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

Re: Peachtree Creek and The Battle of Atlanta

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 25 , Jan 2, 2007
      It is well established that both William Hardee and A. P. Stewart
      were doing largely what Hood was doing. That does not exonerate
      Hood, but it puts his behavior in context. Frankly Davis had little
      confidence in Johnston and wanted information he felt he could rely
      on. In fact both Stewart's and Hardee's letters cover the same basic
      ground as Hood's.

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

      Eric

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

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

        I beg to differ.  Stewart's one letter to Bragg at Richmond was dated March 19, 1864.  There was not a single word critical of Johnston in that letter--it asks Bragg to use his influence to see that the Army of Tennessee was reinforced so it could assume the offensive while Sherman was thought to be heading off into the Red River area.  And, Stewart added, if Sherman were not and came back to N. Ga., the AOT would need the reinforcements in any event.   Joe Johnston could not have asked for anything more himself.
         
        Remember, when the order came to relieve Johnston and place Hood in command, Stewart led an effort to get it suspended.
         
        Sam Elliott
      • Eric Jacobson
        Sam, Nice to correspond with you. I think your book about A. P. Stewart is among the best bios out there. I defer to your knowledge about Stewart s letter; I
        Message 3 of 25 , Jan 2, 2007
          Sam,

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

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

          Eric

          --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, SDE80@... wrote:
          >
          > In a message dated 1/2/2007 7:19:50 PM Eastern Standard Time,
          > jacobson@... writes:
          > It is well established that both William Hardee and A. P. Stewart
          > were doing largely what Hood was doing. That does not exonerate
          > Hood, but it puts his behavior in context.
          > I beg to differ. Stewart's one letter to Bragg at Richmond was
          dated March
          > 19, 1864. There was not a single word critical of Johnston in that
          letter--it
          > asks Bragg to use his influence to see that the Army of Tennessee
          was
          > reinforced so it could assume the offensive while Sherman was
          thought to be heading
          > off into the Red River area. And, Stewart added, if Sherman were
          not and came
          > back to N. Ga., the AOT would need the reinforcements in any
          event. Joe
          > Johnston could not have asked for anything more himself.
          >
          > Remember, when the order came to relieve Johnston and place Hood in
          command,
          > Stewart led an effort to get it suspended.
          >
          > Sam Elliott
          >
        • SDE80@aol.com
          In a message dated 1/2/2007 8:27:48 PM Eastern Standard Time, jacobson@swlink.net writes: Sam, Nice to correspond with you. I think your book about A. P.
          Message 4 of 25 , Jan 2, 2007
            In a message dated 1/2/2007 8:27:48 PM Eastern Standard Time, jacobson@... writes:

            Sam,

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

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

            Eric, thanks for your kind words.  I have not come across a June letter.   And Richard McMurry thought Hood's correspondence with Richmond was dishonest, although I am sure Davis was glad to get Hood's letters. 
             
            I don't really agree with your last statement, from all I have ever seen Stewart was a Johnston supporter, and as the most competent of Hood's division commanders, had perhaps seen that Hood had no business commanding the army.  
             
            Sam Elliott
          • Ronald black
            Eric: I second your comment about Sam s book concerning A. P. Stewart, a very good read. Having said that, I must disagree with your comments about Hood,
            Message 5 of 25 , Jan 2, 2007
              Eric:
              I second your comment about Sam's book concerning A. P. Stewart, a very good read. 
               
              Having said that, I must disagree with your comments about Hood, Hardee and Stewart.  I do not understand how Stewart and Hardee could be doing the same thing as Hood.  It just does not add up.  Hood was on a personal basis with Davis and was ambitious.  It is obvious that Hood's letters to Davis were injuring Johnston while no such thing resulted by any correspondence between Davis and Hardee and Stewart.  The character of these three men clarifies the situation. 
               
              I agree with your second paragraph, mainly concerning Longstreet.  My question was to spark some interest among the members.  However, I must disagree with your statement in the same paragraph, that Hood had more command expericience.  Hood had risen to the level of corps commander, only by commanding a temporary ad-hoc corps at Chickamauga.  There were other officers that had as much expericience as Hood.  As outlined earlier, Hood's promotion was of personal reasons and his reputation as a fighter.  In any event, the time was upon the confederacy and President Davis to breed and create more high level commanders.   
               
              Ron  
              ----- Original Message -----
              Sent: Tuesday, January 02, 2007 8:18 PM
              Subject: [civilwarwest] Re: Peachtree Creek and The Battle of Atlanta

              Sam,

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

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

              Eric

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


              No virus found in this incoming message.
              Checked by AVG Free Edition.
              Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.16.2/613 - Release Date: 1/1/2007
            • Eric Jacobson
              Sam, Just a question.... Do you believe that Davis should perhaps have chosen Stewart to command the army? If not Stewart or Hood then who? Eric ... had ...
              Message 6 of 25 , Jan 2, 2007
                Sam,

                Just a question....

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

                Eric

                --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, SDE80@... wrote:
                >
                > In a message dated 1/2/2007 8:27:48 PM Eastern Standard Time,
                > jacobson@... writes:
                > Sam,
                >
                > Nice to correspond with you. I think your book about A. P. Stewart
                > is among the best bios out there. I defer to your knowledge about
                > Stewart's letter; I thought there was a June letter as well.
                > However, I will say that those who demonize Hood use ANY
                > correspondence he had with Richmond as evidence of dishonesty or
                > inside maneuvering. But again, Hood was largely doing what Davis
                had
                > asked. Some may think him a dupe or worse, but the President had
                > made the request.
                >
                > Also, I think Stewart's effort to suspend Johnston's removal was as
                > much the result of his happening to show up at Old Joe's
                headquarters
                > that night as anything else. I think perhaps Hardee and even Hood
                > might have done the same.
                >
                > Eric, thanks for your kind words. I have not come across a June
                letter.
                > And Richard McMurry thought Hood's correspondence with Richmond was
                dishonest,
                > although I am sure Davis was glad to get Hood's letters.
                >
                > I don't really agree with your last statement, from all I have ever
                seen
                > Stewart was a Johnston supporter, and as the most competent of
                Hood's division
                > commanders, had perhaps seen that Hood had no business commanding
                the army.
                >
                > Sam Elliott
                >
              • Eric Jacobson
                Ron, Agreed that Hood s letters probably did more damage than anyone. But I guess my main point is that Hood was not the only one corresponding directly with
                Message 7 of 25 , Jan 2, 2007
                  Ron,

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

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

                  Eric

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

                    Just a question....

                    Do you believe that Davis should perhaps have chosen Stewart to
                    command the army? If not Stewart or Hood then who?
                    Hardee, notwithstanding his stepping aside for Joe the previous December. 
                     
                    Stewart just wasn't ready.  He was readier than Hood, but not ready yet.  Remember, even if you count the period in early 1863 that he commanded McCown's Division, he had only been in division command for about 18 months at that point.  If, as Steve Woodworth suggests, he was given a corps command in January or February, 1864, and had commanded a corps during the first two months of the Atlanta campaign, probably so.  
                     
                    Interestingly, Johnston thought the AOT's 7 divisions (before Polk came) should be divided into 3 corps, one of 3 divisions and two of two.   Stewart was given the defense of Mill Creek Gap with his division and that of Bate--effectively commanding a corps during the fighting in Feb. 1864 and in the first few days of the Atlanta campaign.
                     
                    Sam Elliott
                  • Ronald black
                    Eric: Please let me eat my words as I find I answered your earlier comment concerning Hood s command expericience as the situation existed (in September, 1863.
                    Message 9 of 25 , Jan 3, 2007
                      Eric:
                       
                      Please let me eat my words as I find I answered your earlier comment concerning Hood's command expericience as the situation existed (in September, 1863.  I forgot he commanded a corps in summer 1864.  After this revision, I now rank Hood and Stewart as about equal.  I would love to mention his (Hood's) disabilities would effect his role as a army commander, but in justice to him, these have not manifested themselves yet.  Certainly, not like they did later.  So, (begrudingly) Hood and Stewart rank equally, but Hood was still Davis' favorite for reasons already mentioned. 
                      When we think of a situation in terms of that time and not with factors or events that came to light later, it greatly clarifies the thinking of those who made the decisions then.    
                      If you must eat your words, choose the flavor of ink and paper carefully.
                       
                      Ron  
                      ----- Original Message -----
                      Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 12:31 AM
                      Subject: [civilwarwest] Re: Peachtree Creek and The Battle of Atlanta

                      Ron,

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

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

                      Eric

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


                      No virus found in this incoming message.
                      Checked by AVG Free Edition.
                      Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.16.3/614 - Release Date: 1/2/2007
                    • gnrljejohnston
                      ... concerning Hood s command expericience as the situation existed (in September, 1863. I forgot he commanded a corps in summer 1864. After this revision, I
                      Message 10 of 25 , Jan 4, 2007
                        --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "Ronald black" <rblack0981@...>
                        wrote:
                        >
                        > Eric:
                        >
                        > Please let me eat my words as I find I answered your earlier comment
                        concerning Hood's command expericience as the situation existed (in
                        September, 1863. I forgot he commanded a corps in summer 1864. After
                        this revision, I now rank Hood and Stewart as about equal.

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


                        JEJ
                        >
                      • Eric Jacobson
                        Stewart graduated 12th out of, I believe, 56. Honestly, no matter matter what you may think of Hood (and with all deference to Sam Elliott) I don t see how in
                        Message 11 of 25 , Jan 4, 2007
                          Stewart graduated 12th out of, I believe, 56. Honestly, no matter
                          matter what you may think of Hood (and with all deference to Sam
                          Elliott) I don't see how in any way Stewart's experience (brigade,
                          division, and corps) in any way supercedes Hood's. Look at Hood's
                          track record with Lee and one can make an argument that he may have
                          been among the best division commanders the Army of Northern Virginia
                          ever had. That is no knock on Stewart, but one has to honestly say
                          they were very equal soldiers heading into the spring of 1864. Hood,
                          of course, by that stage has serious physical limitations.

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

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

                          Eric


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