
                                                  > not and came
                                                  > > back to N. Ga., the AOT would need the reinforcements in any
                                                  > event. Joe
                                                  > > Johnston could not have asked for anything more himself.
                                                  > >
                                                  > > Remember, when the order came to relieve Johnston and place
                                                  Hood in
                                                  > command,
                                                  > > Stewart led an effort to get it suspended.
                                                  > >
                                                  > > Sam Elliott
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                  >
                                                  >
                                                  >
                                                  >
                                                  >
                                                  > ------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- -
                                                  ----------
                                                  >
                                                  >
                                                  > No virus found in this incoming message.
                                                  > Checked by AVG Free Edition.
                                                  > Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.16.2/613 - Release Date:
                                                  1/1/2007
                                                  >
                                                  > No virus found in this outgoing message.
                                                  > Checked by AVG Free Edition.
                                                  > Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.16.2/613 - Release Date:
                                                  1/1/2007
                                                  >


                                                  No virus found in this incoming message.
                                                  Checked by AVG Free Edition.
                                                  Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.16.3/614 - Release Date: 1/2/2007
                                                • gnrljejohnston
                                                  ... concerning Hood s command expericience as the situation existed (in September, 1863. I forgot he commanded a corps in summer 1864. After this revision, I
                                                  Message 24 of 25 , Jan 4, 2007
                                                  • 0 Attachment
                                                    --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "Ronald black" <rblack0981@...>
                                                    wrote:
                                                    >
                                                    > Eric:
                                                    >
                                                    > Please let me eat my words as I find I answered your earlier comment
                                                    concerning Hood's command expericience as the situation existed (in
                                                    September, 1863. I forgot he commanded a corps in summer 1864. After
                                                    this revision, I now rank Hood and Stewart as about equal.

                                                    And I would rank Stewart above Hood. Not just basing this on corps
                                                    experience, but overall experience. One has to remember also, that
                                                    Hood would have flunked out West Point if it hadn't been that his room
                                                    mate tutored him in a couple of subjects including mathematics. That
                                                    room mate was Jamie McPherson. He was not that high in his graduating
                                                    class whereas (correct me on this Sam) Stewart was close to the top or
                                                    at least in the top ten percent of his class. He was a highly
                                                    intellectual individual. Stewart was always highly respected by his
                                                    troops despite the nickname of Old Straight that they gave him. Hood
                                                    was respected by his Texas Brigade for his heroism, but that is
                                                    basically all. He lamblasted Johnston for not attacking, but yet, he
                                                    let one regiment of mounted infantry scare him into not attacking.
                                                    Then also, his attacking without intel or without Johnston's approval
                                                    at Kolb's farm is totally inexcusable. In addendum, as a career
                                                    military officer, he knew quite well that to maintain order, the chain
                                                    of command must never be broken. He violated that without any remorse.


                                                    JEJ
                                                    >
                                                  • Eric Jacobson
                                                    Stewart graduated 12th out of, I believe, 56. Honestly, no matter matter what you may think of Hood (and with all deference to Sam Elliott) I don t see how in
                                                    Message 25 of 25 , Jan 4, 2007
                                                    • 0 Attachment
                                                      Stewart graduated 12th out of, I believe, 56. Honestly, no matter
                                                      matter what you may think of Hood (and with all deference to Sam
                                                      Elliott) I don't see how in any way Stewart's experience (brigade,
                                                      division, and corps) in any way supercedes Hood's. Look at Hood's
                                                      track record with Lee and one can make an argument that he may have
                                                      been among the best division commanders the Army of Northern Virginia
                                                      ever had. That is no knock on Stewart, but one has to honestly say
                                                      they were very equal soldiers heading into the spring of 1864. Hood,
                                                      of course, by that stage has serious physical limitations.

                                                      The whole West Point thing, in my opinion, is often way overblown in
                                                      regards to a number of Civil War generals. Consider Hood and the
                                                      issue of demerits. Forever I heard different people state Hood, who
                                                      had 196 demerits in his senior year, was nearly expelled which is
                                                      true. But those same people conveniently neglect to mention that
                                                      John Schofield, his opponent at Franklin, had the EXACT same number
                                                      of demerits. So what does the number prove? Maybe nothing other
                                                      than one liked to drink and smoke and play cards and the other had
                                                      long hair, was tardy, and talked back. No doubt Stewart was an
                                                      intellectual, but that does not in any way indicate that Hood was a
                                                      dolt.

                                                      Also, you may want to study Cassville a bit deeper. Johnston's
                                                      accustaions against Hood are slanted and there is ample evidence that
                                                      Hood was justified in his actions. It is incredible how Hood is
                                                      regularly pinned as the guy who did nothing but attack when he
                                                      doesn't think an attack is wise (Cassville and Gettysburg) he gets
                                                      flack for that, too. No doubt, however, that his decision making at
                                                      Kolb's Farm was not at all good. Hood blundered plain and simple
                                                      there.

                                                      Eric


                                                      --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "gnrljejohnston"
                                                      <GnrlJEJohnston@...> wrote:
                                                      >
                                                      > --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "Ronald black" <rblack0981@>
                                                      > wrote:
                                                      > >
                                                      > > Eric:
                                                      > >
                                                      > > Please let me eat my words as I find I answered your earlier
                                                      comment
                                                      > concerning Hood's command expericience as the situation existed (in
                                                      > September, 1863. I forgot he commanded a corps in summer 1864.
                                                      After
                                                      > this revision, I now rank Hood and Stewart as about equal.
                                                      >
                                                      > And I would rank Stewart above Hood. Not just basing this on corps
                                                      > experience, but overall experience. One has to remember also, that
                                                      > Hood would have flunked out West Point if it hadn't been that his
                                                      room
                                                      > mate tutored him in a couple of subjects including mathematics.
                                                      That
                                                      > room mate was Jamie McPherson. He was not that high in his
                                                      graduating
                                                      > class whereas (correct me on this Sam) Stewart was close to the top
                                                      or
                                                      > at least in the top ten percent of his class. He was a highly
                                                      > intellectual individual. Stewart was always highly respected by
                                                      his
                                                      > troops despite the nickname of Old Straight that they gave him.
                                                      Hood
                                                      > was respected by his Texas Brigade for his heroism, but that is
                                                      > basically all. He lamblasted Johnston for not attacking, but yet,
                                                      he
                                                      > let one regiment of mounted infantry scare him into not attacking.
                                                      > Then also, his attacking without intel or without Johnston's
                                                      approval
                                                      > at Kolb's farm is totally inexcusable. In addendum, as a career
                                                      > military officer, he knew quite well that to maintain order, the
                                                      chain
                                                      > of command must never be broken. He violated that without any
                                                      remorse.
                                                      >
                                                      >
                                                      > JEJ
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.