[lit-ideas] Commanders of Armies, e.g., Hood & Bragg

From: "Lawrence Helm" <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "Lit-Ideas " <Lit-Ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2012 09:33:07 -0700
In the Civil War, the best generals were believed (by the both governments)
to be those who could send enthusiastic troops against an emplaced enemy and
route him (not just that of course, but most notably that).  Lincoln and
Davis both favored that sort of general.  One recalls the famous message
Lincoln almost sent to McClellan," My dear McClellan: If you don't want to
use the army, I would like to borrow it for a while. Yours respectfully, A.
Lincoln."  

 

Jefferson Davis, a graduate of West Point was even more insistent than
Lincoln on aggressiveness in his generals.  He removed a very fine general,
Joseph Johnston and replaced him with the Texas fire-eater John Hood to the
detriment of the Western Army.  What was Johnston's sin?  Davis thought he
was too slow and too conservative.  Unfortunately for Hood, who seemed to
know this in advance, his army loved Johnston and hated the idea of seeing
him replaced.  Anyone would have had a difficult time replacing Johnston.
It was a shocking thing to be moved out from under a sensible cautious
general and turned over to a general who would send them in wave after wave
against entrenched fortifications (which was in accordance with Hood's
reputation which was well known).  Johnston would have been more cautious
and left Franklin with far more of his army than Hood did.  Hood didn't do
the sensible thing and retreat after Franklin but took his emaciated forces
forward to attack Nashville and utterly destroy his own army.

 

But in Hood's defense, what little chance he had was severely hampered by
the generals who answered to him.  Whether they overtly acted against him
may be questionable, but in moving out from under Johnston, they did not do
a very good job for Hood.  The big example of that is that they let
Schofield's army march by them in the night at Spring Hill.  An exhausted
Hood was back in his tent suffering from his unhealed stump and paralyzed
hand while his corps & division commanders let Schofield's army string by in
the night and get away to Franklin.  There was a lot of finger pointing
after that.  Hood was ultimately responsible by virtue of being in charge of
the Army but would Hood's battlefield commander, Cheatham have been so lax
if Johnston was still in charge of the Army?  I doubt it.  Schofield's army
might well have been routed as it attempted to march by Hood's army at
Spring Hill - if Cheatham and others were feeling loyal toward their
commander.  

 

As it was, Schofield's army made it unscathed past the sleeping, inattentive
and lax Confederates and on to Franklin where they dug in so well that when
Hood sent his troops against its emplacements a great slaughter ensued.
Hood's army was decimated at Franklin by a force that should have been
routed at Spring Hill.

 

Bragg had some of the qualities necessary to lead an army but like Hood at
Spring Hill, Franklin & Nashville he had physical problems, "the work of
years of dyspepsia, dysentery, and chronic headaches, afflictions that also
conspired to sour his temper and enfeeble him, so much so, according to an
intimate, that he was unable to endure long periods of stress or
responsibility."  His troops hated him and as was the case with Burnside
were willing to believe the worst stories about him.  "During the retreat
from Shiloh, when absolute stealth was imperative, Bragg directed that no
gun be discharged, death being the penalty for disobedience.  A drunk young
Rebel chose to flout the order with a few random shots at a chicken along
the roadside.  The chicken escaped unscathed, but not so the soldier, who
was summarily shot for having betrayed the route of march.  Not
surprisingly, given the army's antipathy to Bragg, the incident became
exaggerated in the telling.  The unlucky soldier was said to have been
condemned by Bragg for having killed a chicken.  Similar tales followed.
Some whispered that the commanding general had had a man shot for stealing
apples, others insisted that he had hanged sixteen more from a single tree
for an unspecified offense.  It is pointless to demonstrate the absurdity of
these accusations.  What is significant is that many men within the Army of
the Mississippi believed them, and that is more damning to Bragg's
reputation than a score of battlefield reverses." [from Peter Cozzens No
Better Place to Die]

 

Cozzens here is referring to Bragg's reputation with his troops.  If we
compare Bragg (widely considered a poor army commander) with Sherman (widely
considered an excellent one) we note that Sherman's troops loved him.  They
called him "Uncle Billy," and he took good care of them, treating them
fairly and with consideration.  Bragg didn't have that sort of relationship
with his troops.  He doesn't seem to have had it with anyone except perhaps
Jefferson Davis.  It is worth noting that General Hood did have that sort of
relationship with his Texas troops - who willingly charged emplaced
defenders and gave up their lives for him.  Unfortunately there weren't many
of them left, if any, to look out for him as he slept the night away at
Spring Hill.
[lit-ideas] Commanders of Armies, e.g., Hood & Bragg

Other related posts:
