Did Hood Scheme His Way to Army Command?

OldReliable1862

First Sergeant
Joined
Jul 2, 2017
Location
Georgia
As a primarily Western theater buff, I "met" John Bell Hood as the half-disabled Lieutenant General, rather than the dashing brigade commander. The concept of Hood in the West is typically that he was a man promoted above his competence, and worse, helped bring about his superior's downfall to become commander of the Army of Tennessee.

However, what's the evidence in favor of this, and the evidence against?
 
Last edited:
I'd add that Sherman wasn't exactly twiddling his thumbs while Hood moved north. He was aggressively heading in another direction with an important military purpose. Whatever the reasons, McClellan wasn't doing much of anything, and Meade's pursuit of Lee could not be labeled "aggressive". Sherman also had done more than successfully repel an invasion (as important as that was in each case). He had achieved the objective he'd been given in Spring 1864 by capturing the rail hub at Atlanta. While one can reasonably argue that he should have "finished" Hood, his decision turned out to be a - if not the only - right one. Hood ultimately undertook a glorified raid that ended up in the ruin of his army. I just don't see the situation as analogous to the other two.

And he did leave forces to deal with Hood. He knew a part of his force could deal with Hood and he move the rest for his main goal. Hood was not his main goal after Atlanta
 
Vote Here:
He had achieved the objective he'd been given in Spring 1864 by capturing the rail hub at Atlanta. While one can reasonably argue that he should have "finished" Hood, his decision turned out to be a - if not the only - right one. Hood ultimately undertook a glorified raid that ended up in the ruin of his army. I just don't see the situation as analogous to the other two.
I agree with that and I would strongly defend Sherman's bold move in heading through Georgia rather than continuing on a futile chase after the AoT. But just to be fair, didn't Grant instruct Sherman that a major objective of the Atlanta campaign was to destroy the AoT, a goal that was not entirely met by Sherman?
 
Vote Here:
I agree with that and I would strongly defend Sherman's bold move in heading through Georgia rather than continuing on a futile chase after the AoT. But just to be fair, didn't Grant instruct Sherman that a major objective of the Atlanta campaign was to destroy the AoT, a goal that was not entirely met by Sherman?
A valid point but I think that was ancillary to taking Atlanta and in any event Hood's army after Sherman got through with it was not what it was (under Johnston) when the campaign began. Sort of a chicken-egg issue because I think that was a factor in Sherman's decision.
 
Vote Here:
A valid point but I think that was ancillary to taking Atlanta and in any event Hood's army after Sherman got through with it was not what it was (under Johnston) when the campaign began. Sort of a chicken-egg issue because I think that was a factor in Sherman's decision.
Yes, the more I think about it, the Sherman campaign was one of the most successful United States military endeavors of all time. He split the remaining southland into thirds, essentially dealt a crushing blow to the major western Confederate army, and damaged the southern population's resistance by bringing the war to civilian infrastructure and resources.
 
Vote Here:
I think he did, its been mentioned, but I forgotten the details.

I don't like reading of Schofield. I've owned an original and love the reproductions of a gun latch he designed. Reading about him and my like for his design makes me feel dirty....
Very overrated as a general, and as a human being. He disliked Thomas for a really smutty thing at west point
 
Vote Here:
Very overrated as a general, and as a human being. He disliked Thomas for a really smutty thing at west point

Unfortunately Thomas was disliked by too many people. From his manner, his loyalty, his home, his style of leadership and strategy, he always gets the short end of the stick from all sides.

Too bad, he deserves more credit. But Grant, the likes of Schofield, and others he was denied what he deserved.
 
Vote Here:
Unfortunately Thomas was disliked by too many people. From his manner, his loyalty, his home, his style of leadership and strategy, he always gets the short end of the stick from all sides.

Too bad, he deserves more credit. But Grant, the likes of Schofield, and others he was denied what he deserved.
Funny though, that people who you could almost understand having beef with him loved him. Rosecrans, Buell, and Hooker all admired him deeply. Rosecrans called him an angel. I believe Hooker was a pall bearer at Thomas's funeral.

And Thomas's soldiers adored him.
 
Vote Here:
Unfortunately Thomas was disliked by too many people. From his manner, his loyalty, his home, his style of leadership and strategy, he always gets the short end of the stick from all sides.

Too bad, he deserves more credit. But Grant, the likes of Schofield, and others he was denied what he deserved.

What did he deserve that he didn't get? He was given command of a department and a large army and was made a Major General of the Regular Army. He had rank and responsibility.
 
Vote Here:
What did he deserve that he didn't get? He was given command of a department and a large army and was made a Major General of the Regular Army. He had rank and responsibility.
For one thing, he should have been given overall command in the Western Theater in 1864, rather than Sherman.

And am I the only one who has noticed that two threads about John Bell Hood have devolved into a discussion of Thomas?
 
Vote Here:
Hood would not be the first CW commander of either side to be promoted beyond his abilities. That being said, Hood was certainly pushing for higher command, and he was fortunate to enlist Jefferson Davis to his cause. And Hood did use that connection to open a second channel of communication to complain about Johnston during the Georgia/Atlanta campaign. Hood was a capable and aggressive brigade, division, and corps commander but the competencies necessary for army command (broad strategic and tactical thinking, logistic and administrative effectiveness) were not necessarily traits that were Hood's strong points. Lee was well aware of these deficiencies in Hood and gave a diplomatically phrased response to Davis, when asked about Hood's qualifications to lead the AoT. Let's also remember that by June 1864, the bench of possible army commanders was meager. Other possible contenders such as Hardee, had run afoul of Bragg, who wielded much influence with Davis in selecting a replacement for Johnston. I personally believe that relieving Johnston as AoT commander was a huge error on the part of Davis.
What diplomatic response did Lee give to Davis? I only ask because it seems really odd to me that Lee or any commander would willingly ignore major deficiencies in an officer especially one whom could lead the AOT. I’m not for one second at all doubting that such a response was offered, I’m just interested to know what was said to explain away Hood’s deficiencies.
 
Vote Here:
What diplomatic response did Lee give to Davis? I only ask because it seems really odd to me that Lee or any commander would willingly ignore major deficiencies in an officer especially one whom could lead the AOT. I’m not for one second at all doubting that such a response was offered, I’m just interested to know what was said to explain away Hood’s deficiencies.
Davis asked Lee for his opinion about replacing Joe Johnston with Hood on July 12, 1864. Lee replied:
"Hood is a bold fighter. I am doubtful as to other qualities necessary."
Without Lee giving a definite opinion, or delving into too much detail, IMO, that would be a "diplomatic" response.
 
Vote Here:
What did he deserve that he didn't get? He was given command of a department and a large army and was made a Major General of the Regular Army. He had rank and responsibility.

Well Grant throwing him under the bus so often damaged his reputation. History doesn't memorialize Thomas, or recognize him like it should. Kind of like Meade, another victim of Grant's writings and many a Grant biographer.

Thomas did more than his share to earn a place in the great assemblage of American Generals, but he's mostly forgotten outside of circles like ours.
 
Vote Here:
Well Grant throwing him under the bus so often damaged his reputation. History doesn't memorialize Thomas, or recognize him like it should. Kind of like Meade, another victim of Grant's writings and many a Grant biographer.

Thomas did more than his share to earn a place in the great assemblage of American Generals, but he's mostly forgotten outside of circles like ours.

I've known of Thomas since I was a kid in the 1950s, from reading my father's books. But general historical memory has room for only so many people. From the Civil War on the Federal side I think most people remember the top dogs and those were Lincoln, Grant and Sherman. That's the way it goes. Hell, in more recent history I'd wager the only American army ground force generals from WW II most people know are Eisenhower, MacArthur and, because of a popular movie, Patton. Maybe Bradley, who was significant in the Patton movie. Few know of Truscott, Eichelberger, Devers, Patch, Krueger, Hodges and other men who led armies and army groups.

How did Grant throw Thomas under the bus? And often?

The guy who really got a raw deal was Ord, though later.
 
Vote Here:
Davis asked Lee for his opinion about replacing Joe Johnston with Hood on July 12, 1864. Lee replied:
"Hood is a bold fighter. I am doubtful as to other qualities necessary."
Without Lee giving a definite opinion, or delving into too much detail, IMO, that would be a "diplomatic" response.
.
I see, it wasn’t so much about what Lee had said but more about what he didn’t say that was important.
 
Vote Here:
Davis asked Lee for his opinion about replacing Joe Johnston with Hood on July 12, 1864. Lee replied:
"Hood is a bold fighter. I am doubtful as to other qualities necessary."
Without Lee giving a definite opinion, or delving into too much detail, IMO, that would be a "diplomatic" response.
Then there is Lee's underappreciated letter to Davis on September 19,1864 regarding Beauregard and the command of "that army": It's hard to miss what he was saying "between the lines".
 
Vote Here:
Lee was being kind, and might have wanted johnston to stay. But Davis wanted a change, so Lee didn't press it.

You are on the right trail. Lee originally pressed Davis to put Johnston in charge in the winter of 63/64. Davis was reluctant to do so because of their long history of....issues. Lee thought highly of Johnston, certainly more highly than anyone in the AoT at that time. I have always felt that Lee's response is less about Hood, and more about what he views as the mistake of removing Johnston.
 
Vote Here:
Back
Top