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

Re: Peachtree Creek and The Battle of Atlanta

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 25 , Jan 1, 2007
      --- 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 2 of 25 , Jan 1, 2007
        --- 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 3 of 25 , Jan 1, 2007
          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 4 of 25 , Jan 2, 2007
            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 5 of 25 , Jan 2, 2007
              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 6 of 25 , Jan 2, 2007
                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 7 of 25 , Jan 2, 2007
                  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 8 of 25 , Jan 2, 2007
                    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 9 of 25 , Jan 2, 2007
                      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 10 of 25 , Jan 2, 2007
                        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 11 of 25 , Jan 2, 2007
                          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 12 of 25 , Jan 3, 2007
                            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 13 of 25 , Jan 3, 2007
                              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 14 of 25 , Jan 4, 2007
                                --- 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 15 of 25 , Jan 4, 2007
                                  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.