Need Hood defenders please

John Bell Hood: The Rise, Fall, and Resurrection of a Confederate General by Stephen M. Hood. Stephen Hood is a distant relative of the general. The book is not a biography, but a refutation, point-by-point of a number of the claims made against the general by historians.
And a fine book too. The subsequent Lost Papers... book by the same author has many contemporaneous writings that further refute some of Sword's allegations. Sword declined the opportunity to respond to the refutations.
 
It still boggles my mind what exactly Hood was doing sitting outside Nashville, his troops freezing and starving, trying to besiege a force twice his size, after he had bleed his army dry at Franklin. It seems like madness.

Hood was a great brigade and division commander, but I agree he was promoted beyond his abilities.
 
IMO the plan of Hood's Tennessee Campaign was not a bad one. Hood wanted to defeat Thomas' Army of the Cumberland in detail which would force other Union armies to respond. Hood came close to a success at Spring Hill, but beyond that the execution did not play out well.
It is pretty well established too, that the Union high command believed the AoT was still a dangerous force all the way up to the time the retreat from Nashville began. As I recall, there were still Union reinforcements on the way to Nashville when that retreat began.
 
It still boggles my mind what exactly Hood was doing sitting outside Nashville, his troops freezing and starving, trying to besiege a force twice his size, after he had bleed his army dry at Franklin. It seems like madness.

Hood was a great brigade and division commander, but I agree he was promoted beyond his abilities.
Destruction of the Federal army there and taking Nashville was the first goal of the campaign. He thought the AoT could repulse the Federal attacks from the AoT's entrenched positions. It was a slim hope for sure but it was the last chance for success of that phase of the campaign.
 
I am reading "The Confederacy's Last Hurrah" - Wiley Sword. It is pretty brutal toward John Bell Hood. Need to get some opposing views. What are everyone's thoughts about the Spring Hill/Franklin/Nashville campaign and Hood's actions?
Perhaps you could join us in October for a tour of Murfreesboro/Franklin. I happen to know that some members will be arriving early and staying late to also visit Columbia, Spring Hill and Nashville et.al.

 
Destruction of the Federal army there and taking Nashville was the first goal of the campaign. He thought the AoT could repulse the Federal attacks from the AoT's entrenched positions. It was a slim hope for sure but it was the last chance for success of that phase of the campaign.
I am aware that was his plan. I am also aware it was ridiculous.

Success would have been keeping his army in tact to fight another day. Best chance for that was moving into winter quarters.
 
Reasonable minds differ.
Fair enough, but I dont think I have read anyone who opines it was a good plan. I'd love to read some military historian make the case for this plan, if you know of any (and please dont say Stephen Hood, who is just an apologist). It seems like an awful lot would have to go exactly right for him to have any chance for it to work, and given the condition of his troops, and the relative comfort and rations of the Union troops, and the weather, it just seems the most remote of Hail Mary attempts, and given the consequences of failure (as we have seen), not worth the gamble for the slim chance it offered.

"Destruction of the Federal Army", as you assert, was just not going to happen. Other than the AOT at Nashville, I dont think any army on either side was ever destroyed on the battlefield. At best, he could have taken Nashville, and then ended up besieged by a larger, better supplied force. Then what?

In any event, nothing that happened at Nashville was going to prevent the utter collapse of the CSA in just a few months once spring arrived, so I guess it really doesn't matter what he did, in retrospect.
 
John Bell Hood: The Rise, Fall, and Resurrection of a Confederate General by Stephen M. Hood. Stephen Hood is a distant relative of the general. The book is not a biography, but a refutation, point-by-point of a number of the claims made against the general by historians.
The Hood book goes a little far in the other direction, IMHO. I think a good balanced analysis is vol. 2 of Steve Davis's recent military biography, Into Tennessee and Failure. Hood seems to be one of those figures who gets viewed from extremes, especially when it comes to Atlanta and then Franklin/Nashville.
 
Fair enough, but I dont think I have read anyone who opines it was a good plan. I'd love to read some military historian make the case for this plan, if you know of any (and please dont say Stephen Hood, who is just an apologist).
This is a recurring thread topic here in CWT and the threads all end up right where they started. I am getting off this one before it reaches the last stop. You have a good day sir.
 
Perhaps you could join us in October for a tour of Murfreesboro/Franklin. I happen to know that some members will be arriving early and staying late to also visit Columbia, Spring Hill and Nashville et.al.

Was just at the Nashville campaign sites in February and have been to Stones River twice previously. I have Chickamauga/Chattanooga and The Shenandoah Valley already on the schedule so a return to Franklin probably will be a while. Thanks though.
 

Learn About Us
About CivilWarTalk
Contact the Webmaster
Meet the Staff
Link to CivilWarTalk
Join Our Community
Register
Browse Forums
View Today's Discussions
Search the Forum
Get Help
FAQ
Student Guide
Forum Rules & Etiquette
Copyright / DMCA

     Contact Us CivilwarTalk on Facebook CivilWarTalk on YouTube CivilWarTalk on Twitter RSS Feed

Bringing the American Civil War and More to Life.
© 1999 - , CIVILWARTALK, LLC - Site Version 10.0

SlaveryTalk.com - SecessionTalk.com - CivilWarTalk.com - ReconstructionTalk.com
Back
Top