View single post by ole
 Posted: Wed Feb 13th, 2008 04:46 pm
 PM  Quote  Reply  Full Topic 

Joined: Sun Oct 22nd, 2006
Posts: 2031

  back to top

I personally think there may be merit to the myth - just not documentation to support it.

That's about the size of it Michael. -- at least in my understanding.

From what I've gathered, it's largely based on "what was Hood thinking?" The assualt on Franklin was so horrendous that Hood could not possibly have been thinking clearly. He must have been in pain therefore he must have been taking laudanum. Yeah. That's it!  The supposition does make sense, but there is no proof.

Someone mentioned that Hood felt that the long, defensive retreat to Atlanta had taken the fighting ability out of the AoT. And that his frustration at not being able to bag Schofield led to anger and a determination to harden up the AoT in a headlong charge against a defensive line. Hood did mention in his apologetic "Advance and Retreat," that he felt the troops needed hardening up.

And thus we have two possibilities and ignore a third: Hood, in bagging or severly damaging Schofield, would have been hampering Thomas' defense of Nashville. Accomplishing that goal may have made the effort worthwhile. He might well have been taking an outside chance to make great gains in Tennessee. Where I fault him the most is in that, after being so thoroughly broken, he went to Nashville anyway.

Related to Cold Harbor, or Malvern Hill, or the 3rd Day? Seems that all of them were terrible choices in that they failed. Consider the condition of the war as we know it, if any one or combination of these had succeeded? Worth a shot? Oh yes.


Last edited on Wed Feb 13th, 2008 04:52 pm by ole

 Close Window