Customer Reviews

John Bell Hood and the War for Southern Independence

5 star:		(0)
4 star:		(4)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

McMurry writes a solid bio of Hood in this book. McMurry traces the key turning points,in his mind, of Hood's career. In doing this he delves into the battle of Chickamauga, the Seven Days' Battles, the Atlanta Campaign, and the Tennessee Campaign of 1864, and Hood's courtship of Buck Preston while hardly mentioning the battles of Antietam or Gettysburg, in which Hood played a key role. Even so, it is still a very good book with some new views of Hood. One thing I found annoying was when McMurry dealt with the Atlanta Campaign he was very harsh and critical of J.E. Johnston (who he obviously dislikes) while basically claiming Hood could do no wrong during this campaign. Still, it is a interesting and good book, while being an easy read and giving some new views on Hood the man and Hood the general.

John Bell Hood was blamed for the defeats at Franklin and Nashville of the Army of Tennessee in 1864. Hood expected, however, that history would eventually restore his reputation. He wrote, "I have never feared but that I would get justice, but expect it to be tardy." This well-researched, well-balanced, concise biography - John Bell Hood and the War for Southern Independence by Richard M. McMurry - attempts to offer fairness and justice, but unfortunately for John Hood, McMurry draws conclusions that are not entirely favorable.

John Bell Hood's early career was marked by good fortune and successes in battle, and ultimately he became the youngest of the eight full generals of the Confederacy. No one questioned Hood's courage nor his effectiveness as a brigade commander. Following his severe injuries at Gettysburg and Chickamauga, Southern newspapers compared the loss of Hood's service as second only to that of Stonewall Jackson.

McMurry attributes Hood's "complete and disastrous failure" as commander of the Army of Tennessee to his inability to plan thoroughly his operations and to his inadequate supervision of his subordinates. Instead, Hood displayed a romantic's happy assumption that, despite all evidence, matters would work out for the best. McMurry strengthens his argument by identifying in Hood's early war years traces of weaknesses that would later contribute to his ultimate failure.

John Bell Hood and the War for Southern Independence easily warrants four stars.

This biography of John Bell Hood is piecemeal; you will not find the whole story here. For example, it barely touches on Hood's contributions to the battles fought at Antietam and Gettysburg where Hood was openly critical of Robert E. Lee's battle plans. You have to wonder why, when focusing on an offensively minded General like John Bell Hood, the author chooses to really omit the first two Confederate invasions of the North! Surely his experiences there were the foundation for the attacks he subsequently led at Franklin and Nashville, Tennessee.

More importantly, the author does not take General Hood to task either for destroying the Army of Tennessee at Franklin and Nashville or for the continual politicking the General loved to engage in. John Bell was definitely not a loyal subordinate. He was quarrelsome, difficult and in reality, could not be trusted by his peers.

But he was a fighter. On any battlefield in which he was engaged he fought like a demon. It is quite likely that with the exception of Stonewall Jackson, John Bell Hood was the finest combat general the Confederacy possessed.

McMurry spends too much time trying to downplay the Peter Principal in John Bell's life, and, as a result, forgets to highlight those areas of this brilliant combat officer's contributions which should be thoroughly discussed in a book of this nature. As a result, he forgets to pay John Bell Hood the respect he is due.

John Bell Hood remains one of the more tragic figures of the Civil War. Winning laurels in the Army of Northern Virginia in 1862 and 1863 by leading his division to great victories, Hood would suffer serious wounds at Gettysburg and Chickimagua which cost him one limb and the use of another. Rising to command the Army of Tennessee, Hood would be forced to abandon Atlanta and would lead his army to disaster in the bitter Franklin/Nashville campaign in late 1864. Having been censured by the Virginia legislature, Hood would resign his post and spend the rest of his life trying to regain his reputation. Sadly the young general would lose his wife and some of his eleven children in the great yellow fever epidemic that ravaged New Orleans in 1879. Hood would also be claimed by the disease. He simply did not have the money to escape New Orleans during the months of illness.

McMurry's biography on Hood remains the best book on the Texan. Yet there seems to be something missing. Too often McMurry resorts to offering grand panoramas of battles and campaigns and often the reader loses trace of Hood. This is not suprising; Hood left very few papers and his autobiography remains somewhat controversial. McMurry could have added more on Hood's postwar career.

McMurry presents an odd picture of Hood. Certainly the general's admirers, and there remain a great deal of them, can not be happy with this look at Hood. Having said that McMurry recognizes some of Hood's virtues as a man and as a commander. Still, after reading the book, one can generally agree with the woman engaged to Hood at the time that the Texan simply was in over his head as commander of one of the two primary Confederate armies. While Hood showed no problems using his politcal connections on his way up the ladder, like many others he simply could not manage the politics of the most factionalized of all Civil War armies.

This is not to say Hood was without merit. McMurry shows Hood's courage and determination. The problem is there are simply very few personal papers to work with. Hood, the ambitious and agressive young general, who lost the woman he was engaged to, two of his limbs, his reputation and the prime of his life for the Conferderacy is an intriguing man. The man who had eleven children after the war but found no success or rest must have been hanuted by many demons. It's an interesting and tragic tale and, while McMurry does the best he can with the material and sources, the story of Hood may be beyond the ability of a standard biographer or even one as talented as McMurry. The great rise and fall of John Bell Hood is tragedy of the highest order. Send for Sophocles.

Richard McMurry is one of the most honest battlefield historians I've encountered. To criticize John Bell Hood takes courage, especially now when so many people value rashness so highly and judgement so low. Hood, in the latter years of the war, was sick man emotionally and physically. He was deeply in love with a flirt who dropped him when glory left the general; he suffered from his physical wounds won on the battlefields of this war. Physical problems in the Tennessee campaign of 1864 caused him to leave too much to his underlings who were mostly untested and too new in their commands.

If you don't like McMurry's treatment of Hood leave him and turn to Hood's own Advance and Retreatwhich should erase any doubts you have of Hood's greatness. This is as honest a book as the story of Little Big Horn by Colonel George Armstrong Custer would be had George survived to write it.

Personally I follow the logic of that other great Texan, Louis Wigfall, who said Jeff Davis tried to do what God could not, make Hood a great general. Wigfall was an idiot in many ways, but his estimat eo fDavis and Hood is right on. For a good review of Hood's blundering in Tennessee, blundering which destroyed the Army of Tennessee, see Five Tragic Hours: The Battle of Franklin.

This book by Professor McMurry is one of the best biographies of John Bell Hood. Hood was a fascinating character and this work shows him in both the most honest and best light possible.