John Bell Hood's Arm

[OldBrainsHalleck]

Lt. Gen. John Bell Hood lost the use of his left arm for the rest of his life due to wounds he received during the Battle of Gettysburg, yet he didn't have his arm amputated. Why didn't Hood amputate his useless arm, yet he had his right leg amputated later on in the war?

 

[AndyHall]

I think the most thorough discussion of Hood's injuries will be found in Sam Hood's two books, although I don't have them with me at the moment.

Generally, though, amputations were done because it was deemed impossible to save the limb, or prevent fatal complications from infection. In cases where the limb could be saved intact, it generally was, irrespective of its likely functionality after recovery.

 

[FarawayFriend]

Lt. Gen. John Bell Hood lost the use of his left arm for the rest of his life due to wounds he received during the Battle of Gettysburg, yet he didn't have his arm amputated. Why didn't Hood amputate his useless arm, yet he had his right leg amputated later on in the war?

I haven't read these books either but I guess there might have been two reasons for keeping the "useless" arm.
First it might have been a psychological reason. Burying a part of your body while you still live on must have a terrible psychological impact. It's not like an appendix or gall bladder or something, it is a visible part of the body. I'm sure it is not easy to say "Away with it, that useless thing"!
Second, even when useless, it still serves as a body balance. Especially with the missing leg it must have been challenging to keep body balance. Another missing limb probably would have made it extremely difficult to maintain balance and equilibrium.
Just guessing. I'm curious to learn what Stephen Hood has written about that.

 

[AndyHall]

OK, here's an excerpt from the summary medical report of Dr. John T. Darby, on General Hood's wound from Gettysburg. This is almost six months after that event, and during his recovery from the loss of his leg at Chickamauga:

At this date Dec 24th [18]63, the arm can be used to enable Gen Hood to walk on crutches. Flexion and extension of the elbow is perfect. The wrist can be flexed with freedom, the fingers open or shut in the palm at will, and used in performance of the various uses for protraction. The thumb is almost perfect in varied motions; and pronation and supination exist to a considerable degree. Use of the arm, causing development of muscular power in the exterior and superior muscles will in time cause the hand to lose few of its motions.

Stephen M. Hood, The Lost Papers of Confederate General John
Bell Hood (El Dorado Hills, California: Savas Beatie, 2015), 26.​

Far, far from useless. In fact, upon a causal meeting, one might not notice Hood had difficulty with his arm.

 

[TinCan]

I agree with Andy, Hood's arm was far from useless.

 

[AndyHall]

Authors frequently describe their work, or have it described for them, as groundbreaking and something that completely rewrites conventional wisdom about a subject. Most of the time, that's just PR.

In Sam Hood's case, however, that was an accurate description of his two books on his famous ancestor. Sam Hood had access to previously unknown papers and documents that had never been reviewed by other historians, but completely change the image of General Hood, particularly with respect to the disability he suffered after his two wounds at Gettysburg and Chickamaga. They're game changers.

 

[cash]

Authors frequently describe their work, or have it described for them, as groundbreaking and something that completely rewrites conventional wisdom about a subject. Most of the time, that's just PR.

In Sam Hood's case, however, that was an accurate description of his two books on his famous ancestor. Sam Hood had access to previously unknown papers and documents that had never been reviewed by other historians, but completely change the image of General Hood, particularly with respect to the disability he suffered after his two wounds at Gettysburg and Chickamaga. They'e game changers.

Yeah, but he's just a revisionist, right?

 

[Bee]

Authors frequently describe their work, or have it described for them, as groundbreaking and something that completely rewrites conventional wisdom about a subject. Most of the time, that's just PR.

In Sam Hood's case, however, that was an accurate description of his two books on his famous ancestor. Sam Hood had access to previously unknown papers and documents that had never been reviewed by other historians, but completely change the image of General Hood, particularly with respect to the disability he suffered after his two wounds at Gettysburg and Chickamaga. They're game changers.

Thank you for the quote from Sam Hood's book. The Hood papers stand as my favourite example of history being a never ending story. Certain folks like to poo-poo the concept of discovering "a trove of papers in someone's garage". Evidence is evidence and there is no statute of limitations on history

 

[gunny]

Authors frequently describe their work, or have it described for them, as groundbreaking and something that completely rewrites conventional wisdom about a subject. Most of the time, that's just PR.

In Sam Hood's case, however, that was an accurate description of his two books on his famous ancestor. Sam Hood had access to previously unknown papers and documents that had never been reviewed by other historians, but completely change the image of General Hood, particularly with respect to the disability he suffered after his two wounds at Gettysburg and Chickamaga. They're game changers.

Andy, you are absolutely correct in your conclusion regarding this, but let it be known that you can't take the evidence in two ways. For instance, Sam (whom I consider a friend) doesn't believe that Hood raised his arms to his head and wept after the battle of Franklin, but this indisputable source suggests that he probably could.

We still don't have any medical records after January or February of 1864. Thus, we don't know what happened when he commanded the Army of Tennessee. This is not to suggest or support any old ideas or theories, but just to make it clear that we don't know anything about the effects of his wounds after the sourced doctor stopped caring for him.

 

[nitrofd]

Hood probably needed no more care of the doctors notes stopped.he had to be able to function a lot, look at many children he fathered.

 

[lelliott19]

look at many children he fathered.

Uhmmmm ...maybe I missed something?
I thought it was his arm we were talking about?

 

[7th Mississippi Infantry]

Uhmmmm ...maybe I missed something?
I thought it was his arm we were talking about?

 

[OldBrainsHalleck]

OK, here's an excerpt from the summary medical report of Dr. John T. Darby, on General Hood's wound from Gettysburg. This is almost six months after that event, and during his recovery from the loss of his leg at Chickamauga:

At this date Dec 24th [18]63, the arm can be used to enable Gen Hood to walk on crutches. Flexion and extension of the elbow is perfect. The wrist can be flexed with freedom, the fingers open or shut in the palm at will, and used in performance of the various uses for protraction. The thumb is almost perfect in varied motions; and pronation and supination exist to a considerable degree. Use of the arm, causing development of muscular power in the exterior and superior muscles will in time cause the hand to lose few of its motions.

Stephen M. Hood, The Lost Papers of Confederate General John
Bell Hood (El Dorado Hills, California: Savas Beatie, 2015), 26.​

Far, far from useless. In fact, upon a causal meeting, one might not notice Hood had difficulty with his arm.

Thanks for the info.