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

Re: [civilwarwest] Re: Peachtree Creek and The Battle of Atlanta

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