Why General Hood

[EricAJacobson]

We have generals failing to give specific orders to do X and X not happening accordingly all over the place. What is absurd about Hood's subordinates failing to take up the bridge because Hood has not made it clear they needed to do so and thought that he had?

This is where I see the text Eric quoted, so this is what I have to say on the source:
http://cdnc.ucr.edu/cgi-bin/cdnc?a=d&d=SDU18641205.2.14&e=-------en--20--1--txt-txIN-------

It may be true - but "'more than sufficient evidence" considering the nonsense in the following article? (And "It was followed by Lee, or rather Dick Taylor, who occupies the center" - when was Richard Taylor in the Army of Tennessee?) I am distinctly underwhelmed by the Daily Union's coverage of the war.

I'm trying not to nitpick here because I have a tendency to do that when feeling stubborn, but "some newspaper article claimed this" when the newspaper is reporting what some other paper refers to is a slim basis for concluding X is "certainly" (my word) true.

So if you're going to argue its impeachable, my natural reaction as a skeptic is going to look at it more closely - and that gets into things I make a point of because I'm a detail obsessive person more than a big picture person.

You are employing the pick and choose source game. You lean toward Beauregard's account (yes you brought it up), which was 20 years after the war, and is the only source that makes this claim. You may not like the newspaper, but it is contemporary, and why would it fudge something like a bridge being taken up or not? Seems like a mundane fact that didn't need to be reported as anything other than what it was. Plus I think a simple perusal of the Official Records also shows nothing about the bridge being "forgotten." Now just because something isn't said, does that mean it didn't happen? Of course not. But to insist it did without any evidence other than a general fighting his own war with the pen 20 years after the war isn't exactly the kind of source I would go to the bank with. At the very least the two negate one another, in my opinion. So we are back to square one, which is that Hood had the pontoon bridge when he got to Florence/Tuscumbia.

Now.....if he did leave it behind and the whole army was gone, how in the heck did Beauregard hoist it up to army? Did he carry it himself? And the cavalry certainly didn't do it because Wheeler's cavalry never joined Hood in northwestern Alabama. They were detached to chase Sherman.

 

[EricAJacobson]

The commanding general is responsible for communicating to the people responsible for the bridge whether or not he does want them to take it up, though. Unless he does so, how are they to know what he intends them to do with it?

Maybe he intends to leave it across the Coosa because that's where he's concerned about needing a bridge in place in case the army can't ford. Maybe he intends to leave it there to imply that's what he intends.

It's not their job to make those decisions.

I think if you look at OR 39 you'll see there was indeed correspondence about pulling up the bridge. And leaving a bridge at Coosa would have been silly since the enemy was not far behind and in fact crossed at the very spot several days later.

 

[EricAJacobson]

Forrest should have gotten that command. He was extremely gifted in warfare, and underrated at the time. Lee even admitted that.

No Forrest should not have gotten the command. You might as well have put Stuart in charge of the ANV. There was a reason Forrest was often in independent command, and it wasn't his executive skills.

 

[Nathanb1]

Forrest should have gotten that command. He was extremely gifted in warfare, and underrated at the time. Lee even admitted that.

Not exackly. Might do a bit of studying up on this stuff first.

 

[rhettbutler1865]

No Forrest should not have gotten the command. You might as well have put Stuart in charge of the ANV. There was a reason Forrest was often in independent command, and it wasn't his executive skills.

Forrest was known for his leadership. His "executive" skills? At that point in the war, with Atlanta about to fall, why would that be an issue?

 

[EricAJacobson]

Forrest was known for his leadership. His "executive" skills? At that point in the war, with Atlanta about to fall, why would that be an issue?

He couldn't get along with anyone, and had no experience at that level of command. Sorry, but he had no business commanding an army.

 

[EricAJacobson]

Plus to perfectly frank, some of Forrest's greatest achievements came against second rate opponents. His performance leading up to Chickamauga, for example, was terrible. He was raider, not even so much a true cavalryman. Wade Hampton was far his superior and gets virtually no recognition.

 

[Nathanb1]

He couldn't get along with anyone, and had no experience at that level of command. Sorry, but he had no business commanding an army.

Glad to see you back, Eric. Hopefully our new member will do some reading on THAT GUY and see his real value wasn't in running an army. I don't really understand why everyone always wants to yank him out of doing what he did best, anyway.

 

[Lost Cause]

I will go out on a very long limb and say that Longstreet could have been an effective army commander had he put full effort into situations deemed less than desirable.

 

[EricAJacobson]

Glad to see you back, Eric. Hopefully our new member will do some reading on THAT GUY and see his real value wasn't in running an army. I don't really understand why everyone always wants to yank him out of doing what he did best, anyway.

Thanks. No kidding about Forrest. If I was choosing cavalry commanders he would be about seventh on my list. He reminds me of Manny Ramirez. Tons of talent, a little reckless, and a total pain in the you know what.

 

[Elennsar]

You are employing the pick and choose source game. You lean toward Beauregard's account (yes you brought it up), which was 20 years after the war, and is the only source that makes this claim. You may not like the newspaper, but it is contemporary, and why would it fudge something like a bridge being taken up or not? Seems like a mundane fact that didn't need to be reported as anything other than what it was. Plus I think a simple perusal of the Official Records also shows nothing about the bridge being "forgotten." Now just because something isn't said, does that mean it didn't happen? Of course not. But to insist it did without any evidence other than a general fighting his own war with the pen 20 years after the war isn't exactly the kind of source I would go to the bank with. At the very least the two negate one another, in my opinion. So we are back to square one, which is that Hood had the pontoon bridge when he got to Florence/Tuscumbia.

No, I'm saying that I don't think this looks like a source I'd rely on as an unquestionable source of "overwhelming evidence" of anything. And the more someone insists on it as unimpeachable the more I'm going to expect from it it in regards to getting every last detail right - thus the comment on what it says on Taylor.

Not something to fudge, but something in which one could be uninformed or misinformed on? Yes.

I think if you look at OR 39 you'll see there was indeed correspondence about pulling up the bridge. And leaving a bridge at Coosa would have been silly since the enemy was not far behind and in fact crossed at the very spot several days later.

Mason's messages (looking at the pages you mentioned) mention laying the bridge (page 834), the cavalry being directed to cross in some other fashion (page 843), and the bridge being laid somewhere else a week later (page 866).

Beauregard's message doesn't address the bridge.

And you know as well as I do that "silly" (and all the other synonyms) things happen in war.

 

[EricAJacobson]

No, I'm saying that I don't think this looks like a source I'd rely on as an unquestionable source of "overwhelming evidence" of anything. And the more someone insists on it as unimpeachable the more I'm going to expect from it it in regards to getting every last detail right - thus the comment on what it says on Taylor.

Not something to fudge, but something in which one could be uninformed or misinformed on? Yes.

And thus you maintain that based on what Beauregard said, and McMurry used as a source, that Hood actually forgot the bridge?

 

[Elennsar]

And thus you maintain that based on what Beauregard said, and McMurry used as a source, that Hood actually forgot the bridge?

We have your take on the reliability of a statement twenty years later and of a second hand, second rate newspaper account against McMurry's. Both you and McMurry are to all I know are well regarded, studious authors - I have nothing to choose from between the two of you in that regard.

So what I am saying is that I am not persuaded that multiple authors (I checked what McMurry said because he's not known as a Hood basher or just plain lousy researcher, whereas - say - http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/hood-at-guntersville-alabama is not something I'm as confident in unsupported by any independent source, and thus it is simply "one of multiple descriptions stating" this) stating that Hood forgot the bridge are wrong.

 

[Specster]

Forrest should have gotten that command. He was extremely gifted in warfare, and underrated at the time. Lee even admitted that.

I think, all things considered, Forrest was considered at the top of the heap in terms of his command, in the context in which he ran. To jump to the next level, takes largely different set of skills. I dont doubt for a second that Forrest was extraordinary. Yet, how many generals, are so far in the thick of things to get severely wounded, and just keep on coming (not always that day but soon thereafter).

Just because Forrest was so successful in his command, does not mean he would have been equally as successful in the next stage (Please excuse my inexperience w/ army COC. I was instructed as a Navy man.) of his command. I dont think a typicall General has that many severe injuries, horse shot out from under him, or kills as many combatants as he did (of the later two I think it was 38/39).

There was this thing called the "Peter Principle", strong in the 1970s, which basically stated that a person rises (in management) to the level of his incompetance. As ugly as that sounds it may be true (try looking at it objectively, he was a great leader but not superman), as to Forrest.

Bottom line, as great as Forrest was in the field, Im not sure he would have done as well in command of the AOT. Just my opinion.

 

[Specster]

All things considered, I still think Johnston was the man.

 

[ole]

Forrest did very, very well at what he did, which was to ride around terrorizing Yankee garrisons. Kinda like a one-trick pony.

 

[Drew]

Just because Forrest was so successful in his command, does not mean he would have been equally as successful in the next stage (Please excuse my inexperience w/ army COC. I was instructed as a Navy man.) of his command. I dont think a typicall General has that many severe injuries, horse shot out from under him, or kills as many combatants as he did (of the later two I think it was 38/39).

There was this thing called the "Peter Principle", strong in the 1970s, which basically stated that a person rises (in management) to the level of his incompetance. As ugly as that sounds it may be true (try looking at it objectively, he was a great leader but not superman), as to Forrest.

Bottom line, as great as Forrest was in the field, Im not sure he would have done as well in command of the AOT. Just my opinion.

I'm not (nearly) done with my homework on this campaign, but I'm pretty sure @diane has told me Forrest did not have the advantage of a formal education that I imagine would be necessary to administer and lead an Army. Now, he tactically wupped others in the field, but I don't know about leading an Army without a lot of schoolin'.

 

[Nathanb1]

Forrest did very, very well at what he did, which was to ride around terrorizing Yankee garrisons. Kinda like a one-trick pony.

So is that answer

 

[diane]

Forrest often took jabs at the West Pointers - both because he could usually beat them and because he was envious! His lack of education was always a sting. After Tupelo, he told S D Lee if he'd learned everything West Pointers learned the Yankees would beat him every day! In a way he had a point - one reason Sherman couldn't figure him out was because he kept trying to think of a military theory or principle that fit what Forrest was doing. But a trip to West Point would have taught him the one thing he really needed to learn, and that was how to work with fools, idiots and assorted incompetents as well as those he respected. He did seem to rise to the occasion when necessary and was always satisfied at more responsibility, but his real talents were where he knew them to be - doing what he was doing with independence. He nearly couldn't be beat there. I do think Forrest could have led an army and done it reasonably well but he would have surprised himself as well as others. Actually, I don't think he would have accepted that job if offered it.

 

[Elennsar]

I'm not really sure of Forrest in command of anything over a division, but he had a lot of the good qualities that you can't just teach.

That's something few men had, West Pointers or not.