[lit-ideas] Re: On the reassessment of Civil War generals, e.g. General Hood

  • From: Omar Kusturica <omarkusto@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: "lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2012 18:02:38 -0700 (PDT)

Lawrence,

On behalf of those of us who are not residing in your head, I think that some 
clearer post would be appreciated.

All best,

Me


________________________________
 From: Lawrence Helm <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: Lit-Ideas  <Lit-Ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
Sent: Thursday, June 7, 2012 5:55 PM
Subject: [lit-ideas] On the reassessment of Civil War generals, e.g. General 
Hood 
 

Someone wrote me privately wanting to argue about Burnside.  I’ll probably get 
more into him in a couple of weeks.  At present I’m more interested in Hood 
whose reputation has traditionally been much worse than Burnside’s.  After 
years of passionate debate about these and other generals some scholars are 
making “better” assessments.  By “better” I mean that the information about the 
various generals has improved cumulatively, but also the task of the historian 
is better understood and practiced than in earlier times.  It is very difficult 
not to impose our present views upon earlier times.  Some historians have been 
able to put those times into a “better” more objective and accurate context.
 
An easy criticism is “he should have known”; which is truly an absurd criticism 
when we honestly attempt to put ourselves back into those times.  Imagine 
taking your family into the woods with an inadequate map and no knowledge of 
the territory.  Imagine getting lost.  Then imagine all the authorities saying 
“you should have known.”  Today that would mean you should have taken better 
maps, a GPS, or perhaps have “known better” than to have gone into the woods in 
those circumstances, but back in the 1860s there were huge tracts of land where 
virtually no one knew what was in them.  The enemy was “out there” some place 
but you didn’t know exactly where.  
 
Guessing was a big part of generalship.  Sherman was a great guesser but on one 
occasion he did “a very dangerous thing.  He had divided his army and made it 
possible for Hood to attack it unit by unit; and that is precisely what he 
did.  He struck Thomas with the expectation of defeating him and then turning 
on Schofield and McPherson, several miles to the east, before they could effect 
a junction with Thomas.”  Hood called his three corps commanders together and 
explained his plan.  They agreed it was a good one and went off to get their 
troops ready for the attack.  But because of the uncertain terrain nothing went 
as planned.  When the attack did occur it was with an inadequate force and 
Thomas held out against it.  Should Hood “have known”?  I don’t see how he 
could have.  The Corps commander who “failed” the worst was Hardee who many at 
the time rated better at managing an Army than Hood.  But Hood took the blame 
for this
 failure.  
 
Sherman realized it had been a near thing.  If Hood’s plans had worked 
successfully as well it might, Sherman would have suffered a defeat.  He called 
his own corps commanders together for a “lessons learned” session:  “We agreed 
that we ought to be unusually cautious and prepared at all times for sallies 
and hard fighting, because Hood, though not deemed much of a scholar, or of 
great mental capacity, was undoubtedly a brave, determined, and rash man. . . 
.” 
 
As we read the correspondence of Jefferson Davis and Braxton Bragg we learn 
that Hood’s approach was just what they were looking for.  Previous generals 
were too defensively minded.  Davis & Bragg wanted more aggression and Hood 
gave it to them.  Unfortunately for Hood’s reputation Davis and Bragg didn’t 
give Hood enough men to pull off that ‘brave, determined and rash” sort of 
combat.  So Hood ran out of troops, and his reputation suffered accordingly.  
He was no longer the most highly praised of generals and his fiancé broke off 
their engagement – no one says that was why she broke it off but with the 
“shine” off of Hood, sitting there, wrinkled and worn with only one leg and one 
arm she realized she wasn’t really in love with him.  Few people were.  One 
woman however did love him.  They married after the war and had eleven children 
– ending speculation that Hood’s injury may have damaged more than his leg.
 
Lawrence

Other related posts: