Hardee replaces Johnston

[OpnDownfall]

I have long speculated, that Johnston accepted (subconsciously or consciously, maybe) that the war was as good as lost, in the West, at least and the 'right' strategy was the conservation of southern manhood for the rebuilding of the south after the inevitable defeat of the confederacy.
Johnston, to be sure, was not the only one to contemplate inevitable defeat, but he may have been the only one in a position of authority to act constructively (in his own sight, at least) to preparen for that black day.

[EricJacobson]

Johnston just about gave up Richmond, didn't do much to help Pemberton at Vicksburg, and he let Sherman get within a dozen miles of Atlanta. Good grief, Davis needed to do something. As far as Hardee, he had temporarily commanded the Army of Tennessee after Bragg, but passed on permanent command. Davis wasn't about to ask him twice.

Could Davis have done better than Hood? Maybe. I agree that casualties would have been lower without Hood at the helm. But could Hardee have held Atlanta for very long? In my opinion no one was going to hold it for long. But I have an idea. Instead of taking shots at Hood try to view the situation from the perspective of 1864. Davis wanted someone who was going to fight. Johnston was not that person....period. Hardee had never shown anything during his tenure in command which was flashly or aggressive. So you have Hood, the best of a group which was far from exciting.

[ole]

Eric: Congratulations! You have taken my exact opinion and put it quite more succintly than I could have. Davis had to have something on the chart. Hardee might have been a better choice, but Hardee wasn't likely to make a mark. Hood promised that mark. Unfortunately, that mark was quite unattainable at that time. Sherman held a great big eraser.
Ole

[EricJacobson]

Thanks Ole. I have tried long and hard to give some needed balance to the Army of Tennessee command controversy. Glad to see at least one person doesn't think I'm loony!!!!