"Rescent book about John Bell Hood" Topic

There is a new book, (to me anyway), out about General John Bell Hood, written by a distant relative I believe, that argues that he has been treated unfailry by some historians. I wonder if anyone would care to express any opinions about this book or about the General himself. Thanks in advance for any thoughts or insights you care to contribute.

John Miller

Haven't read the book, but here are the details…John Bell Hood: The Rise, Fall, and Resurrection of a Confederate General by Stephen M. Hood, published by Savas Beatie, first edition 8/19/2013. Stephen Hood is described as "a distant relative." The book won the 2014 Albert Castel Book Award

His men called him "Ol' wooden head" so I think that speaks volumes about his command ability. To be fair, the moniker was earned during the disastrous Atlanta campaign. He was a sound tactical commander making him quite fit to be a division commander. He wasn't army commander material.

As "Joker" said, Hood was an excellent brigade commander, a good division commander, an adequate (sometimes) corps commander as long as he had an army commander who could yank on his reins, but a lousy army commander. Hood is an excellent example of the Peter Principle.

Jim

Gents;

Joe Johnston was was fighting a masterful campaign against the Federal Army retiring into and through Georgia, forcing the Federal forces to assault fortified positions or make time consuming flank marches in rough terrain.

The relationship between Johnston and President Davis was about as bad as it could get and had been for years. Davis wanted a guarantee that Johnston would fight for Atlanta. Johnston was not about to promise anything. So Davis replaced him with Hood, who guaranteed he would fight for Atlanta. Unfortunately for South, his idea of fighting was to reverse Johnston's tactics of fighting defensively with entirely offensive tactics, flinging his heretofore intact Army against numerically superior foe fighting defensively from semi fortified positions.

After doing so three times in six (IIRC) days, he bled his own army white and was forced to give up Atlanta BEFORE the Northern Presidential election which guaranteed Lincoln a second tern as President with a free hand to prosecute the war to a bloody conclusion.

Thus, Hood pretty much was personally responsible for ending any chance of some form of negotiated peace and guarantying a Confederate military defeat. After that, even knowing that some of the other Confederate Army commanders were marginal at best, I can see no need to even discuss his failures at Spring Hill and Franklin to cement him as the single WORST Confederate Army Commander in the War of Northern Aggression.

But hey, that may just be my opinion.

Mark

Chris,Joker, Jim, & Mark: Thanks very much for responding to my question!!! My motive in asking the above was to determine if anyone thinks there is any hope of salvaging Gen'l Hood's reputation as a corps or army commander. He is a member of my personal "pantheon of military heros", (for his service with the ANV), and I always want my heros to do well. Some historians have been quite disparaging in their comments and I was hoping he deserved better. I will buy the book just to see what the author has to say. My knowledge of ACW military events centers almost entirely around the AOP and ANV so I value the opinions of guys more knowledgable than myself, (which would include just about everyone). Thanks again, John Miller