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

Re: Peachtree Creek and The Battle of Atlanta

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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 11 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 12 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 13 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 14 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.