"Reasons John Bell Hood Was the Worst Civil War General" Topic

"In May 2023, Fort Hood, Texas was officially renamed Fort Cavazos, and while some have expressed outrage at the name change, it's honestly just much more fitting. Over the course of 30 years in service, Gen. Richard Cavazos became a veteran of two of America's most brutal wars, receiving the Distinguished Service Cross in each of them—and his first one was upgraded to the Medal of Honor.

John Bell Hood, meanwhile, has been referred to as "the single largest mistake that either government made during the war." If there is one general that could be considered as having single-handedly lost the Civil War for the Confederates, it's Hood. Here are 5 reasons Hood was the absolute worst…"

link

Armand

Tough to argue – brave enough chap, but probably best suited for brigade command, certainly not Corps and most definitely not Army

Plus you think losing a leg might make a person want to slow down a bit, not accept a higher command position

Perhaps the laudanum he took liberally for his leg pain had something to do with his poor judgement in higher command.

He proved to be an aggressive Indian fighter here in Texas and a very good division commander. But when you're shot all to pieces it's time to hang it up.

the name of the post was been changed back to Hood in 2025 for Colonel Robert Hood, a Kansas artilleryman. link

IMHO the post name should have remained Cavazos since he was a 4-star general, Korean War and Vietnam War participant, and a Distinguished Service Cross (which was upgraded to a posthumous Medal of Honor) recipient. He was a Texan and commanded Fort Hood and III Corps.

I served two tours of duty there in the 1970s and 1980s.

Jim

Hood should have had a whole chapter to himself in The Peter Principle. (Did he?)
He did indeed rise up to and beyond his level of incompetence.

General John Bell Hood is my 6th cousin four times removed. Small world.

He was a very good divisional commander and a good corps commander. I can think of a number of generals that were much worse. Was he really worse than Bragg, Butler or Pillow? I am sure Cavazos was viewed as a DEI hire by current admin.

Should not have been changed again – they played games with changing the names back, dishonoring the new namesakes who had deserved the recognition.

Hood was not the worst in any case

I do believe Bragg and Butler are raising their hands although they were so bad they never got all kinds of third chances to truly wreck an entire army.

It's a long time since I read much about him, but my recollection is that Butler might have done a lot better with competent (and loyal) subordinates.

I'm opposed to renaming things, period. What a waste of money.

If I was in a fight and needed a good brigade or division commander I'd want Hood at my side. But unfortunately his ambition carried him all the way to army command, to his(and the Confederacy's) detriment.

What's that old line about a man needing to know his limits?

I don't think people realize Hood did the same thing at Atlanta that Lee had done outside Richmond two years earlier: dig in so not all his men were needed to hold the line, then use the troops that were freed up to attack the enemy. It worked at the Seven Days, but not at Atlanta, where Hood wasn't facing McClellan, or McClellan's generals, or McClellan's relatively inexperienced soldiers. Sherman, officers like Thomas and McPherson, and their veterans were an altogether different proposition.

Grelber

Very true Grelber. Also, Union troops in the West tended to dig in after a days march. Also, add Banks to the list of generals worst than Hood.