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 1/3/2007 12:31:41 AM Eastern Standard Time, jacobson@swlink.net writes: Sam, Just a question.... Do you believe that Davis should perhaps
    Message 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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.