Nashville Thomas Dashes Hood's Hopes at Nashville

Recent research has determined that no, Hood was not sedated on opium - ask Sam for details.
Recent research has determined that there is no evidence that Hood took pain killers. It is reasonable to assume he did, but there is no evidence that he did.
 
I don't know Morris from Adam (so I have no idea if he'd misrepresent things or be an incompetent engineer), Polk has a vested interest in protecting his father's reputation, and Hood also has a reason to look good in regards to his suggestion.

But that discovery in regards to Oliver is very enlightening on Hood's failure to attack, if not necessarily what he suggested at the meeting.

As far as this in general goes, who has witnesses and evidence is generally who I would be inclined to trust, in absence of any belief in either when its just Joe vs. John (I'd say Sam but I don't want to mix you and the general up, I do trust you).

Walter Morris was Chief Engineer of the Army of Mississippi. His entire lengthy letter to Hood is reproduced in full in "Advance and Retreat." SG French's lines would have been enfiladed at Cassville had Johnston remained, so Hood and Polk advised Johnston to attack or retreat, but not remain.

I don't know what WM Polk would have had to gain by confirming to Hood that Gen Polk told him of the two options given to Johnston. The younger Polk had no relationship with Hood, and his father was under no criticism for Cassville or in no post-mortem (via family or friends) feud with Johnston.

The Paul Oliver to Dan Butterfield letter is indeed interesting Elennsar. I will be publishing the letter in my upcoming book "The Lost Papers of Confederate General John Bell Hood" (Savas Beatie, August 2014.) I have wondered why Hood didn't publish the Oliver letter in addition to the Morris letter, and I assume it is because Butterfield was working on his own memoirs when Hood received a copy and he may have been asked not to publish the letter until Butterfield's book came out. It is quite detailed, very persuasive...and funny. Oliver closes the letter by asking Butterfield to allow him time to sign a Will before sending him on any such future missions.
 
Recent research has determined that there is no evidence that Hood took pain killers. It is reasonable to assume he did, but there is no evidence that he did.

Recent research has also determined that there is no evidence that Hood was abducted by space aliens on the night of Nov. 29, 1864. It is reasonable to assume he did, but there is no evidence that he did.
 
Walter Morris was Chief Engineer of the Army of Mississippi. His entire lengthy letter to Hood is reproduced in full in "Advance and Retreat." SG French's lines would have been enfiladed at Cassville had Johnston remained, so Hood and Polk advised Johnston to attack or retreat, but not remain.

I don't know what WM Polk would have had to gain by confirming to Hood that Gen Polk told him of the two options given to Johnston. The younger Polk had no relationship with Hood, and his father was under no criticism for Cassville or in no post-mortem (via family or friends) feud with Johnston.

And Jeremy Gilmer was chief engineer to Sidney Johnston and did more harm to Johnston than the Union cause. This is why I mention I don't know him from Adam - Morris could be anywhere from a good example of an objective and observant witness to anything else. He should know of what he's talking about because of his position, but his position doesn't grant him capacity.

As for WM Polk: If Hood asked about his father, wouldn't it make sense for him (Polk) to want to portray his father in a positive light, instead of "No, my father was as was his wont sabotaging his own commander."?

That's my reasoning, at least.
The Paul Oliver to Dan Butterfield letter is indeed interesting Elennsar. I will be publishing the letter in my upcoming book "The Lost Papers of Confederate General John Bell Hood" (Savas Beatie, August 2014.) I have wondered why Hood didn't publish the Oliver letter in addition to the Morris letter, and I assume it is because Butterfield was working on his own memoirs when Hood received a copy and he may have been asked not to publish the letter until Butterfield's book came out. It is quite detailed, very persuasive...and funny. Oliver closes the letter by asking Butterfield to allow him time to sign a Will before sending him on any such future missions.

:rofl: No further comment necessary.

Out of curiosity, do we know how these papers were lost?

It's fascinating to see how something like that can turn up despite all expectations being that it'll never be seen.
 
And Jeremy Gilmer was chief engineer to Sidney Johnston and did more harm to Johnston than the Union cause. This is why I mention I don't know him from Adam - Morris could be anywhere from a good example of an objective and observant witness to anything else. He should know of what he's talking about because of his position, but his position doesn't grant him capacity.

As for WM Polk: If Hood asked about his father, wouldn't it make sense for him (Polk) to want to portray his father in a positive light, instead of "No, my father was as was his wont sabotaging his own commander."?

That's my reasoning, at least.


:rofl: No further comment necessary.

Out of curiosity, do we know how these papers were lost?

It's fascinating to see how something like that can turn up despite all expectations being that it'll never be seen.

Scholars always assumed that Hood's papers were discarded or destroyed after his untimely death in 1879 (within 72 hours of his wife's death) and friends and family were focused caring for the 10 young orphans (all under the age of ten [including 3 sets of twins.]) It is now known that his papers went to one of the orphans in New York. Her daughter (Hood's granddaughter) died at age 96 several years ago and had received the papers from her mother. Her son (Hood's great grandson) contacted me when they were cleaning out his mother's house in 2009 and asked me to come and inspect what the family had always assumed to be just routine family papers. Wow...it was much more than that! I copied and archived the letters in 2012, and have been transcribing them since then. There are approximately 140 letters from Hood to others, and others to him, and approximately 60 postwar letters from Hood to his wife. There are also 40-some letters from his wife to him but I did not copy nor transcribe them. (I looked at a few and there was nothing important...teething babies, repairs on their house, social activities, etc.) The collection is authentic and substantive and has been viewed by Hood scholars Dr Richard McMurry and Dr Keith Bohannon, and Blue Gray Education Society executive director Len Riedel, who called the discovery the biggest thing in Civil War scholarship in the last 50 years.
 
Hood, in my opinion, was sedated on opium due to war injury pain, and should never have been placed in a position to make insane and deadly decisions. At the Battle of Franklin, all of his officers disagreed with going out in battle against such enemy odds. Yet they obeyed, and many men died. President Davis should never have appointed Hood.

Sedated?? Is this is a serious comment? I guess so, but there is not a single piece of evidence to support such an outlandish claim. As for Davis appointing, please point to another viable candidate - and neither Forrest nor Cleburne are viable.
 
Recent research has determined that there is no evidence that Hood took pain killers. It is reasonable to assume he did, but there is no evidence that he did.

Actually, I don't see how it is reasonable to assume he did at all. But even if he did (of which there is no evidence) that doesn't mean it ever affected his judgment.
 
Actually, I don't see how it is reasonable to assume he did at all. But even if he did (of which there is no evidence) that doesn't mean it ever affected his judgment.
The presumption is based on the assumption that he must have been very uncomfortable if not in great pain, so it is reasonable. That it ever affected his judgment is a bridge too far.
 
The presumption is based on the assumption that he must have been very uncomfortable if not in great pain, so it is reasonable. That it ever affected his judgment is a bridge too far.

The only thing I might add is that is not even any evidence that Hood was in any great pain once he got beyond the weeks following the amputation. As for uncomfortable, well, plenty of men were uncomfortable for a variety of reasons. James Chalmers' anal fistula comes to mind, but I've never heard even a mention of him taking narcotics. :smile:
 
Sedated?? Is this is a serious comment? I guess so, but there is not a single piece of evidence to support such an outlandish claim. As for Davis appointing, please point to another viable candidate - and neither Forrest nor Cleburne are viable.

I don't mean to get in an argument with you, just throw this out for your thoughts on how he compares to Hood:

Ewell, if his health is up to it (a question mark, but not definitively ruled out).


On Hood and pain, one thing that comes to mind - given the stoic attitude expected in regards to pain, and Hood's own undeniable guts, would Hood even admit to being in pain if he was?

Not that this proves anything, just wondering - I can't really see Hood writing about being in terrible pain all the time whether he was or not. Whatever else he did, he didn't whine.
 
I don't mean to get in an argument with you, just throw this out for your thoughts on how he compares to Hood:

Ewell, if his health is up to it (a question mark, but not definitively ruled out).


On Hood and pain, one thing that comes to mind - given the stoic attitude expected in regards to pain, and Hood's own undeniable guts, would Hood even admit to being in pain if he was?

Not that this proves anything, just wondering - I can't really see Hood writing about being in terrible pain all the time whether he was or not. Whatever else he did, he didn't whine.

Just a thought....Ewell was missing a leg, too. John B. Gordon was missing half his face, among other things. Hancock and Chamberlain were zapped in the .....you know....and they functioned. We could go on....point is that lots of people dealt with lots of pain without being accused of being loopy on laudanum. Since his doctor's writing seems to indicate he was weaned off the drugs early in his recuperation, surely it's possible. There are a lot of people who have terrible injuries and pain to this day without being hooked on drugs.
 
Just a thought....Ewell was missing a leg, too. John B. Gordon was missing half his face, among other things. Hancock and Chamberlain were zapped in the .....you know....and they functioned. We could go on....point is that lots of people dealt with lots of pain without being accused of being loopy on laudanum. Since his doctor's writing seems to indicate he was weaned off the drugs early in his recuperation, surely it's possible. There are a lot of people who have terrible injuries and pain to this day without being hooked on drugs.

Yeah. I think if anything influenced Hood's judgment for the worse in Tennessee, in regards to physical/mental problems, it was fatigue and stress - not being psychotic or stoned.

Those factors seem to have worn out Hancock and Ewell in 1864 after all, and they were noticeably vigorous prior to their injuries too.
 
I don't mean to get in an argument with you, just throw this out for your thoughts on how he compares to Hood:

Ewell, if his health is up to it (a question mark, but not definitively ruled out).


On Hood and pain, one thing that comes to mind - given the stoic attitude expected in regards to pain, and Hood's own undeniable guts, would Hood even admit to being in pain if he was?

Not that this proves anything, just wondering - I can't really see Hood writing about being in terrible pain all the time whether he was or not. Whatever else he did, he didn't whine.

I think I stated this earlier, but in all of Hood's letters to his wife from 1869 to 1879, there is not a single mention of pain by him. Not one. He mentions medicine once...he is in Savannah GA and has a head cold and says he was going to purchase "some Bella and mix." That's it. In 59 letters to his wife over a 10 year period as he traveled on business, he doesn't mention a thing about his arm or his leg, or pain, or any discomfort. It is really astounding how a subject such as John Bell Hood and medication and pain can get so much attention and debate in light of the complete absence of any evidence. There is no evidence that he took any pain meds after his return to duty, and none after the war, yet here we are debating the matter.
 
I think I stated this earlier, but in all of Hood's letters to his wife from 1869 to 1879, there is not a single mention of pain by him. Not one. He mentions medicine once...he is in Savannah GA and has a head cold and says he was going to purchase "some Bella and mix." That's it. In 59 letters to his wife over a 10 year period as he traveled on business, he doesn't mention a thing about his arm or his leg, or pain, or any discomfort. It is really astounding how a subject such as John Bell Hood and medication and pain can get so much attention and debate in light of the complete absence of any evidence. There is no evidence that he took any pain meds after his return to duty, and none after the war, yet here we are debating the matter.

Well, I stand by the idea that even if he was in teeth shattering agony, Hood was not the sort of person to talk about it. I don't mean this to prove anything about what medication he was on - someone (and probably more than just his doctor) would have been aware of him using laudanum or drinking more than was normal or whatever alternatives were used in those days so the absence of evidence of anything is pretty convincing - just that I don't think we can conclude "Hood didn't mention that it hurts, therefore he was fine."

That being said, that sounds like a man in pretty good physical health at least in that period, and presumably during the war. That's something to consider for sure.
 
Back
Top