Hood's men have their scant breakfast interrupted

kholland

Captain
Retired Moderator
Joined
Feb 13, 2011
Location
Howard County, Maryland
"Ezra Ayres Carman was Lt. Colonel of the 7th Regiment of New Jersey Volunteers during the Civil War. He volunteered at Newark, NJ on 3 Sept 1861, and was honorably discharged at Newark on 8 Jul 1862 (This discharge was to accommodate his taking command of another Regiment). Wounded in the line of duty at Williamsburg, Virginia on 5 May 1862 by a gunshot wound to his right arm in action. He also served as Colonel of the 13th Regiment of New Jersey Volunteers from 5 August 1862 to 5 June 1865. He was later promoted to the rank of Brigadier General." At the request of the U.S. government, Carman authored an 1,800 page history of Antietam, undoubtedly the most comprehensive documentation of the Battle."

Here he describes the action near the Dunker Church after the initial attacks of Hooker's men down the Hagerstown Turnpike and the intense fighting in the Cornfield. The italicized words are from the manuscript.

Hood's Division consisted of two brigades commanded by Colonel W.T. Wofford, 18th Georgia, and Colonel E.M. Law, 4th Alabama. Wofford's was Hood's old command, generally known as the Texas Brigade, comprising the 1st, 4th and 5th Texas, 18th Georgia, and the Hampton (S.C.) Legion. Law's Brigade consisted of the 4th Alabama, 6th North Carolina, 2nd and 11th Mississippi. The division numbered about 2000 men, their superior fighting quality not excelled in the army. Up to this day they had never known defeat. Hood was a lion-hearted soldier; his brigade commanders brave and skillful officers.

When Hood was relieved by Lawton, on the night of the 16th, and retired to the woods about 250 yards in rear of the Dunkard Church, it was to get food for his men, who had been nearly famished for three days, and he road in search of his wagons. It was with much difficulty that he found these in the darkness, and they contained flour only. Not until nearly dawn was this in the hands of his men and they were without cooking utensils. It was dawn before the dough was prepared, which the men proceeded to cook on ramrods. About 4 a.m. Hood sent his aid to General D.H. Hill, apprising him of his condition and asking if he could furnish any troops to assist in holding the position on the left, to which Hill replied that he could not. As we have seen, the fighting began at dawn, in and near the East Woods, and, soon hereafter, Hood received notice from Lawton that he would require all the assistance he could give him, and later, when Hartsuff and Gibbon advanced, an officer of Lawton's staff dashed up to Hood, saying "General Lawton sends his compliments, with the request that you come at once to his support" and added that Lawton had been wounded. "To Arms" was instantly sounded, and quite a number of Hood's men were obliged to go to the front, leaving their uncooked rations behind; some carried the half-cooked dough on their ramrods and ate it as they went forward.
 
Thanks for sharing... I could stand to skip a meal or two, but these men suffered in ways that few of us today can relate to...
I've made a few long marches myself, but on a full nights sleep and with a full belly. How they pulled it off half starved and without sleep for days is a testament to the sheer toughness that these fighting men possessed.
 
I've made a few long marches myself, but on a full nights sleep and with a full belly. How they pulled it off half starved and without sleep for days is a testament to the sheer toughness that these fighting men possessed.

I wonder what it says about their leaders. No, not as in using this to criticize Lee. I mean their leaders as in Hood, Law, Wofford and the men (regimental officers) under them.

http://antietam.aotw.org/exhibit.php?exhibit_id=31
Oddly, neither Law http://antietam.aotw.org/exhibit.php?exhibit_id=100 or Wofford http://antietam.aotw.org/exhibit.php?exhibit_id=99 mention their men having been particularly bad off in this regard. I'm not saying that proves anything, its just striking given how very serious such a thing would be to the fighting efficiency of even the most spirited men.
 
Yes, but we could say the same thing taken not many decades previously, right? You wince when reading of our troops marching through snow with no shoes, yet we revere Washington. He was so determined to maintain discipline he ordered men shot for not relieving themselves at the places designated just for that- bare feet in the snow adn all, they had to go there. ( Not implying it was a bad thing- just a ' thing ' )

Am not being argumentative- the Union army was much, much better provisioned. I've also frequently thought the same thing as Elennsar- why DO this to one's men? It's just not without precedent, that's all. Is this off thread or relevant? I never know.
 
Well, I should clarify, its not only the "why do it" but "was it unavoidable"? Hood's "careless off" the battlefield behavior leading to his division suffering worse than it had to would not surprise me at all - not deliberate, conscious neglect, just not having his eye focused on the subject - if it was possible to get food to his men when he did, why the devil couldn't get there sooner? Something in that isn't working right, and I'm not sure who or why.

Washington, we know that up until Nathaniel Greene was given the job of taking care of it that the previous guy (Mifflin? Something like that) was not exactly making the most of what was available. But its still hard to take even when all that can be done is done - it must take a certain hardness to look an army of men who under any other circumstances would have long since quit and say you have more to ask of them. Definitely not saying this is wrong - just something that would take a normally-uncomfortable ability to ignore misery to deal with in any sort of constructive way.
 
Hood did the best he could bearing in mind that the Confederates were short of weapons,ammunition,food,equipment,clothes, and boots.

Yes, the Confederates were short of supplies. But we don't see David R. Jones mention his division having not eaten for three days in his report:

http://antietam.aotw.org/exhibit.php?exhibit_id=42

despite being broadly involved in the same stuff as Hood's division.

I'm sure Hood did his best. Hood was not the sort of man to intentionally dismiss the issue. But his best may still be less than his men deserve. And less than could be done by a more (in this aspect of generalship) able man is an open question at this point.

"Of course all that could be done was done" is something I dislike in areas of uncertainty about the ability of those involved to do the best possible decision.
 
I think there was very little awareness of nutrition and how a lack of proper food affected performance of the body. Of course they understood that hunger meant you needed to eat something, but I don't think they related the consumption of food to physical performance. Just look at the rations provided. Even the Union soldiers, who ate more consistently than the Confederates, were subsisting on coffee, salt pork (bacon ??) and hardtack for the most part.....bulk, but not a lot of food value. So did Hood really understand that missing meals greatly affected his soldiers ability to do what he wanted when he wanted, or did he just know that it made them very hungry. I suspect the later, given that, in this instance, he provided them with flour only which would, at best, fill there stomachs and satisfy hunger cravings, but not provide a lot of the "fuel" that the body needed.

And then there is the whole concept of water consumption and hydration, or lack of, which I believe was a serious problem in the Civil War.....but it's a discussion probably better left to another thread.
 
I think we might not be giving them enough credit on a rudimentary knowledge of dietary value.

I mean, if we're talking food value as in a balanced diet, salt pork and hardtack are limited at best. But as far as body fuel? I'm not sure.

Carbs are good fuel, after all. And protein has some value versus hunger.

But the key word is obviously rudimentary - the diet was limited by issues like "rations that will keep" far more severely than modern army rations are.
 
Last edited:
I think we might not be giving them enough credit on a rudimentary knowledge of dietary value.

I mean, ifw e're talking food value as in a balanced diet, salt pork and hardtack are limited at best. But as far as body fuel? I'm not sure.

Carbs are good fuel, after all. And protein has some value versus hunger.

But the key word is obviously rudimentary - the diet was limited by issues like "rations that will keep" far more severely than modern army rations are.
Yes. Not enough credit is given for actual knowledge. Most everyone knew that protein, cereal grains, veggies and fruit were daily requirements for a healthy diet. What wasn't known were the more recent developments like too much sodium, saturated fat and such things like a combination of beans and corn make a protein as good as roast beef.

Desiccated fruits and vegetables, condensed milk, salted meats and a kind of bread were made for troops. The problem was more with supply -- more so in the Confederacy than in the Union. Add to that the difficulty of supplying troops on the move.
 
Back
Top