Why General Hood

[kepi]

I'm reading about Hood's move into Tennessee and am wondering why he received command of Confederate forces over other generals. His constant attacks did more damage to his forces than necessary and moving into Tennessee and away from Sherman only allowed Sherman to operate unmolested.

 

[diane]

He worked hard to get that command! Truth of it was, he wasn't the general he and others thought he'd be - he was best where he had been. Sherman was happy with Hood's promotion, though - Ol' Joe wasn't getting out of his way.

 

[7th Mississippi Infantry]

I'm reading about Hood's move into Tennessee and am wondering why he received command of Confederate forces over other generals. His constant attacks did more damage to his forces than necessary and moving into Tennessee and away from Sherman only allowed Sherman to operate unmolested.

Good question. I'm looking forward to the responses.
BTW . . . welcome to CivilWarTalk.

 

[Just Jim]

Believe things would of been different if the change had been made much sooner where Hood would of had some of the defensible ground that Johnson gave up and more time. Hood was presented with a very tough job with the Northern troops knocking on Atlanta's door.

 

[diane]

That's a rather under-appreciated handicap that Hood had right away - he was compelled to finish what Johnston had started, without being privy to what that general's real intent was.

 

[nitrofd]

Losing Atlanta was not Hood's fault, he just inherited an unwinnable situation.he was doomed from the start.could anyone have done better is open to debate but the end results I believe would have been the same.

 

[Just Jim]

Afraid that Johnson's plan was the same as in Virginia and Mississippi., retreat until the perfect opportunity presents it'self. As we know that rarely happens for the smaller army. Lee kept the A.O.P. off guard because they feared him when he was doing nothing and when he was moving forwards or backwards. That fear did not exist when it came to Johnson so they were able to divide forces and out maneuver him time after time.

 

[dlofting]

I'm reading about Hood's move into Tennessee and am wondering why he received command of Confederate forces over other generals. His constant attacks did more damage to his forces than necessary and moving into Tennessee and away from Sherman only allowed Sherman to operate unmolested.

There weren't a lot of choices. Bragg and Beauregard had their chances and didn't do that well in command of an army. Hardee was offered the position prior to Johnston accepting command, but turned it down. Longstreet didn't do well in an independent role. Cooper was where he belonged in an administrative position. There were a couple of decent generals west of the Mississippi, but their experience was with smaller armies......there were definitely some good division commanders in the Confederate army, but that's a pretty big jump.

 

[cash]

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?

 

[kepi]

Hood's wounds alone should heve been enough to keep him out of a command position. The Confederacy had several competent generals who could have commanded those forces. .... S.D. Lee, Polk, Hardee, even Forrest.

Grant got a lot of grief for using up his men. What Hood did at Franklin was totally unnecessary and much worse than anything Grant ever did.

 

[kepi]

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?

Yeah, the "what ifs" are endless.

 

[Allie]

Hood was "the hero of Chickamauga" and what they wanted was someone who wouldn't retreat. That retreating was probably their best of all possible bad options had ceased to be important in people's minds.

Reading Mary Chesnut's diary of the time Hood was considering the appointment is interesting. A lot of people (I think I'm thinking of Wigfall) warned him that it would utterly destroy his career because he would be left holding the bag when the Confederacy went under.

 

[AUG]

There wasn't much else to choose from (from Jeff Davis' view at least) and Davis wanted someone who would fight more aggressively and hopefully take the initiative. Hood's sorties outside of Atlanta and his attack at Franklin certainly caused the army a lot of damage, though what other options were there (in Atlanta)? Not every battle Hood conducted was a reckless frontal attack, i.e. Peachtree Creek, Atlanta, and Ezra Church (at least they weren't planned to be so), though they failed due to a number of reasons, such as miscommunication, faulty intelligence, etc. Although I don't believe he was fit for army command, I think he tried to do what was expected of him.

As for Hardee, he didn't want army command and Bragg recommended Hood to Davis. Polk was killed before Johnston was relieved.

 

[KeyserSoze]

I'm reading about Hood's move into Tennessee and am wondering why he received command of Confederate forces over other generals.

Seemed like a good idea at the time I guess. Bragg couldn't return and Davis hated Johnston with a passion and liked Hood.

 

[leftyhunter]

I agree with those who point out that Hood inherited a bad situation from the get go. I will argue that the defeats suffered in 1864 by Gen, Johnston in Ga and latter Hood in Tn where less about poor generalship and more about not having enough manpower. By 1864 death,disease,desertion and injuries had taken a fearful toll of the CSA ranks. Yes Hood did commit desperate actions but these where desperate times. An argument could be made that Hood did not properly evaluate the defensive lines of Gen.Thomas and Schofeld.
Leftyhunter

 

[cash]

Hood's wounds alone should heve been enough to keep him out of a command position. The Confederacy had several competent generals who could have commanded those forces. .... S.D. Lee, Polk, Hardee, even Forrest.

Grant got a lot of grief for using up his men. What Hood did at Franklin was totally unnecessary and much worse than anything Grant ever did.

Polk was dead, Hardee turned command down. Forrest wasn't an army commander, not even able to be considered as an army commander, and S. D. Lee was too junior.

What Hood did at Franklin was to come within a hair of an overwhelming victory.

 

[Nathanb1]

Hood's wounds alone should heve been enough to keep him out of a command position. The Confederacy had several competent generals who could have commanded those forces. .... S.D. Lee, P0lk, Hardee, even Forrest.

Grant got a lot of grief for using up his men. What Hood did at Franklin was totally unnecessary and much worse than anything Grant ever did.

Welcome, kepi....you'll find a lot of info on Hood and his decisions at Franklin on this site.....and quite a bit of it contradicts what you have suggested. We have a terrific member, Eric Jacobson, who has done an incredible amount of research on Franklin, and whose book is sort of the gold standard. I'm guessing you've read Wiley Sword? You might try the recent book on Hood by one of his relatives, Sam Hood. Anyway, take a look at the forums and you'll see why you're getting the answers you have received so far. (Good to be prepared with reasons around here!)

And Forrest fan that I am....nope. For goodness' sake, leave him where he was best and let him operate doing what he did best. Had Richard Taylor been healthy, I'd nominate him as well, but Hood did his best with a bad situation and nearly pulled it off at Franklin (well, Spring Hill, too...but that's the earlier chapter!).

We're just lousy with great researchers and authors. Please enjoy reading their great books and their absolutely free information on CivilWarTalk!

 

[kepi]

Welcome, kepi....you'll find a lot of info on Hood and his decisions at Franklin on this site.....and quite a bit of it contradicts what you have suggested. We have a terrific member, Eric Jacobson, who has done an incredible amount of research on Franklin, and whose book is sort of the gold standard. I'm guessing you've read Wiley Sword? You might try the recent book on Hood by one of his relatives, Sam Hood. Anyway, take a look at the forums and you'll see why you're getting the answers you have received so far. (Good to be prepared with reasons around here!)

And Forrest fan that I am....nope. For goodness' sake, leave him where he was best and let him operate doing what he did best. Had Richard Taylor been healthy, I'd nominate him as well, but Hood did his best with a bad situation and nearly pulled it off at Franklin (well, Spring Hill, too...but that's the earlier chapter!).

We're just lousy with great researchers and authors. Please enjoy reading their great books and their absolutely free information on CivilWarTalk!

Thank you.

I hope to learn more about the Civil War in this forum beyond my limited base.

 

[diane]

I think Johnston's retreating has been largely misunderstood. Think he used it very effectively to keep his army intact, viable and before Sherman. As long as he remained an obstacle to Sherman, that general could not engage his larger scheme. He could not combine with Grant, either, until Johnston was disposed of. This was of benefit to Lee. However, from Davis' perspective, Johnston's secretiveness gave the distinct and quite logical impression that he had no plan but retreat.

There was also another handicap that Hood was saddled with, and some of it was his own fault as well, and that was the state of the AoT. They were not a happy bunch of soldiers! As one of them observed, "Well, we're in a hell of a fix, ain't we. A one eyed president, a one legged general and a one horse Confederacy!"

 

[AndyHall]

A lot of people (I think I'm thinking of Wigfall) warned him that it would utterly destroy his career because he would be left holding the bag when the Confederacy went under.

God, but I cannot stand Wigfall. I have no doubt he sloshed his brandy on the carpet while telling Hood that. If there was ever a man who would be careful not to get caught holding the bag in a situation he himself had created, it was that one.