Civil War History - The South & Western TheatersCheck this forum for all South and Western Theater Questions. Included are the Western, Pacific, Trans-Mississippi, & Lower Seaboard and Gulf Approach Theaters.
I have to jump in here. There is no evidence that Hood used drugs to ease any supposed pain, but I have to admit your rather direct assertion that Hood drank heavily is new to me. I challenge you to provide any source to such a claim.
This continues to be an ongoing problem with any reasonable assessment of Hood's generalship. Frankly, there isn't any reasonable evidence that Hood suffered any sort of serious long term pain. Jack Welsh, a respected M.D. who wrote two books about medical histories of Civil War generals, said in his opinion Hood's pain problem, if he had a genuine one, was his left arm, not his leg. Welsh also added, rather assertively, that doesn't mean he was taking any significant medication. Pain thresholds were a lot different for 19th century folks than many of us today. I know people who pop pills every time they have the sniffles today.
Just because someone in the 19th century had a pain issue does not mean they escaped into the bottle or take drugs. None of Hood's contemporaries ever suggested that he was doing anything close to what some in the 20th and early 21st century have accused him of.
I spent 10 years researching and writing a non-fiction study of the battles at Spring Hill and Franklin so I feel as if I know what I am talking about. Never found a single shred of evidence that Hood abused any chemical or drink.
Also, it was not possible for Davis to have appointed either Cleburne or Forrest to army command. Forrest, no matter how great, had never commanded genuine infantry and had no real large unit experience. Cleburne had never commanded a corps, so it was not possible to leapfrog him to army command. His being Irish and proposal to arm slaves also didn't help Cleburne's cause.
Other posters have noted that the Reason, Johnston was replaced was precisely, because Davis could not get an assurance from Johnston, that Atlanta, Would, In Fact, be defended.
I have to jump in here. There is no evidence that Hood used drugs to ease any supposed pain, but I have to admit your rather direct assertion that Hood drank heavily is new to me. I challenge you to provide any source to such a claim.
This continues to be an ongoing problem with any reasonable assessment of Hood's generalship. Frankly, there isn't any reasonable evidence that Hood suffered any sort of serious long term pain. Jack Welsh, a respected M.D. who wrote two books about medical histories of Civil War generals, said in his opinion Hood's pain problem, if he had a genuine one, was his left arm, not his leg. Welsh also added, rather assertively, that doesn't mean he was taking any significant medication. Pain thresholds were a lot different for 19th century folks than many of us today. I know people who pop pills every time they have the sniffles today.
Just because someone in the 19th century had a pain issue does not mean they escaped into the bottle or take drugs. None of Hood's contemporaries ever suggested that he was doing anything close to what some in the 20th and early 21st century have accused him of.
I spent 10 years researching and writing a non-fiction study of the battles at Spring Hill and Franklin so I feel as if I know what I am talking about. Never found a single shred of evidence that Hood abused any chemical or drink.
Also, it was not possible for Davis to have appointed either Cleburne or Forrest to army command. Forrest, no matter how great, had never commanded genuine infantry and had no real large unit experience. Cleburne had never commanded a corps, so it was not possible to leapfrog him to army command. His being Irish and proposal to arm slaves also didn't help Cleburne's cause.
I can't agree more. Hood hopped up on Laudnum has been claimed several times but I have never found concrete evidence of such. Hood was a brave and audacious general and by all accounts an excellent Brigade & Division Commander but I believe he was out of his league in command of anything larger than that. THat said his actions, IMHO, after the fall of Atlanta and prior to his strike north into TN were nothing short of inspired. While he received a bad bloody nose at Allatoona he tied up a much larger opponent and if forced to fight a major engagement it would likely have been on ground of his own choosing.
Hood is one of those fellows that the more I learn about him the intrigued by him that I become. He was outgeneraled by those darned westerners... the AoT (US) & AoC were not the AoP; a whole different breed.
__________________ Few take the trouble to understand or to view the American scene with perspective. And we Americans love to find ourselves guilty of something. However, it is never I who am guilty, but those other Americans, the past or present government or the other political party. Americans almost never find other countries guilty. It is always ourselves or our fancied influence in other countries. Louis L'amour
Thanks for the last comment. In my opinion there is no doubt the Western Federal armies were tough and dedicated combat soldiers. The Confederate Army of Tennessee was beset with command problems, but its opponent was no cakewalk....ever.
As for Hood, he is definitely intriguing. In over his head as far as army command is concerned, but Davis chose him and stuck with him after Atlanta. As I wrote in my book For Cause & For Country, Hood was the "best of a bad lot" after Atlanta. Lee was not coming west, Johnston and Beauregard were not options in Davis' mind, Cleburne, Cheatham, and Forrest did not have the experience, and Richard Taylor (the one realistic option) was not considered for some reason. So Davis is left with Hood. Unfortunately, as in common in warfare, generals and soldiers who are largely beaten don't usually understand that fact until they are all nearly destroyed. The Army of Tennessee was a splinter of itself when the war ended, but frankly so was Lee's Army of Northern Virginia.
So Davis is left with Hood. Unfortunately, as in common in warfare, generals and soldiers who are largely beaten don't usually understand that fact until they are all nearly destroyed.
Also unfortunately, those who toss in the towel short of mortuarial interest are usually scorned. Pemberton and Buckner come to mind.
I take Grant's side in his impatience and frustration with Thomas' deliberate "action" at Nashville so, to be consistent, I must also take Davis' side in his replacement of Johnston with Hood. We know Grant was understandably wrong. We're still talking about Davis.
Ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
I'm not if you are asking in jest, but my answer is no. Plenty of other monuments are far more deserving, like ones to Pat Cleburne or Jacob Cox to name just a couple. Or even better, one to the rank and file of both sides.
Question: Should Hood be commemorated with a monument in Franklin?
That is a question best decided by the people who'll have the choice. Personally (and I'll say it again, I have no dog in the fight), I'd say Hood acquired no honors at Franklin. I liked Eric's idea of a non-partisan monument honoring the private soldier on both sides .... neither Union nor Confederate, just the valor of the grunts involved.
Ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
We'll dedicate a plaque to the men of Tennessee who were at Franklin at our annual march November 26 this year. We have also discussed a larger project commemmorating at least the regiments that fought in the battle. My suggestion to include the federal regiments met with very low support, though I suspect my Union ancestors were just as proud and scared as our Southern soldiers. General Hood's likeness is on the interpretive signage for the Franklin Winstead City Park portion of the hill. He still doesn't get many votes here locally, though I firmly believe he was a central part of the story.
I guess if you don't make enough baskets, you miss the NBA hall.
I take Grant's side in his impatience and frustration with Thomas' deliberate "action" at Nashville so, to be consistent, I must also take Davis' side in his replacement of Johnston with Hood. We know Grant was understandably wrong. We're still talking about Davis.
Ole
I'm confused! Above you say "you take Grant's side" Then you say "We know Grant was understandably wrong." Are there two arguements here?
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
