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

Re: Peachtree Creek and The Battle of Atlanta

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