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.
The fact that Johnston withstood the Northern hoards for a month more than Hood did, and turned over a well fed, well armed, fighting army of about 50,000 to Hood, who destroyed it in five or six months suggests that Johnston’s strategy was correct. After all, when Hood crossed the Tennessee after Nashville, the war was over in four months.
Don,
Johnston had more than 100 miles or so of strategic space to retreat into as he faced Sherman. This allows him the luxury of trading space for time as he looks for opportunity. Johnston did this throughout the 75 days or so he faced Sherman in the campaign.
When Hood takes over, Sherman is less than 10 miles from Atlanta, so he does not have that option. If he maintained the same overall rate of retreat, Atlanta would be lost in another week. Comparing the two situations and concluding Hood had the same options in July that Johnston did in May is simply not possible.
Whichever one commanded in late July, the steady fallback was no longer possible. Confederates now had to either hold in place or maneuver to counterattack. Hood did try to counterattack. It appears he did so unskillfully, and was badly battered as a result. Johnston might have done better, but his options would have been the same.
BTW, one reason for the spectacular failure was that Hood was no longer a Corps commander and S. D. Lee arrived to command one Corps. Lee's performance in battle around Atlanta was very poor, leading to excessive casualties as he committed forces in dribbles to hopeless attacks. If you assume Johnston remains in command, Hood remains at Corps and S. D. Lee remains in Mississippi. Odds are the Corps performs better with Hood in command.
As to what Johnston turned over to Hood, sources vary. It appears Johnston had about 70-75,000 at his peak in mid-May and about 61-62,000 on or about June 10. Johnston himself claimed his losses had been only 10,000 plus a bit. OTOH, Hood asserted that losses before he took over had been about 22,500 (much larger than Johnston had asserted in his report). In order to get from his peak figure down to 50,000, Johnston's force had to lose 20-25,000 men in 2-plus months. That loss would not be notably different, as a raw number, from Hood's loss in five months of operations.
If Johnston had remained in command, I am fairly certain he would have done better than Hood. I think Johnston was a better commander than Hood. I think the Davis/Hood/Beauregard concept that led the AoT into Tennessee is a foolish one, that Beauregard was set-up by Davis/Hood anyway, and that Johnson would never have taken the AoT off there, probably hanging on Sherman's heels. I am not so sure that Atlanta would have been held in any case.
Indeed Johnston would not have followed the Hood/Davis/Beauregard concept (he never had) because he would have Sherman's Army behind him, he would have to retreat towards the North.
It is notable, that fighting aggressively, the AoT was in Tn, while fighting defensively, the war was brought to Ga. More specifically, to Atlanta, the 2d largest industrial center in the Confederacy, not to mention the rich farmlands of Northern Ga.
Hood/Davis/Beauregard were not fighting for tactical points, but to turn the war around in the West. Quickly. Something that Johnston's strategy had shown no signs of delivering, particularly, in the next few vital months.
Both Johnston and Hood failed, Hood failed trying to win a victory over the rival army, When it was needed, now; not some vague future time IF the stars were aligned right and When dame fortune would smile brightly on southern fortunes, Perhaps.
You gotta stand back and look at the overall picture. Assume for a moment that Lee had prevailed at Gettysburg and Hood at Franklin and Nashville. The next stops were seen as Louisville and Washington. Better that didn't happen. A little Divine guidance must have been in the mix. Three years of civil war was a plenty.
Better that didn't happen. A little Divine guidance must have been in the mix. Three years of civil war was a plenty.
That observation falls directly into what unionblue mentioned a while ago. There were many instances during that war when something fortuitous happened that looks to have been an example of providence. One I've always wondered about was Grant. What kind of coincidence was it that this obscure, single-talent man happened to be found and placed where his single-talent was needed?
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
Ole, any Christian has got to believe that a superior power had a hand in the observation or at least the staging of this horrible event. There must have been a purpose, if just to free those enslaved by their place in society, as many yanks have suggested. Could have been to reduce the population, develop new medicines or just advance the science of armament. Much good came from the civil war, but at a hefty price. Many of us owe our existence on this earth to the pent up desires released by many a soldier returning to his wife or girl at war's end. Maybe America just needed this time to grow.
My own ancestor, badly wounded at age 20 in Atlanta by an exploding shell needed some help getting on with his life and surviving to make his way home. On December 6, 1864 he looked around from his wagon in Triune, Tennessee and there was Nathan Bedford Forrest with a smile and helping hand. Divine providence? I'm sure great great grandpa Parker had enough fight left in him to do his share of the fighting of the rear guard for the Army of Tennessee. I'm here to tell the story 142 years later, along with a bunch of cousins.
Larry:
I'm not the guy to look to for opinions on divine guidance. But I will be the last one to say that there wasn't another hand involved. Some rather telling things clicked for which there is no other explanation. (Wasn't it Lincoln who said something like he wasn't so much concerned about God being on his side as he was about being on God's side?)
At least your wounded ancestor was not damaged in an important part of his anatomy. Do you recall the old, old joke about the fife teacher?
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
Most of the jokes I remember are best forgotten, though after a couple of beers they get funnier. Fife must be a yankee invention, for alas, I've never heard that one.
As I read the replies and posts, I keep thinking about Grant's comments about Davis and his unsound military judgement and about Lee's comment that Hood was a bold fighter but as to other qualities needed, he had his doubts. Hood was a bold fighter, a very bold fighter, but he also had suffered severe wounds at Gettysburg and at Chickamauga. He had to be strapped into his saddle every day and he drank heavily to relieve the pain that he continually lived with. I wonder if he was physically able to command an army, at least as well as he could have before being wounded so badly. I think Davis's best bet was to stick with Johnston and hope to stall the fall of Atlanta until after the 64 elections. Lincoln was dreadfully worried that he wouldn't be reelected and a new president might not have,probably wouldn't have, prosecuted the war so vigorously. As for two men who might have saved Atlanta and been a better choice than Hood, Forrest or Cleburne. I don't think Davis was about to appoint either since Cleburne had been born in Ireland and Forrest was uneducated, though a military genius. Johnston commanded his armies ably and was a brilliant defensive fighter. He could have held Sherman off until after the elections. By the way, Atlanta never did fall to Sherman. After Hood squandered his troops and couldn't defend his railroad lines, he abandoned the city. I admire Hood's boldness, but not his rashness.
I don't think Davis was about to appoint either since Cleburne had been born in Ireland and Forrest was uneducated, though a military genius.
I'm an N.B. Forrest fan to say the least. However, it should be remembered that he wasn't born a military genius, just a lad with a good intellect. He made many mistakes in his early military career, few of them repeated. He had "on the job" training. By the time his newly developed skills were recognized, it was too late for the Confederacy.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
