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

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

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