Was Hood's Attack at Franklin Rational or Irrational?

Joined
Jun 18, 2017
Location
Philadelphia
Franklin-MAP.jpg


Was Hood's Attack at Franklin Rational or Irrational?


One more Hood thread :D, John Bell Hood's decision to attack General Schofield's Army of the Ohio is a hotly debated topic. The reasoning behind Hood's attack and whether it was rational or irrationality. Here seem to be the two arguments, which do you lean more towards? Was Hood correct or incorrect to attack at Franklin?

Rational:
Hood had no feasible alternatives available to him. He could not allow Schofield's army to reach Nashville intact. If Schofield escaped unmolested he would link up with Thomas and Hood would be faced with overwhelming numbers. The Union defenders at Franklin had not been given enough time to significantly fortify their position so a speedy frontal assault was justified. The battle of Franklin though costly, was a victory for the Confederacy, since Schofield was forced to withdraw. Hood's decision to attack was rational and was the only real course of action available.

Irrational:
Hood was furious over the failed attempt to envelope Schofield's army at Spring Hill. He had his decision to attack at Franklin out of emotions. He may have even wanted to punish his army, in particular Cleburne and Cheatham for failure at the previous battle. Instead of a frontal assault against fortified positions over open ground without artillery support, Hood should have listened to reason and attempted a flanking maneuver. In the ensuing battle casualties were awful and Cleburne was killed, Hood destroyed his army out of anger for no meaningful gain. Hood's decision to attack was irrational and based on emotion and stupidity rather than logic.

Opinions?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Interesting first hand viewpoint, I'll have to make a trip sometime.



Hood would say he needed a quick attack because Schofield's position was being strengthened by the hour. On the other hand a poorly planned attack without artillery support seems doomed to failure. Its a bit of a conundrum.

And it was late in the day, he knew Schofield would cross the Harpeth under cover of night.
 
Vote Here:
The war was decided on November 7, 1864. Two men in the Confederacy had the power to end the war on November 8, 1864. John Bell Hood was not one of them.
Was it rational to conclude that if the war continued many of the Confederate soldiers would be killed or seriously injured and all that was to be determined was the "where" and "when"?
 
Vote Here:
That's why Forrest attacked above the Harpeth but it was too little and his gains weren't taken advantage of. Hood wouldn't give him the support he needed - but that's all another matter! I take it the OP was wondering if Hood was nuts or not. Not at Franklin. Bad as that battle was and as tragic as it was, Hood wasn't stupid or crazy. Maybe desperate would be a better word. The Federals were doing very well sorting themselves out, fighting well and they were better able to exploit Confederate weaknesses. Hood was in a position where he had no margin of error, he could not afford a mistake. But he was not the general for such a tight spot. Nashville...well, I might put that in the category of temporary insanity. Going against Thomas in that position with a beat up army wasn't a good idea. It was like Lee turning around his army after Gettysburg and attacking Meade. Would have made Lincoln a most happy man!
 
Vote Here:
That's why Forrest attacked above the Harpeth but it was too little and his gains weren't taken advantage of. Hood wouldn't give him the support he needed - but that's all another matter! I take it the OP was wondering if Hood was nuts or not. Not at Franklin. Bad as that battle was and as tragic as it was, Hood wasn't stupid or crazy. Maybe desperate would be a better word. The Federals were doing very well sorting themselves out, fighting well and they were better able to exploit Confederate weaknesses. Hood was in a position where he had no margin of error, he could not afford a mistake. But he was not the general for such a tight spot. Nashville...well, I might put that in the category of temporary insanity. Going against Thomas in that position with a beat up army wasn't a good idea. It was like Lee turning around his army after Gettysburg and attacking Meade. Would have made Lincoln a most happy man!

Truth is, Forrest had no gains. Wilson (with just a single division) easily pushed Forrest back across the Harpeth.
 
Vote Here:
That's why Forrest attacked above the Harpeth but it was too little and his gains weren't taken advantage of. Hood wouldn't give him the support he needed - but that's all another matter! I take it the OP was wondering if Hood was nuts or not. Not at Franklin. Bad as that battle was and as tragic as it was, Hood wasn't stupid or crazy. Maybe desperate would be a better word. The Federals were doing very well sorting themselves out, fighting well and they were better able to exploit Confederate weaknesses. Hood was in a position where he had no margin of error, he could not afford a mistake. But he was not the general for such a tight spot. Nashville...well, I might put that in the category of temporary insanity. Going against Thomas in that position with a beat up army wasn't a good idea. It was like Lee turning around his army after Gettysburg and attacking Meade. Would have made Lincoln a most happy man!
One of the factors that hindered Hood was the Osage Orange that really hindered his attack.
 
Vote Here:
IMO Hood should have known better. Every time he made an attack against an entrenched US force after coming West it had not gone as planned.

The attacks around Atlanta, Allatoona Pass etc had all been terribly costly with a minimal gain. Franklin was no different.

All I can think was he was hoping they were green troops who would break and run at the awesome spectacle of a full assault headed their way. He knew it didn't take long for western troops to entrench and even hasty works were force multipliers. Hood made a mistake at Franklin but it pales next to Nashville.
 
Vote Here:
It only takes one or two regiments with Sharpe's or Henry's repeaters to destroy an assault wave. 5 shots per minute, for 5 minutes, times 800 soldiers, 5*5*800=20,000. If 1/10 of the shots hit an attacker, that is 2,000 casualties.
If the skirmishers and sharpshooters fight with the other soldiers, it only takes a few Henry's to have the impact of a machine gun.
 
Vote Here:
Was Hood's Attack at Franklin Rational or Irrational?
One more Hood thread :D, John Bell Hood's decision to attack General Schofield's Army of the Ohio is a hotly debated topic. The reasoning behind Hood's attack and whether it was rational or irrationality. Here seem to be the two arguments, which do you lean more towards? Was Hood correct or incorrect to attack at Franklin?




The decision was decidedly rational. Hood, may have been disappointed and perhaps, angry, but, as noted by you, that was not irrational. He had a right to be both, concerning the Spring Hill fiasco.

He attacked because, as again noted by you, it would be his last chance to significantly affect the build up of Thomas' forces at Nashville.

He did not hesitate, because even as the AoT was arriving before Franklin, Hood could see that Schofield was in the process of retreating across the River. To delay, would see Schofield's forces gone.

In the end, the decision resulted in disaster, but, Not, because it was irrational, with the goals and information he had at the time.
 
Vote Here:
Hindsight is always better than foresight. But after Hood allowed Schofield to slide by him at Spring Hill, maybe the best thing Hood should have done is gone toward Knoxville. One thing that would have happened was it would have separated Thomas and Schofield.
Sherman, of for that matter Grant since he was the overall commander in charge. Sherman was heading into Savannah, far away to really stay on top of things. I do not think they would have allowed Hood to fancy himself marching through Eastern Tennessee.
If Hood then could draw Scofield back out into the open away from Nashville then turn and attack it sure would have been better than what happened at Franklin. Plus, let’s say Hood broke the Federal line at Franklin. All Schofield had to do was retreat back into Nashville under Thomas’s protection. Hood wasn’t going to take Nashville that was a pipe dream.
Hood only chance, slim one at that was to catch Schofield away from Thomas. Grant would had to react to Hood moving eastward and thinking he may well link up with Lee and go give it one more try during the spring of 1865.
 
Vote Here:
I lived on the Nashville Battlefield when I was in school. I studied the battle of Franklin and Nashville and walked around parts of the battlefield. It's hard to imagine what it looked like in 1865. If Hood had waited and let Schofield pass, he would have had a lot more troops to attack Nashville with. Nashville was one of the most modern forts in the world in 1865 and was formidable. Hood couldn't have taken Nashville on his best day with three times the troops he had.

I think hood made a terrible blunder at Franklin. There is no way to justify it.
 
Vote Here:
Truth is, Forrest had no gains. Wilson (with just a single division) easily pushed Forrest back across the Harpeth.

Yes, Wilson had the division Forrest needed. With that, there would have been much better results, but he did push them back considerably. As you say, though, whatever Forrest gained was negated by Wilson. Forrest had seldom met his match in a Union cavalryman, but Wilson could give as good as he got plus interest!
 
Vote Here:
Hindsight is always better than foresight. But after Hood allowed Schofield to slide by him at Spring Hill, maybe the best thing Hood should have done is gone toward Knoxville. One thing that would have happened was it would have separated Thomas and Schofield.
Sherman, of for that matter Grant since he was the overall commander in charge. Sherman was heading into Savannah, far away to really stay on top of things. I do not think they would have allowed Hood to fancy himself marching through Eastern Tennessee.
If Hood then could draw Scofield back out into the open away from Nashville then turn and attack it sure would have been better than what happened at Franklin. Plus, let’s say Hood broke the Federal line at Franklin. All Schofield had to do was retreat back into Nashville under Thomas’s protection. Hood wasn’t going to take Nashville that was a pipe dream.
Hood only chance, slim one at that was to catch Schofield away from Thomas. Grant would had to react to Hood moving eastward and thinking he may well link up with Lee and go give it one more try during the spring of 1865.

Very interesting plan of action.

I lived on the Nashville Battlefield when I was in school. I studied the battle of Franklin and Nashville and walked around parts of the battlefield. It's hard to imagine what it looked like in 1865. If Hood had waited and let Schofield pass, he would have had a lot more troops to attack Nashville with. Nashville was one of the most modern forts in the world in 1865 and was formidable. Hood couldn't have taken Nashville on his best day with three times the troops he had.

I think hood made a terrible blunder at Franklin. There is no way to justify it.

I was also thinking, Hood's idea for Nashville seems to have been to draw Thomas into a battle not try to storm the city. It might have been more valuable for him to have let Schofield escape to Thomas but keep his own forces intact. Then draw Thomas into an engagement and maybe win. Two not so great alternatives, if you let Schofield escape you are stronger but so is Thomas, if you attack Schofield you are weakened so much that you can't face Thomas effectively in battle.
 
Vote Here:
I lived on the Nashville Battlefield when I was in school. I studied the battle of Franklin and Nashville and walked around parts of the battlefield. It's hard to imagine what it looked like in 1865. If Hood had waited and let Schofield pass, he would have had a lot more troops to attack Nashville with. Nashville was one of the most modern forts in the world in 1865 and was formidable. Hood couldn't have taken Nashville on his best day with three times the troops he had.

I think hood made a terrible blunder at Franklin. There is no way to justify it.

But you just did. He didn't have a snowball's chance in you no where of taking Nashville, so Franklin is the hail mary play.
 
Vote Here:
Hood engaged 2 Corps at Franklin, Stewart's & Cheatham's. He did not even wait for Lee's Corps or for his Artillery to effectively engage in the ensuing battle. Had he waited for Lee, he would have had 3 more Divisions & could have supported Forrest in his request.

Didn't have time. They got on the field with those 2 corps around 12 or 1 and sunset is 4:30 that time of year.
 
Vote Here:
I believe it was an irrational decision to attack at Franklin against such a strong position.
I believe Hood's campaign into Tennessee was totally irrational for that matter. I believe
Hood's Army of the Tennessee would have been put to better use shadowing Sherman
during his march through Georgia and doing what it could to mitigate the damage that
was being done there. If Hood had followed Sherman, at the very least he could have
harassed him, slowing down his progress. If Hood got lucky and Sherman got careless,
there may have been an opportunity to strike a meaningful blow at Sherman's army that
would have changed the pace if not the course of events in the fall and winter of 1864.
 
Last edited:
Vote Here:
I do not know if Hood was rational or irrational. None of us do no matter what has been written. It was a longer attack plan than Picket's Charge. No artillery support for the attackers. Some artillery support may have helped. Men might have been willing to die, that does not mean they wanted too. What did they die for a General's pride? A flanking maneuver might have worked, after all Schofield was buying time for men to retreat. Hood was aggressive fighter, when confronted with an obstacle he would attack. He always had. He was no subtle strategist. He knew how to attack and he did.
 
Vote Here:
Back
Top