Hood

[Buddy1989]

Got a new book for Christmas and it's been a very enjoyable read!

 

[Nathan Stuart]

I have not read this title.

Am interested to know what your thoughts are about Hood after reading it.

 

[Nathan Stuart]

Think 'Gallant' (in title) is an apt adjective used to describe Hood.

 

[Buddy1989]

I have not read this title.

Am interested to know what your thoughts are about Hood after reading it.

I'm about halfway through it. It really portrays Hood in an interesting light. He was very impetuous but a good soldier. I'll keep you updated on what I think.

 

[Cavalier]

For what its worth, since its been such a long time since I read it, 1985 maybe. I want to like Hood. I think he was one of best Brigade commanders of the ANV and that his Brigade of Texans was what it was because of him, not because they were westerners or because they were from Texas. However, as I remember the book, I think it will leave you with the impression he was promoted above his capabilities, as seems to be the general consensus today.

For myself, reading about his later wartime commands above the brigade or division level is painful. I think Lee was accurate in his accessments of him, sadly.

John

 

[major bill]

When given command of an army, Hood was put in a difficult position.

 

[Sheltowee]

Got a new book for Christmas and it's been a very enjoyable read!

View attachment 427675

His boyhood home is about 50 miles from me.
Funny, I was gonna run over there yesterday to get some pics- home is now a private residence. But the misses wasn't feeling it…. So I diverted.
Soon I will go and check it out. Will post what I take, along with an accompanying ghost story.

 

[Cavalier]

@Sheltowee That would be really cool. Thanks very much.

John

 

[Nathan Stuart]

I'm about halfway through it. It really portrays Hood in an interesting light. He was very impetuous but a good soldier. I'll keep you updated on what I think.

Okay. Thanks.

 

[Nathan Stuart]

It would be interesting to compare what this author has to say in 'The Gallant Hood'', with Hood's own accounts of events in his autobiographical work, 'Advance and Retreat'.

 

[Nathan Stuart]

For what its worth, since its been such a long time since I read it, 1985 maybe. I want to like Hood. I think he was one of best Brigade commanders of the ANV and that his Brigade of Texans was what it was because of him, not because they were westerners or because they were from Texas. However, as I remember the book, I think it will leave you with the impression he was promoted above his capabilities, as seems to be the general consensus today.

For myself, reading about his later wartime commands above the brigade or division level is painful. I think Lee was accurate in his accessments of him, sadly.

John

One observer at the time might have summed up Hood best, when they heard of his appointment to command of the Army of Tennessee. Of Hood, the observer said:

..."there was ...too much 'lion' in the man and not enough 'fox' "...

 

[Nathan Stuart]

When given command of an army, Hood was put in a difficult position.

Agree. He was placed virtually by default into a difficult position, regardless of whether he had the ability to do the job.

 

[jackt62]

he was promoted above his capabilities, as seems to be the general consensus today

To be fair, it would be difficult to imagine any 34-year old effectively taking over command of an army of about 50,000 men and immediately tasked with defending a major city and defeating a formidable and more numerous enemy force. Hood was at least a gallant and effective brigade and division commander, whose required skills do not automatically translate into those required for army command. So the real question to be asked is whether or not Hood, given that experience and magnitude of responsibility did the best with army command as could have been expected.

 

[Rebforever]

For what its worth, since its been such a long time since I read it, 1985 maybe. I want to like Hood. I think he was one of best Brigade commanders of the ANV and that his Brigade of Texans was what it was because of him, not because they were westerners or because they were from Texas. However, as I remember the book, I think it will leave you with the impression he was promoted above his capabilities, as seems to be the general consensus today.

For myself, reading about his later wartime commands above the brigade or division level is painful. I think Lee was accurate in his accessments of him, sadly.

John

I don't know what General Lee said about General Hood but he pulled General Lee's keister out of the fire at the Wilderness battle.

 

[Cavalier]

@Rebforever I thought he was of the opinion that Hood was not the best choice for higher command positions, like Corps or Army command and that Hood was kinda careless about administrative matters. However I can't remember where I saw that, of course. I will try to find it though.

I'm fan of Hood myself, however I don't know enough about people or events outside the ANV or the AOP to have an opinion about his later performance.

John

 

[Cavalier]

@Rebforever I just found this on the internet. On the Emerging Civil War site, topic title is "John B. Hood and Robert E. Lee: A complicated relationship". I haven't seen this before however, and I am a computer idiot so finding it was just blind dumb luck on my part.

This is not where I originally read of Lee's opinions on Hood but it pretty much sums up what I remember reading, wherever that was. Its been so long since I read the book referred to above, but I though that was the source.

John

 

[Norman Dasinger Jr]

In my opinion, he was a creative battle planner- sometimes

 

[Rebforever]

Yea, I have always wondered how he let the Union Army Mach by him at night.

 

[Nathan Stuart]

To be fair, it would be difficult to imagine any 34-year old effectively taking over command of an army of about 50,000 men and immediately tasked with defending a major city and defeating a formidable and more numerous enemy force. Hood was at least a gallant and effective brigade and division commander, whose required skills do not automatically translate into those required for army command. So the real question to be asked is whether or not Hood, given that experience and magnitude of responsibility did the best with army command as could have been expected.

Davis (and Bragg) must bear much of the blame for Hood's appointment to head of the whole Army.

Hood was promoted beyond his station, by being given such a command. As a Brigade and Division commander, his combat tactics were predictable and one-dimensional - frontal head-on attacks (the reason apparently for his appointment).

Hood was also clearly unfit (physically and mentally) at the time for such a responsibility.

In a way, it was not Hood's fault entirely that he was appointed to Army leadership. He believed he was doing his duty.

I suppose, however, Hood could have declined the appointment. In this event, hopefully someone like Hardee could have got the position, perhaps by default.

 

[Nathan Stuart]

I don't know what General Lee said about General Hood but he pulled General Lee's keister out of the fire at the Wilderness battle.

On July 12, 1864, Davis sent a telegraph to Lee stating his intention to sack Johnston from Army command and asking Lee for his thoughts about Hood as his replacement.

Lee promptly sent two replies to Davis on the same day.

Extracts from Lee's replies, relating to his opinion of Hood, are shown below:

..."Hood is a bold fighter. I am doubtful as to the other qualities"...

..."Hood is a good fighter, very industrious on the battlefied, careless off, & I have had no opportunity of judging his action, when the whole responsibility rested upon him. I have a very high opinion of his gallantry, earnestness & zeal. Genl Hardee has more experience in managing an army"...

Clearly, Lee expressed misgivings about Hood's prospective appointment to command of the Army. Perhaps he could have been more forthright with his views, but that was not his general manner.