Why General Hood

[Nathanb1]

Even his own men...

"One evening Forrest was observed pacing deep in thought around a small railroad station. His hands were clasped behind his back and his head was down as he walked round and round the station. As Forrest made his rounds an unfortunate trooper located his commanding general and proceeded to air his grievances. The man attempted to get Forrest to listen to his problems as the general walked by. He was ignored as though he did not exist. On Forrest's next pass, the soldier once again demanded to be heard. Suddenly, with no advanced warning, nor indication of his agitated state, Forrest threw an explosive, short punch that knocked the man out cold. Then, as though nothing had happened, Forrest continued his rounds calmly and unconsciously stepping over the prostrate body each time he came around again."

Works for me.

 

[Elennsar]

McMurry has nothing to do with it really. We know what his source was for writing the bridge was forgotten. I found a source that contradicts that. One is contemporary - one is not. One is a pretty straightforward newspaper account - the other comes from a man who was involved with this campaign (and who bore responsibility).

This is a classic example of how evidence can drive a writer/author nuts because YOU have to make the choice about what to include or not include and weigh a piece of evidence's veracity. If I were writing today I wouldn't even cover this bridge issue, expect maybe in a footnote. The evidence isn't there to make a point one way or the other. Ultimately it gins up a controversy that perhaps doesn't even exist and then someone brings it up because they think they've found something and then people debate it online post after post after post.

What a waste of time. It reminds me of the time wasted on laudanum 10-15-20 years ago when posts would just drag on and it seemed some posters just had to have the last word. I guess it was worth it, but some people (I am convinced) just like to go round and round and round and round.

The following is purely to show my POV, not to argue further:

The thing to me is that whether or not Hood was handling the responsibilities of army command in regards to this sort of thing - not the bridge specifically but his management of logistics and administration and other "boring but necessary" details is a significant issue. "Careless off (the battlefield)" is a confirmed quote about him by someone who is by no means hostile to Hood. Unlike the "all lion, no fox' thing or the like.

I think if the argument is that the issues the campaign ran into were beyond Hood's control or the result of mistakes by others then we need a solid basis for arguing that - in general - Hood did take care of such things (as were within his control) carefully. And the more ink is spilled on how poor Hood has been treated poorly, the more this reader feels like I'm supposed to sympathize with him because he was picked on, which doesn't address if this campaign was a smoothly managed operation and if others had to make up for Hood's failures or not.

And unrelated to our discussion but apropos of why I can be more skeptical of positive statements on Hood than negative:

http://counter.johnbellhood.org/myths.htm presenting Hood's rank at graduation in the language of "Hood indeed graduated 44th of 52 in the West Point Class of 1853. However, what is never mentioned is that the Class of 1853 started with a total of 93 cadets in 1849, and of the 41 cadets who did not graduate, the vast majority were expelled for academic or disciplinary performance. It would be more accurate to view Hood as ranked 44th out of 93 original cadets in his class." (left in bold for emphasis)

That's never been how class ranking is listed for presenting any of the other men towards the bottom of their class's graduates, like Longstreet (even lower than Hood) http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer.../Army/USMA/Cullums_Register/Classes/1842.html in anything I have read.

Of course, one could go on with how this demonstrates that doing poorly in school doesn't mean being stupid or inept. And as far as that goes, good. But "It would be more accurate to view Hood as ranked 44th out of 93 original cadets in his class." just reeks of trying to put a good spin on it. If class standing doesn't mean he was stupid, why the effort to present it as if he was "44 out of the original 93"?

So I don't think it's fair to the reader to be told that "Hood was unintelligent as a youth" (rewritten to refer to exactly what the claimed myth is) is a myth based on that, or that style of argument. And it's certainly not leaving this particular reader confident in the objectivity of the writer and the thoroughness of their study.

Which is disappointing. Hood's record deserves to be evaluated more carefully than it often has been. But "more carefully" is not a simple "more positively".

This is not to say I would trust say, Connelly, uncritically because he's negative. Simply that an author attempting to convince me that older writings need to be replaced has to do better than the original writings did for that to be anything more than "believe me, not him".

 

[gunny]

Hood was actually a pretty good choice. He was an aggressive commander in the mold of Lee, which is exactly what Jefferson Davis and the confederate people wanted. The way things were going, it looked as if Retreating Joe was going to fight the Battle of Atlanta in Key West. Beauregard wouldn't have been a better choice, and sending Bragg back to the Army of Tennessee wasn't an option. Hardee had already refused command. So given that, who else gets command?

In retrospect you certainly can't say that. I would also venture to say that hood was not from the same mold as Lee. Hood looked up to Lee but didn't quite have the wits to emulate him strategically or tactically. It probably should have been at least offered to Hardee. He had already turned it down but Johnston had turned around the morale of the army.

 

[cash]

In retrospect you certainly can't say that. I would also venture to say that hood was not from the same mold as Lee. Hood looked up to Lee but didn't quite have the wits to emulate him strategically or tactically. It probably should have been at least offered to Hardee. He had already turned it down but Johnston had turned around the morale of the army.

Unfortunately, Davis couldn't look at it in retrospect. He had to look at it based on what he knew at the time.

 

[leftyhunter]

The following is purely to show my POV, not to argue further:

The thing to me is that whether or not Hood was handling the responsibilities of army command in regards to this sort of thing - not the bridge specifically but his management of logistics and administration and other "boring but necessary" details is a significant issue. "Careless off (the battlefield)" is a confirmed quote about him by someone who is by no means hostile to Hood. Unlike the "all lion, no fox' thing or the like.

I think if the argument is that the issues the campaign ran into were beyond Hood's control or the result of mistakes by others then we need a solid basis for arguing that - in general - Hood did take care of such things (as were within his control) carefully. And the more ink is spilled on how poor Hood has been treated poorly, the more this reader feels like I'm supposed to sympathize with him because he was picked on, which doesn't address if this campaign was a smoothly managed operation and if others had to make up for Hood's failures or not.

And unrelated to our discussion but apropos of why I can be more skeptical of positive statements on Hood than negative:

http://counter.johnbellhood.org/myths.htm presenting Hood's rank at graduation in the language of "Hood indeed graduated 44th of 52 in the West Point Class of 1853. However, what is never mentioned is that the Class of 1853 started with a total of 93 cadets in 1849, and of the 41 cadets who did not graduate, the vast majority were expelled for academic or disciplinary performance. It would be more accurate to view Hood as ranked 44th out of 93 original cadets in his class." (left in bold for emphasis)

That's never been how class ranking is listed for presenting any of the other men towards the bottom of their class's graduates, like Longstreet (even lower than Hood) http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer.../Army/USMA/Cullums_Register/Classes/1842.html in anything I have read.

Of course, one could go on with how this demonstrates that doing poorly in school doesn't mean being stupid or inept. And as far as that goes, good. But "It would be more accurate to view Hood as ranked 44th out of 93 original cadets in his class." just reeks of trying to put a good spin on it. If class standing doesn't mean he was stupid, why the effort to present it as if he was "44 out of the original 93"?

So I don't think it's fair to the reader to be told that "Hood was unintelligent as a youth" (rewritten to refer to exactly what the claimed myth is) is a myth based on that, or that style of argument. And it's certainly not leaving this particular reader confident in the objectivity of the writer and the thoroughness of their study.

Which is disappointing. Hood's record deserves to be evaluated more carefully than it often has been. But "more carefully" is not a simple "more positively".

This is not to say I would trust say, Connelly, uncritically because he's negative. Simply that an author attempting to convince me that older writings need to be replaced has to do better than the original writings did for that to be anything more than "believe me, not him".

I agree with you Hood should get credit for graduating 44 out of 52 not 44 of93. Graduating from West Point was no easy task yet Hood did graduate not has high has Lee or Thomas but apparently higher then Longstreet and Picket. Per the book "Jefferson Davis American' Davis came very close to being expelled for drinking. Another way off looking at Hood is that Edger Allan Poe was no dummy but he could not hack West Point but Hood could.
Leftyhunter

 

[leftyhunter]

Unfortunately, Davis couldn't look at it in retrospect. He had to look at it based on what he knew at the time.

Agree. Just throwing it out there by late 1864 Davis was not enjoying fantastic physical or mental health either. Did not one of his children die during this time plus all the bad news on the military front? Maybe Davis did not have a clear head from all the stress he was under? Not that Lincoln was having such a great time when his son died.
Leftyhunter

 

[JeffMcArthur]

Good question, and I'd agree with a lot of people here. I think it seemed like a good idea at the time, considering the circumstances. And in fact he didn't do too bad at Atlanta where he had his back against the wall and a pretty impossible situation. Where he became problematic was in his march north where it seems panic perhaps set into his mind and he made desperate and terrible choices.

 

[gunny]

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.

Hey, I found a contemporary account that states they pulled the bridge the same day they crossed the last of the transportation.

The Nashville daily union., November 09, 1864, Image 2

On Saturday, October 22nd, "…the delighted Tennesseans under Cheatham, crossed the river Jordan, or Coosa. The transportation quickly followed, and at noon the pontoon was taken up and also hurried forward after the troops."

 

[gunny]

McMurry has nothing to do with it really. We know what his source was for writing the bridge was forgotten. I found a source that contradicts that. One is contemporary - one is not. One is a pretty straightforward newspaper account - the other comes from a man who was involved with this campaign (and who bore responsibility).

This is a classic example of how evidence can drive a writer/author nuts because YOU have to make the choice about what to include or not include and weigh a piece of evidence's veracity. If I were writing today I wouldn't even cover this bridge issue, expect maybe in a footnote. The evidence isn't there to make a point one way or the other. Ultimately it gins up a controversy that perhaps doesn't even exist and then someone brings it up because they think they've found something and then people debate it online post after post after post.

What a waste of time. It reminds me of the time wasted on laudanum 10-15-20 years ago when posts would just drag on and it seemed some posters just had to have the last word. I guess it was worth it, but some people (I am convinced) just like to go round and round and round and round.

Oops. See you already listed it.