Civil War Interactive Discussion Board Home
Home Search search Menu menu Not logged in - Login | Register


The General's reponses to their loss of a leg - Other People of the Civil War - The Participants of the War - Mikitary & Civilian - Civil War Interactive Discussion Board
 Moderated by: javal1 Page:  First Page Previous Page  1  2   
 New Topic   Reply   Printer Friendly 
 Rate Topic 
AuthorPost
 Posted: Wed Jun 27th, 2007 01:57 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
21st Post
j harold 587
Member


Joined: Tue Jun 12th, 2007
Location: Wilmington, Ohio USA
Posts: 166
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

 

 Most of the troops available to take that hill had been marching and fighting all day they were disorganized and terribly jumbled togeather after breaking into squad sized units (which were only usefull in WBTS as mess mates) to get through the streets of Gettysburg.  History chanell had a segment where they used crowd management software to simulate the movement of confederate troops through the town which really brought this out clearly.  Even Stonewall had to concede after his very successful end run prior to his fatal wounding that the pursuit had to stop to reorganize his men into managable formations. To sort out the confusion which contributed to his fatal shooting, and those troops had not been filtered  through the streets of a small village. 

Perhaps the bottom line on how injured individuals react is a personal code of behavior. Why do individuals exposed to combat, crime, financial loss, or any other stress of life not all react the same? Because we each bring our own experiences and beleifsystems to the situation. Combat medics can relate experiences of two soldiers side by side when injured. One who has severe injury survives, while the less critical does not

   



 Posted: Sat Jun 30th, 2007 08:37 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
22nd Post
JoanieReb
Member
 

Joined: Wed Jan 24th, 2007
Location:  
Posts: 620
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Thank you, J Harald 587,

For both the thoughtful and well-organized way that you addressed both the topics we have going on here in this thread!

Once again, I am left with much to think about.

I am wondering, since there are two topics going on in this thread now, should we split off and go to a new thread, maybe discussing if "That Hill" should have taken? 

Or, dare we get brave enough to discuss Gettysburg here at CWi  (in a new thread, of course), with all respect towards each other.

I like to visit one G-Burg discussion Board.  It warns people, "don't sign up or contribute, unless you can keep up with hard-core professionals".

Well, I got to tell you, the thread we just started about Ewell shows that we can keep up with anyone.

But, perhaps it is either too volatile or overwhelming?  Perhaps we could break it down, day by day, or location by location, and talk it out, sharing with each other what we think may have happened?

Or, perhaps we are just bored to death by it all, ROFL...

Thank You,

Joanie

 

 

 



 Posted: Thu Jul 19th, 2007 12:22 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
23rd Post
Kentucky_Orphan
Member


Joined: Wed Dec 20th, 2006
Location:  
Posts: 125
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Lay aside for a second the aspect of serious injury in the case of Hood and Ewell. How about the promotion from division to corp (and for Hood eventually army) command. Wouldn't this be just as reasonable an explanation for the change as injury? Perhaps both reasons working in tandem to fundamentally change both Generals demeanors? Hood and Ewell were both superb division commanders, no one would ever debate that. The increase in repsonsibility entailed in such a promotion may have been simply beyond both mens abilities.



 Posted: Thu Jul 19th, 2007 12:52 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
24th Post
CleburneFan
Member


Joined: Mon Oct 30th, 2006
Location: Florida USA
Posts: 1020
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Orphan, I agree with that assessment. Ewell, in particular, had precious little time to "grow into" his new responsibilities before things got down and dirty at Gettysburg. Plus, the man must have been tired.

Last edited on Thu Jul 19th, 2007 12:54 am by CleburneFan



 Posted: Sun Mar 30th, 2008 04:05 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
25th Post
samhood
Member
 

Joined: Tue Sep 6th, 2005
Location: West Virginia USA
Posts: 55
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

With apologies for commenting on a topic that has been dormant for a few months...

There is no historical evidence whatsoever that Hood used opiates.  It was a theory posed in a 1940 book that got traction.  As for alcohol, not only is there not a single shread of evidence that Hood drank, rather, to the contrary, it was written by one of his biographers that for the remainder of his life alcohol never touched his lips after his baptism by Gen Polk during the Atlanta Campaign.

It has always struck me as interesting that Ewell had FINALLY married the love of his life; while Hood was still persuing  (and ultimately disappointed in persuing) his Great Love in Life (was it "Sallie 'Buck' Preston"? I'm at work, no references handy...)

The Hood-Buck Preston thing was a dramatic soap-operetic non-issue concocted by Wiley Sword in his book on Hood and the TN Campaign.  Sorta like the Leo DeCaprio and Kate Winslet characters injected into the plot of the recent movie "Titanic."  Yes, Hood was courting Sally Buchanon Preston during the war, but many men were courting women during the war.

Especially JBHood, whom was noted for being "moody" and sometimes "unconcerned", during major battles.  

I know of no witnesses who ever wrote that Hood was "moody," to the contrary, the only descriptions I have read on Hood before battle was that he was composed.  SA Cunningham wrote of Hood before the Battle of Franklin, "While making ready for the charge, General Hood rode up to our lines, having left his escort and staff in the rear. He remained at the front in plain view of the enemy for, perhaps, half an hour making a most careful survey of their lines." Cunningham continued "...but I was absorbed in the one man whose mind was deciding the fate of thousands. With an arm and a leg in the grave, and with the consciousness that he had not until within a couple of days won the confidence which his army had in his predecessor, he had now a very trying ordeal to pass through. It was all-important to act, if at all, at once. He rode to Stephen D. Lee, the nearest of his subordinate generals, and, shaking hands with him cordially, announced his decision to make an immediate charge."

The reference to Hood being "unconcerned" came, I think, from the memoirs of one of Hood's Texans as Hood's Brigade was preparing for the charge at Gaines' Mill (long before his woundings at Gettysburg and Chickamauga).  Pvt. Val Giles (I think) wrote, "I tell you what,...I got mighty nervous and shaky while we were forming in the apple orchard to make that last desperate charge on the batteries. But when I looked behind me and saw old Hood resting on one foot, his arm raised above his head, his hand grasping the limb of a tree, looking as unconcerned as if we were on dress parade, I just determined that if he could stand it, so would I."

(In contrast, JBH would so little listen to any of his lessor generals' opinions that, after leaving a meeting that included Cleborne and NB Forrest, where each general there strongly disagreed with JB Hood's plans, NB Forrest exited saying "If you was a whole man, I'd whup you to within and inch of your life".) 

Philip D Stephenson of the Fifth Co. Washington Artillery described Hood: "Hood’s personal appearance was striking and commanding. He was over six feet and of splendid proportions . . .of magnificent and striking appearance. With his yellow waving hair and great tawny beard and big bold blue eyes and Herculean frame, he looked like a gigantic old Saxon chieftain come to life again."  If Hood were indeed "a whole man" I think Forrest would have had his hands full.



 Posted: Sun Mar 30th, 2008 05:12 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
26th Post
EricJacobson
Member
 

Joined: Fri Feb 22nd, 2008
Location:  
Posts: 18
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Joanie,

I have to say all this talk of Hood being on drugs really has to stop.  Moreover, those who knew him said he hardly drank, if ever.  But back to opiates/ladanum/etc.  There is not a single shred of evidence that Hood was taking medication of any kind.  What you may have read or heard is ALL based on conjecture, assumption, etc.  I wrote a book about Spring Hill and Franklin and can tell with 100% certainty that I never found a single contemporary account that Hood was taking anything for his injuries.

And as far as the love of his life Sally Preston, well, everything we know about that relationship comes from the gossip Mary Chestnut.  Hood's true love was more likely the woman he married, Ann Marie Hennen, and their eleven children.

Hood was not the angry, addicted, love strung fool he has been made out to be in the last 30-40 years.  I think it's long overdue to get the facts straight.

Eric A. Jacobson



 Current time is 11:10 amPage:  First Page Previous Page  1  2   
Top




UltraBB 1.17 Copyright © 2007-2008 Data 1 Systems
Page processed in 0.1555 seconds (14% database + 86% PHP). 26 queries executed.