What do you think?
Rate this book
John Bell Hood: The Rise, Fall, and Resurrection of a Confederate General
John Bell Hood was one of the Confederacy's most successful and enigmatic generals. He died at 48 after a brief illness in August of 1879, leaving behind the first draft of his memoirs Advance and Retreat: Personal Experiences in the United States and Confederate States Armies. Published posthumously the following year, the memoirs immediately became as controversial as their author. A careful and balanced examination of these controversies, however, coupled with the recent discovery of Hood's personal papers (which were long considered lost) finally sets the record straight in John Bell Hood: The Rise, Fall, and Resurrection of a Confederate General.
Outlived by most of his critics, Hood's published version of many of the major events and controversies of his Confederate military career were met with scorn and skepticism. Some described his memoirs as nothing more than a polemic against his arch-rival Joseph E. Johnston. These unflattering opinions persisted throughout the decades and reached their nadir in 1992, when an influential author described Hood's memoirs as merely a bitter, misleading, and highly distorted treatise replete with distortions, misrepresentations, and outright falsifications. Without any personal papers to contradict them, many historians and writers portrayed Hood as an inept and dishonest opium addict and a conniving, vindictive cripple of a man. One writer went so far as to brand him a fool with a license to kill his own men. What most readers don't know is that nearly all of these authors misused sources, ignored contrary evidence, and/or suppressed facts sympathetic to Hood.
Stephen M. Sam Hood, a distant relative of the general, embarked on a meticulous forensic study of the common perceptions and controversies of his famous kinsman. His careful examination of the original sources utilized to create the broadly accepted facts about John Bell Hood uncovered startlingly poor scholarship by some of the most well-known and influential historians of the 20th and 21st centuries. These discoveries, coupled with his access to a large cache of recently discovered Hood papers many penned by generals and other officers who served with Hood confirm Hood's account that originally appeared in his memoir and resolve, for the first time, some of the most controversial aspects of Hood's long career.
Blindly accepting historical truths without vigorous challenge, cautions one historian, is a perilous path to understanding real history. The shocking revelations in John Bell Hood: The Rise, Fall, and Resurrection of a Confederate General will forever change our perceptions of Hood as both a man and a general, and those who set out to shape his legacy.
Outlived by most of his critics, Hood's published version of many of the major events and controversies of his Confederate military career were met with scorn and skepticism. Some described his memoirs as nothing more than a polemic against his arch-rival Joseph E. Johnston. These unflattering opinions persisted throughout the decades and reached their nadir in 1992, when an influential author described Hood's memoirs as merely a bitter, misleading, and highly distorted treatise replete with distortions, misrepresentations, and outright falsifications. Without any personal papers to contradict them, many historians and writers portrayed Hood as an inept and dishonest opium addict and a conniving, vindictive cripple of a man. One writer went so far as to brand him a fool with a license to kill his own men. What most readers don't know is that nearly all of these authors misused sources, ignored contrary evidence, and/or suppressed facts sympathetic to Hood.
Stephen M. Sam Hood, a distant relative of the general, embarked on a meticulous forensic study of the common perceptions and controversies of his famous kinsman. His careful examination of the original sources utilized to create the broadly accepted facts about John Bell Hood uncovered startlingly poor scholarship by some of the most well-known and influential historians of the 20th and 21st centuries. These discoveries, coupled with his access to a large cache of recently discovered Hood papers many penned by generals and other officers who served with Hood confirm Hood's account that originally appeared in his memoir and resolve, for the first time, some of the most controversial aspects of Hood's long career.
Blindly accepting historical truths without vigorous challenge, cautions one historian, is a perilous path to understanding real history. The shocking revelations in John Bell Hood: The Rise, Fall, and Resurrection of a Confederate General will forever change our perceptions of Hood as both a man and a general, and those who set out to shape his legacy.
384 pages, Paperback
First published May 19, 2013
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 15 of 15 reviews
February 5, 2024
“Such is the state of Civil War literature, where too many authors simply repeat earlier writers or, in the case of primary sources, often neglect to confirm their accuracy or credibility.”
This is the thrust of Stephen Hood’s book about his more famous relative. This is not a biography, but rather a discussion of every insult thrown Hood’s way that Stephen does not think survives the scrutiny of sunlight. This is a book solely for the devoted, or shall we say the obsessed scholar and buff. It has all the enthusiasm of an amateur work, a few of the flaws, but some very real strengths and discerning conclusions.
Hood was a desperate man in a desperate spot but he was not deranged nor cruel. Indeed, he devoted much of his postwar life to charity, which made him beloved in New Orleans. Stephen goes a long way to explaining what errors were not his fault and which are fabrications. His take on Franklin is among the best I have seen. His comment on Hood and frontal attacks is pretty spot on save for Atlanta.
The ground gets shakier in considering the move on Nashville. Hood had his reasons, but he was in a logistically tough place and facing heavy fortifications. Even a victory outside of Nashville would be unlikely to give him the city. Hood’s army was also shattered, their morale crushed. Stephen does not address these issues, but to be fair he says the book is not meant to be balanced but to argue against attacks leveled by careless historians. Wiley Sword in particular suffers. Sword’s The Confederacy’s Last Hurrah comes off as tattered trash (and Sword himself is insulted), much the way Joe Rose in Grant Under Fire has made some question Grant’s Memoirs.
That said, the book makes its share of errors. Opdycke had a brigade, not a regiment, at Franklin. A. P. Stewart was not an outsider in the Army of Tennessee, and had in fact fought in all of its battles since Shiloh. Schofield was not “trapped” at Franklin. Furthermore, the need to lay aspersions upon Hood’s critics makes the book petty, and in that sense becomes much like the very books and accounts Stephen has condemned. Maybe one should write a book called "Wiley Sword: The Life, Death, and Resurrection of a Civil War Historian."
It is worth a read and Stephen’s conclusions are mostly solid, if a bit stretched. It is not a biography though and was never meant to be.
This is the thrust of Stephen Hood’s book about his more famous relative. This is not a biography, but rather a discussion of every insult thrown Hood’s way that Stephen does not think survives the scrutiny of sunlight. This is a book solely for the devoted, or shall we say the obsessed scholar and buff. It has all the enthusiasm of an amateur work, a few of the flaws, but some very real strengths and discerning conclusions.
Hood was a desperate man in a desperate spot but he was not deranged nor cruel. Indeed, he devoted much of his postwar life to charity, which made him beloved in New Orleans. Stephen goes a long way to explaining what errors were not his fault and which are fabrications. His take on Franklin is among the best I have seen. His comment on Hood and frontal attacks is pretty spot on save for Atlanta.
The ground gets shakier in considering the move on Nashville. Hood had his reasons, but he was in a logistically tough place and facing heavy fortifications. Even a victory outside of Nashville would be unlikely to give him the city. Hood’s army was also shattered, their morale crushed. Stephen does not address these issues, but to be fair he says the book is not meant to be balanced but to argue against attacks leveled by careless historians. Wiley Sword in particular suffers. Sword’s The Confederacy’s Last Hurrah comes off as tattered trash (and Sword himself is insulted), much the way Joe Rose in Grant Under Fire has made some question Grant’s Memoirs.
That said, the book makes its share of errors. Opdycke had a brigade, not a regiment, at Franklin. A. P. Stewart was not an outsider in the Army of Tennessee, and had in fact fought in all of its battles since Shiloh. Schofield was not “trapped” at Franklin. Furthermore, the need to lay aspersions upon Hood’s critics makes the book petty, and in that sense becomes much like the very books and accounts Stephen has condemned. Maybe one should write a book called "Wiley Sword: The Life, Death, and Resurrection of a Civil War Historian."
It is worth a read and Stephen’s conclusions are mostly solid, if a bit stretched. It is not a biography though and was never meant to be.
September 4, 2013
This is not a biography of Hood, but more of a reply to those who have negatively criticized him in print since the Civil War. The author does an excellent job of illustrating how sloppy and careless many historians are when it comes to documenting facts and making interpretations. I found the tone of his arguments a little overboard at times, but it is still a book worth reading to get the full picture of Hood's actions.
August 25, 2014
Assemble a group of Civil War hobbyists, amateur historians, or even, dare I say, war gamers, have them discuss the generals of that time, and, when the discussion comes around to John Bell Hood, the talk will praise him in command of his Texas Brigade and in division command, but when in command of the Army of Tennessee in defense of Atlanta and then the late-1864 Tennessee campaign, he is roundly condemned as an idiot and worse.
Author Stephen M. Hood, General John Bell Hood’s second cousin via shared descent from the general’s grandfather, has written a book attempting to redeem his reputation. The book is not a biography, but an examination of criticism the general’s reputation has endured since he died in 1879, criticism which the author tries to disprove.
Summarizing some of the points he makes, we find the following.
General Robert E. Lee did not advise against Hood’s appointment to command of the Army of Tennessee.
The supposition that Hood tried to undermine General Johnston is a bid to replace him as commanding general of the Army of Tennessee is unfair.
Hood, in command of a corps, had valid reasons not to attack the Federals at Cassville during the Atlanta Campaign.
Hood’s moves during the battles for Atlanta receive censure while similar moves by Saint Lee at Gettysburg and Petersburg do not.
The Tennessee campaign didn’t just spring half-baked from Hood’s fevered brain. It had potential.
The failure at Spring Hill to close the trap on Schofield’s force can be attributed to Cheatham’s failure to obey orders.
The attack on Franklin was the best the Army of Tennessee could do given the strategic situation. It could not be flanked.
The death of Cleburne was not as the result of Hood’s blaming him for the fiasco at Spring Hill.
Hood did not accuse his soldiers of cowardice, he did not try to make his army bleed as a means of stiffening discipline, and he was no more fonder of frontal assaults than any other of his contemporaries.
He was not unduly affected by drugs (laudanum)nor by his failed romance with Sally Preston.
The Army of Tennessee wasn’t destroyed at Nashville.
General Hood retained the respect of his men.
Author Hood’s particular bête noires are the Southern Historical Society’s glorifying Virginian heroes at the expense of others, and works by Stanley Horn (The Army of Tennessee), Thomas Connelly (Autumn of Glory) and Wiley Sword (Embrace an Angry Wind). He says, in page xxxvi of his introduction, negative portrayals of Hood are caused by what is essentially misuse of source material (if used at all). He examines these in detail and provides reasoning to believe them false, and he provides positive quotes from other sources.
What he cannot do, and doesn’t try, is deny the fact that Hood commanded the army that lost Atlanta and conducted a failed campaign in Tennessee. It may be fair to remember Pickett’s explanation for the defeat at Gettysburg, “I've always thought the Yankees had something to do with it.” How inept a commander was will be up to the reader after reading this, and, to be fair, the above-named books.
This is not a book to pick up if the first and only book one has read is, say, Ken Burns’ book accompanying the television series. Some appreciation of the western and Atlanta campaigns is necessary. I am now curious enough to read more of Hood’s campaigns again.
August 4, 2013
This is an interesting book. I am not sure that the author fully makes his case, but he does call out many who have excoriated General John Hood for his record as commander of the Confederate Army of the Tennessee. Any reader of Civil War history knows of the claims that Hood failed as corps commander at Cassville, that he flailed about trying to defend Atlanta, that he was responsible for the failure to trap and wreck Union General John Schofield's forces at Spring Hill, that he foolishly attacked Schofield's forces at Franklin, that he botched the Battle of Nashville.
The author, a relative of General Hood, addresses these--and other--criticisms of Hood. He makes a pretty good case in many instances. However, I think he goes too far in his defense of Hood at some points. Still, a useful corrective.
Hood's history as an officer is worth noting. He did very well in brigade command on the Peninsula; he emerged as a capable division commander under Longstreet. Some of his successes were at Gaines Mill, Second Manassas, and Antietam. His division wreaked havoc on Union forces at Gettysburg, although he was out of combat early with an injury.
But this book is about his record in the West. However, the author makes a case that historians have been overly negative toward Hood. For instance, Cassville. The standard story is that the normally aggressive commander got cold feet during an unusual aggressive impulse by then commanding general Joe Johnston and abandoned a promising ambush that could have caused damage to Union forces. However, the author notes that Hood responded prudently to unexpected events. A fairly good point (I need to go back to other works on Cassville and see what others have said).
The one thing that does bother me is the tonality of the work (understandable, of course). He criticizes some authors for assuming what was going through Hood's mind-- and then the author does the same with U. S. Grant (page 183). Other statements that bother me. On page 257, the book notes that Stonewall Jackson promoted Hood to major general. Jackson could not have done so, since he did not have the authority to promote (at another point, the author more properly notes that Jackson supported the promotion). There is the claim that Hood went on the offensive because he felt that he would get support from the Trans-Mississippi forces of Edmund Kirby Smith. A thin reed to lean on, and a not very satisfying claim in the book's context. On page 146, the author claims that Hood's Texas Brigade was the best unit in the Confederate Army. Hyperbole. The Stonewall Brigade? Other accomplished units? His defense of Hood at Nashville does not seem well founded. As I understand it, Hood dug in with too few troops to really defend his position properly. Maybe he had no choice, but perhaps there might have been ways of better deploying his forces.
So, in the end, a useful corrective, even of going too far in the other direction. . . .
Still, the author accomplishes much of what he set out to do.
The author, a relative of General Hood, addresses these--and other--criticisms of Hood. He makes a pretty good case in many instances. However, I think he goes too far in his defense of Hood at some points. Still, a useful corrective.
Hood's history as an officer is worth noting. He did very well in brigade command on the Peninsula; he emerged as a capable division commander under Longstreet. Some of his successes were at Gaines Mill, Second Manassas, and Antietam. His division wreaked havoc on Union forces at Gettysburg, although he was out of combat early with an injury.
But this book is about his record in the West. However, the author makes a case that historians have been overly negative toward Hood. For instance, Cassville. The standard story is that the normally aggressive commander got cold feet during an unusual aggressive impulse by then commanding general Joe Johnston and abandoned a promising ambush that could have caused damage to Union forces. However, the author notes that Hood responded prudently to unexpected events. A fairly good point (I need to go back to other works on Cassville and see what others have said).
The one thing that does bother me is the tonality of the work (understandable, of course). He criticizes some authors for assuming what was going through Hood's mind-- and then the author does the same with U. S. Grant (page 183). Other statements that bother me. On page 257, the book notes that Stonewall Jackson promoted Hood to major general. Jackson could not have done so, since he did not have the authority to promote (at another point, the author more properly notes that Jackson supported the promotion). There is the claim that Hood went on the offensive because he felt that he would get support from the Trans-Mississippi forces of Edmund Kirby Smith. A thin reed to lean on, and a not very satisfying claim in the book's context. On page 146, the author claims that Hood's Texas Brigade was the best unit in the Confederate Army. Hyperbole. The Stonewall Brigade? Other accomplished units? His defense of Hood at Nashville does not seem well founded. As I understand it, Hood dug in with too few troops to really defend his position properly. Maybe he had no choice, but perhaps there might have been ways of better deploying his forces.
So, in the end, a useful corrective, even of going too far in the other direction. . . .
Still, the author accomplishes much of what he set out to do.
March 16, 2024
In ‘John Bell Hood: Rise, Fall, Resurrection of a Confederate General’ Sam Hood goes to great lengths to restore the tarnished reputation of one of America's most honorable, and hard hitting, commanders in our history. Sam Hood, himself a relative of General Hood, a former military officer himself, and someone who clearly knows his way around historical research has written a passionate, aggressive, but fully documented, and supported by sources, and sound analysis, offensive upon roughly a century of Civil War Historiography.
General Hood has been excoriated in the historical record as a butcher of men, a blockhead, an angry rebuffed romantic, and an opium addict. And throughout the pages of this book, Sam Hood deconstructs all of those claims, and presents evidence to the contrary, and provides sound analysis as to why Hood's tenure in command of the Army of Tennessee was not the endless disaster that it has been so often portrayed.
If any major American combat force is in desperate need of a major reevaluation from the established narrative, it is the unfairly pilloried Army of Tennessee. If the hard fighting Northern Army of the Potomac and its leaders can begin to get a fairer shake, so should the main Southern army of the Western Theater.
If there is any criticism to be leveled at Sam Hood in his defense of General Hood, it is that a couple of historians tend to come under some possibly unfair fire themselves in the pages of this book. Both Wiley Sword, and Thomas Connelly come under intense fire in the pages of this book. And while I think the authors critiques, and offensive in general, is more than justified, I wonder if it will serve to unfairly tarnish the legacy of those other historians who have gone before?
Sword, who has since passed away, has written several books that I personally am quite fond of. And the one that comes under relentless barrage in this, admittedly justified, polemic is his ‘Embrace and Angry Wind: The Confederacy’s Last Hurrah, Spring Hill, Franklin, and Nashville’. Having read this particular book twice in my life, now, and having thoroughly enjoyed it each time, while being somewhat of an admirer of General Hood to begin with, I feel as if I need to say something on the late Mr. Sword’s behalf.
It is clear from his books ‘Shiloh: Bloody April’, and ‘Mountains Touched With Fire’, that Sword had a tendency to be hyper critical of Generals of all stripe, and didn't care if they wore the Blue, or the Grey. His work on the Chattanooga Campaign was hyper critical of Grant, Sherman, as well as Braxton Bragg, and Longstreet.
In some measure, all four of those men deserve the harsh treatment they received in Sword’s work on Chattanooga, while in some respects maybe not. Point being, I believe that this was Sword’s selling point, if you will. He was a historian not afraid to delve into lengthy bouts of criticism of even beloved figures.
Or, put another way, he enjoyed hunting sacred cows.
Where Sam Hood does future historians a great deal of good (and since I am working on my own monographs, myself included), is in reminding historians to be far more careful in scrutiny, and analysis of sources, and to cross reference them with opposing views held by contemporaries of said source. And, one should be more mindful of what it is you're actively engaged in when in the midst of the muse’s influence when writing. Sword was a great writer, but clearly he let his own pen carry him away, as Sam Hood frequently points out.
As for Thomas Connelly, I have felt since I wrote my own Masters level thesis on the Murfreesboro Campaign back in 2014, that his two volumes on the Army of Tennessee were at times ludicrously critical, almost to the point of parody of itself. The fact that his two volumes were written in the mid to late 70’s, when the passionate emotions over the Vietnam War was influencing the study of military history, likely had much to do with Connelly’s tendency. As a consequence, I think a two volume, updated, reassessment of the Army of Tennessee is long overdue.
Even so, the author was at times, himself, a tad excoriating in his treatment of Mr. Connelly and his work.
Despite these critiques, I really wholeheartedly recommend this book. General Hood was better commander than given credit for, a far better man than given credit for, taking a page from his mentor, Robert E. Lee, and refusing to speak anything evil of his Yankee opponents, even maintaining friendships with some into the post War period. His opponent at Franklin, Major General John Schofield, himself admired Hood, and even though a Federal, was one of Hood’s chief defenders from the other side, as was General James Wilson, who routinely praised Hood in his own Memoirs.
Ironically, both men actively fought, desperately, to save their own army at the Battle of Franklin, and continue their retreat to Nashville, against Hood.
As Sam Hood shows, repeatedly, many of the junior officers, and rank and file of the Army of Tennessee loved Hood the General, and his aggression actively worked to restore the morale that Johnston’s continuous withdrawals had sapped from the Army in the first half of the Atlanta Campaign.
All of this, and more, is within the pages of this fine work. One I highly recommend.
General Hood has been excoriated in the historical record as a butcher of men, a blockhead, an angry rebuffed romantic, and an opium addict. And throughout the pages of this book, Sam Hood deconstructs all of those claims, and presents evidence to the contrary, and provides sound analysis as to why Hood's tenure in command of the Army of Tennessee was not the endless disaster that it has been so often portrayed.
If any major American combat force is in desperate need of a major reevaluation from the established narrative, it is the unfairly pilloried Army of Tennessee. If the hard fighting Northern Army of the Potomac and its leaders can begin to get a fairer shake, so should the main Southern army of the Western Theater.
If there is any criticism to be leveled at Sam Hood in his defense of General Hood, it is that a couple of historians tend to come under some possibly unfair fire themselves in the pages of this book. Both Wiley Sword, and Thomas Connelly come under intense fire in the pages of this book. And while I think the authors critiques, and offensive in general, is more than justified, I wonder if it will serve to unfairly tarnish the legacy of those other historians who have gone before?
Sword, who has since passed away, has written several books that I personally am quite fond of. And the one that comes under relentless barrage in this, admittedly justified, polemic is his ‘Embrace and Angry Wind: The Confederacy’s Last Hurrah, Spring Hill, Franklin, and Nashville’. Having read this particular book twice in my life, now, and having thoroughly enjoyed it each time, while being somewhat of an admirer of General Hood to begin with, I feel as if I need to say something on the late Mr. Sword’s behalf.
It is clear from his books ‘Shiloh: Bloody April’, and ‘Mountains Touched With Fire’, that Sword had a tendency to be hyper critical of Generals of all stripe, and didn't care if they wore the Blue, or the Grey. His work on the Chattanooga Campaign was hyper critical of Grant, Sherman, as well as Braxton Bragg, and Longstreet.
In some measure, all four of those men deserve the harsh treatment they received in Sword’s work on Chattanooga, while in some respects maybe not. Point being, I believe that this was Sword’s selling point, if you will. He was a historian not afraid to delve into lengthy bouts of criticism of even beloved figures.
Or, put another way, he enjoyed hunting sacred cows.
Where Sam Hood does future historians a great deal of good (and since I am working on my own monographs, myself included), is in reminding historians to be far more careful in scrutiny, and analysis of sources, and to cross reference them with opposing views held by contemporaries of said source. And, one should be more mindful of what it is you're actively engaged in when in the midst of the muse’s influence when writing. Sword was a great writer, but clearly he let his own pen carry him away, as Sam Hood frequently points out.
As for Thomas Connelly, I have felt since I wrote my own Masters level thesis on the Murfreesboro Campaign back in 2014, that his two volumes on the Army of Tennessee were at times ludicrously critical, almost to the point of parody of itself. The fact that his two volumes were written in the mid to late 70’s, when the passionate emotions over the Vietnam War was influencing the study of military history, likely had much to do with Connelly’s tendency. As a consequence, I think a two volume, updated, reassessment of the Army of Tennessee is long overdue.
Even so, the author was at times, himself, a tad excoriating in his treatment of Mr. Connelly and his work.
Despite these critiques, I really wholeheartedly recommend this book. General Hood was better commander than given credit for, a far better man than given credit for, taking a page from his mentor, Robert E. Lee, and refusing to speak anything evil of his Yankee opponents, even maintaining friendships with some into the post War period. His opponent at Franklin, Major General John Schofield, himself admired Hood, and even though a Federal, was one of Hood’s chief defenders from the other side, as was General James Wilson, who routinely praised Hood in his own Memoirs.
Ironically, both men actively fought, desperately, to save their own army at the Battle of Franklin, and continue their retreat to Nashville, against Hood.
As Sam Hood shows, repeatedly, many of the junior officers, and rank and file of the Army of Tennessee loved Hood the General, and his aggression actively worked to restore the morale that Johnston’s continuous withdrawals had sapped from the Army in the first half of the Atlanta Campaign.
All of this, and more, is within the pages of this fine work. One I highly recommend.
October 27, 2016
If you are looking for an objective biography of John Bell Hood,this is not it. Written by his second cousin, Stephen Hood,you find out very early that this is a book out to discredit all other biographers.
You could actually say it's an out to get one of the most noted American civil war historian,Wiley Sword.
The author claims Sword and Hood biographers never have first hand accounts of Hood and the Army of the Tennessee. Stephen Hood,seems to forget that his cousin,lost at least 5 generals,at the battle of Franklin,who could have given their first hand accounts.
The whole purpose of this book was to wipe clean John Bell Hood's reputation at the expense of others in the Army of the Tennessee.
I will say it's well written and with good intentions.
So John Bell Hood is still looking for an objective biography,not one that is out settle scores with other historians.
You could actually say it's an out to get one of the most noted American civil war historian,Wiley Sword.
The author claims Sword and Hood biographers never have first hand accounts of Hood and the Army of the Tennessee. Stephen Hood,seems to forget that his cousin,lost at least 5 generals,at the battle of Franklin,who could have given their first hand accounts.
The whole purpose of this book was to wipe clean John Bell Hood's reputation at the expense of others in the Army of the Tennessee.
I will say it's well written and with good intentions.
So John Bell Hood is still looking for an objective biography,not one that is out settle scores with other historians.
May 30, 2014
BOOK REVIEW: 'John Bell Hood: The Rise, Fall, and Resurrection of a Confederate General': Setting the Record Straight on an Important Civil War General
REVIEWED BY DAVID M. KINCHEN
"L'audace, l'audace, toujours l'audace." -- General George S. Patton and his alter ego, Napoleon, made "Audacity, audacity, always audacity" a famous phrase encouraging bold courage in the face of great challenge. John Bell Hood displayed many of the qualities of Patton -- something recognized by his battlefield foes including Gen. George H. Thomas, who defeated Hood's forces at Nashville in the closing weeks of 1864.
* * *
"God alone knows the future, but only an historian can alter the past" -- Ambrose Bierce; chosen by Stephen M. Hood as the epigraph for the Introduction
What is there about Confederate General John Bell Hood (1831-1879) that made historians and many of his fellow Confederate comrades in arms want tear him down? This destruction was taking place at the same time Union officers had nothing but praise for the battlefield behavior of the Kentucky native who is forever linked to his service on the frontier in Texas. The Union side considered Hood a worthy opponent and acted accordingly. The sprawling Fort Hood army base in central Texas is named for John Bell Hood.
Stephen M. "Sam" Hood of Huntington WV devotes an entire book "John Bell Hood: The Rise, Fall, and Resurrection of a Confederate General" (Savas Beatie LLC, Eldorado Hills, CA, 384 pages, $32.95) to setting the record straight on Hood, who resigned after his army was defeated by Union Gen. George H. Thomas at Nashville, Tenn. at the end of 1864. Sam Hood's tome -- the product of ten years of exhaustive research, with access to previously undiscovered documents -- is the latest in a series of books that aim to resurrect John Bell Hood to his proper place in the pantheon of Civil War generals.
In his lengthy and informative foreword to Sam Hood's book about his collateral ancestor, Thomas J. Brown, who died before the book was published, blames much of the criticism of Gen. John Bell Hood on the "Lost Cause" ideology practiced by Virginians. They needed a scapegoat and the general who dared to comment on the battlefield shortcomings of Gen. Joseph E. Johnston was targeted by the Virginians as a scapegoat. Johnston, born in Farmville, VA in 1807, outlived Hood by more than a decade, dying in 1891. That gave Johnston plenty of time to build up his reputation and tear down that of Hood. It's no secret that Virginians considered themselves a cut above the other states of the Confederacy.
Too, there's the matter of the departure of the Southern Historical Society from the South's largest city, New Orleans, to the former Confederate capital, Richmond, VA. The society was formed in New Orleans, where Hood moved after the war, but left for Richmond in 1873. Hood was a businessman in New Orleans and died in 1879 of yellow fever along with his wife. His memoir "Advance and Retreat: Personal Experiences in the United States and Confederate States Armies" was published posthumously tin 1880.
In the introduction -- which should be carefully read, please don't skip it -- the author says that "some reviewers might call it [the book] a hagiography of General Hood and say that it lacks balance. In fact, this book does not require balance because it represents the balance that is missing from most modern books and articles that have been published about Hood and his tenure as commander of the Army of Tennessee."
Acknowledging that most Civil War history buffs will read books by authors like Wiley Sword, James McDonough, Thomas Connelly, and others, Hood says his wish is that readers use his book in conjunction with those who've portrayed General Hood in an unfavorable light. The author describes the battles fought by Hood and his armies, noting in details the errors and distortions historians used to demolish John Bell Hood's reputation.
I was as shocked as the fictional Captain Renault in the classic movie "Casablanca" to find that Hood's published version of many of the major events and controversies of his Confederate military career was met with scorn and skepticism. Some described his memoirs as nothing more than a polemic against his arch-rival Joseph E. Johnston. The publisher, on the Savas Beatie website, notes that "These unflattering opinions persisted throughout the decades and reached their nadir in 1992, when an influential author described Hood's memoirs as 'merely a bitter, misleading, and highly distorted treatise' replete with 'distortions, misrepresentations, and outright falsifications.' Without any personal papers to contradict them, many historians and writers portrayed Hood as an inept and dishonest opium addict and a conniving, vindictive cripple of a man. One writer went so far as to brand him 'a fool with a license to kill his own men.' What most readers don't know is that nearly all of these authors misused sources, ignored contrary evidence, and/or suppressed facts sympathetic to Hood."
This is the first time I've seen the author's debunking of the myths surrounding Hood -- and I found it refreshing. Writing history is as much of an art as it is a science, maybe more art than science, so it's important that opinions in history books be backed up by facts on the ground, or on the battlefield in the case of war histories.
Stephen M. Hood expected his work would be met with derision by historians --- and was pleasantly surprised when it was praised and honored. The book was selected as the 2014 winner of the Albert Castel Book Award.
The award is given biennially by the Kalamazoo Civil War Round Table to authors writing on the subject of the Civil War in the Western Theater.
According to reviewing members of the Kalamazoo CWRT:
“The voluminous inclusion of citations to historical documents and other primary source material challenge previous interpretations of Hood’s military actions. A look back at past author's interpretations of John Bell Hood’s record reveals the biases, inventions, and myths that have darkly colored his Civil War reputation. This book refutes the aspersions of ‘historians’ to name Hood the sole cause of the loss of Atlanta, and failure at Spring Hill, Franklin and Nashville.” –Margean Gladysz
“Anyone who wants the true story of the fall of Atlanta and the Tennessee campaign needs to study this book.” –Graham Hollis
“Sam Hood makes a compelling case that Hood’s reputation has been unjustifiably tarnished over the years by authors who have repeated half-truths and myths that are not supported by primary sources. Even people with little or no interest in Hood should read it as a cautionary tale that the things that ‘everybody knows’ are not always true.” –Dave Jordan
Update on Awards: Sam Hood just emailed me that his book has received another award, from another Civil War Round Table (CWRT):
"The North Shore CWRT of Huntington, Long Island, New York (the hometown of Walt Whitman) has named my book their 2014 Walt Whitman Award as the year's best Civil War book. I'll receive the award in Huntington on Sept 4, 2014."
There's a pattern here that reflects the Union appreciation of Gen. John Bell Hood, with two Yankee CWRT's recognizing his qualities!
About Stephen M. “Sam” Hood
Stephen M. “Sam” Hood graduated from Kentucky Military Institute, Marshall University (BBA, 1976), and is a veteran of the U.S. Marine Corps Reserve. A collateral descendant of General Hood, Sam is a retired industrial construction company owner, past member of the Board of Directors of the Blue Gray Education Society, and a past president of the Board of Directors of Confederate Memorial Hall Museum in New Orleans. He lives in his hometown of Huntington, West Virginia, with his wife of 35 years, Martha, and is the proud father of two sons: Derek Hood of Lexington, Kentucky, and Taylor Hood of Huntington, West Virginia.
About Savas Beatie LLC: Savas Beatie LLC is a leading military and general history publishing company.
Website: www.savasbeatie.com
REVIEWED BY DAVID M. KINCHEN
"L'audace, l'audace, toujours l'audace." -- General George S. Patton and his alter ego, Napoleon, made "Audacity, audacity, always audacity" a famous phrase encouraging bold courage in the face of great challenge. John Bell Hood displayed many of the qualities of Patton -- something recognized by his battlefield foes including Gen. George H. Thomas, who defeated Hood's forces at Nashville in the closing weeks of 1864.
* * *
"God alone knows the future, but only an historian can alter the past" -- Ambrose Bierce; chosen by Stephen M. Hood as the epigraph for the Introduction
What is there about Confederate General John Bell Hood (1831-1879) that made historians and many of his fellow Confederate comrades in arms want tear him down? This destruction was taking place at the same time Union officers had nothing but praise for the battlefield behavior of the Kentucky native who is forever linked to his service on the frontier in Texas. The Union side considered Hood a worthy opponent and acted accordingly. The sprawling Fort Hood army base in central Texas is named for John Bell Hood.
Stephen M. "Sam" Hood of Huntington WV devotes an entire book "John Bell Hood: The Rise, Fall, and Resurrection of a Confederate General" (Savas Beatie LLC, Eldorado Hills, CA, 384 pages, $32.95) to setting the record straight on Hood, who resigned after his army was defeated by Union Gen. George H. Thomas at Nashville, Tenn. at the end of 1864. Sam Hood's tome -- the product of ten years of exhaustive research, with access to previously undiscovered documents -- is the latest in a series of books that aim to resurrect John Bell Hood to his proper place in the pantheon of Civil War generals.
In his lengthy and informative foreword to Sam Hood's book about his collateral ancestor, Thomas J. Brown, who died before the book was published, blames much of the criticism of Gen. John Bell Hood on the "Lost Cause" ideology practiced by Virginians. They needed a scapegoat and the general who dared to comment on the battlefield shortcomings of Gen. Joseph E. Johnston was targeted by the Virginians as a scapegoat. Johnston, born in Farmville, VA in 1807, outlived Hood by more than a decade, dying in 1891. That gave Johnston plenty of time to build up his reputation and tear down that of Hood. It's no secret that Virginians considered themselves a cut above the other states of the Confederacy.
Too, there's the matter of the departure of the Southern Historical Society from the South's largest city, New Orleans, to the former Confederate capital, Richmond, VA. The society was formed in New Orleans, where Hood moved after the war, but left for Richmond in 1873. Hood was a businessman in New Orleans and died in 1879 of yellow fever along with his wife. His memoir "Advance and Retreat: Personal Experiences in the United States and Confederate States Armies" was published posthumously tin 1880.
In the introduction -- which should be carefully read, please don't skip it -- the author says that "some reviewers might call it [the book] a hagiography of General Hood and say that it lacks balance. In fact, this book does not require balance because it represents the balance that is missing from most modern books and articles that have been published about Hood and his tenure as commander of the Army of Tennessee."
Acknowledging that most Civil War history buffs will read books by authors like Wiley Sword, James McDonough, Thomas Connelly, and others, Hood says his wish is that readers use his book in conjunction with those who've portrayed General Hood in an unfavorable light. The author describes the battles fought by Hood and his armies, noting in details the errors and distortions historians used to demolish John Bell Hood's reputation.
I was as shocked as the fictional Captain Renault in the classic movie "Casablanca" to find that Hood's published version of many of the major events and controversies of his Confederate military career was met with scorn and skepticism. Some described his memoirs as nothing more than a polemic against his arch-rival Joseph E. Johnston. The publisher, on the Savas Beatie website, notes that "These unflattering opinions persisted throughout the decades and reached their nadir in 1992, when an influential author described Hood's memoirs as 'merely a bitter, misleading, and highly distorted treatise' replete with 'distortions, misrepresentations, and outright falsifications.' Without any personal papers to contradict them, many historians and writers portrayed Hood as an inept and dishonest opium addict and a conniving, vindictive cripple of a man. One writer went so far as to brand him 'a fool with a license to kill his own men.' What most readers don't know is that nearly all of these authors misused sources, ignored contrary evidence, and/or suppressed facts sympathetic to Hood."
This is the first time I've seen the author's debunking of the myths surrounding Hood -- and I found it refreshing. Writing history is as much of an art as it is a science, maybe more art than science, so it's important that opinions in history books be backed up by facts on the ground, or on the battlefield in the case of war histories.
Stephen M. Hood expected his work would be met with derision by historians --- and was pleasantly surprised when it was praised and honored. The book was selected as the 2014 winner of the Albert Castel Book Award.
The award is given biennially by the Kalamazoo Civil War Round Table to authors writing on the subject of the Civil War in the Western Theater.
According to reviewing members of the Kalamazoo CWRT:
“The voluminous inclusion of citations to historical documents and other primary source material challenge previous interpretations of Hood’s military actions. A look back at past author's interpretations of John Bell Hood’s record reveals the biases, inventions, and myths that have darkly colored his Civil War reputation. This book refutes the aspersions of ‘historians’ to name Hood the sole cause of the loss of Atlanta, and failure at Spring Hill, Franklin and Nashville.” –Margean Gladysz
“Anyone who wants the true story of the fall of Atlanta and the Tennessee campaign needs to study this book.” –Graham Hollis
“Sam Hood makes a compelling case that Hood’s reputation has been unjustifiably tarnished over the years by authors who have repeated half-truths and myths that are not supported by primary sources. Even people with little or no interest in Hood should read it as a cautionary tale that the things that ‘everybody knows’ are not always true.” –Dave Jordan
Update on Awards: Sam Hood just emailed me that his book has received another award, from another Civil War Round Table (CWRT):
"The North Shore CWRT of Huntington, Long Island, New York (the hometown of Walt Whitman) has named my book their 2014 Walt Whitman Award as the year's best Civil War book. I'll receive the award in Huntington on Sept 4, 2014."
There's a pattern here that reflects the Union appreciation of Gen. John Bell Hood, with two Yankee CWRT's recognizing his qualities!
About Stephen M. “Sam” Hood
Stephen M. “Sam” Hood graduated from Kentucky Military Institute, Marshall University (BBA, 1976), and is a veteran of the U.S. Marine Corps Reserve. A collateral descendant of General Hood, Sam is a retired industrial construction company owner, past member of the Board of Directors of the Blue Gray Education Society, and a past president of the Board of Directors of Confederate Memorial Hall Museum in New Orleans. He lives in his hometown of Huntington, West Virginia, with his wife of 35 years, Martha, and is the proud father of two sons: Derek Hood of Lexington, Kentucky, and Taylor Hood of Huntington, West Virginia.
About Savas Beatie LLC: Savas Beatie LLC is a leading military and general history publishing company.
Website: www.savasbeatie.com
March 11, 2025
This book to me should have been called "Historians Disagree About How John Bell Hood Has Been Portrayed" since that is really what this book is about. The book starts off like a biography but then it turns into how various history writers have sullied Hood by not going deeper into the historical record and how the historians just tended to use past books and stories to create the image that night not be true. Nothing like a disagreement about and between historians on an event that happened over 150 years ago.
If you are historian one might find this book interesting on how authors use primary sources, secondary sources and work material too fit the narrative that they are trying to prove.
If you are historian one might find this book interesting on how authors use primary sources, secondary sources and work material too fit the narrative that they are trying to prove.
August 19, 2021
John Bell Hood Well Documented
While I’m mostly unaware of the reputation which John Bell Hood has fallen heir to by so-called historians, this volume seems to address many of those injustices done him by authors and writers willing to distort history by unsubstantiated and scandalous publications. That seems to characterize much of what is written, published and blogged these days. Historians seem to be as unreliable as most other former trustworthy sources of information. Thank you, Stephen M. Hood for a well investigated and annotated volume!
While I’m mostly unaware of the reputation which John Bell Hood has fallen heir to by so-called historians, this volume seems to address many of those injustices done him by authors and writers willing to distort history by unsubstantiated and scandalous publications. That seems to characterize much of what is written, published and blogged these days. Historians seem to be as unreliable as most other former trustworthy sources of information. Thank you, Stephen M. Hood for a well investigated and annotated volume!
December 22, 2019
This is an excellent book, one of the most analytical Civil War books I have ever read. The author makes a compelling argument, based on the analysis of numerous sources, that some authors, especially Wiley Sword, have engaged in massive malpractice in the way they characterized the life and struggles of General John Bell Hood. This book is extremely well-written, and is simply compelling. I recommend this book to all readers with an interest in Civil War history
July 4, 2017
Maybe 2 1/2 stars. It is written by a descendant of the the General and is essentially a collection of essays.
January 5, 2014
There are few Civil War generals as maligned as John Bell Hood. In this book, Stephen Hood sets out to explore the origins and validity of the many criticism of the general that inhabit Civil War literature. Be warned, if you're looking for a biography, or a narrative story of General Hood, this is not the book you want.
While the author does provide some background narrative on General Hood, and his campaigns, the bulk of this book is dedicated to fact-checking. Stephen Hood appears to have gone over every major book written about the general and his campaigns, analyzed their attitudes toward John B. Hood, and then checked their citation and sources (if any where provided) for any criticism or charges leveled at General Hood.
The result is the exposure of a lot of historical myth-making. Many assertions about General Hood, such as his supposed drug use or callousness to casualties, when examined appear to have been fabricated and then repeated and embellished over the years. The author's zealousness in tracking down sources for claims, or sniffing out uncited/unsupported claims is commendable, and I certainly came away from this book with a different impression of General Hood and some of the histories written about him. I wish I had read this book in preparation for reading Advance and Retreat instead of the other way around, and I wish it had been around when I discovered Wiley Sword's The Confederacy's Last Hurrah (the first book I read about Hood or his campaigns) a few years ago.
The main weakness of this book is that it is so partisan in General Hood's favor. While the author's aim to rehab John B. Hood's reputation drives him to impressive feats of research and critique, it also takes him too far at times. There are passages in which Stephen Hood analyzes quotes from Robert E. Lee and Sam Watkins (author of Co. Aytch) that are often cited as criticism of General Hood. The author claims that others have misused these quotes by taking them out of context, or only using a portion of the quote that reflects badly on John B. Hood. The quotes are then provided in full in this book, and Stephen Hood gives his positive analysis of them. The problem is that neither of the quotes are the kind of unequivocal support for General Hood that he claims they are. Neither quote is a ringing endorsement, and they're both vague enough to be open to the interpretation of the reader.
While not flawless, this book is certainly well written and well argued. Stephen Hood has performed a valuable service by questioning the established historical narrative regarding General Hood, and pointing out parts of it that need correction. He also rightly brings the use, or misuse of citation by other authors, and the use of unsubstantiated claims to support their points into the spotlight.
While the author does provide some background narrative on General Hood, and his campaigns, the bulk of this book is dedicated to fact-checking. Stephen Hood appears to have gone over every major book written about the general and his campaigns, analyzed their attitudes toward John B. Hood, and then checked their citation and sources (if any where provided) for any criticism or charges leveled at General Hood.
The result is the exposure of a lot of historical myth-making. Many assertions about General Hood, such as his supposed drug use or callousness to casualties, when examined appear to have been fabricated and then repeated and embellished over the years. The author's zealousness in tracking down sources for claims, or sniffing out uncited/unsupported claims is commendable, and I certainly came away from this book with a different impression of General Hood and some of the histories written about him. I wish I had read this book in preparation for reading Advance and Retreat instead of the other way around, and I wish it had been around when I discovered Wiley Sword's The Confederacy's Last Hurrah (the first book I read about Hood or his campaigns) a few years ago.
The main weakness of this book is that it is so partisan in General Hood's favor. While the author's aim to rehab John B. Hood's reputation drives him to impressive feats of research and critique, it also takes him too far at times. There are passages in which Stephen Hood analyzes quotes from Robert E. Lee and Sam Watkins (author of Co. Aytch) that are often cited as criticism of General Hood. The author claims that others have misused these quotes by taking them out of context, or only using a portion of the quote that reflects badly on John B. Hood. The quotes are then provided in full in this book, and Stephen Hood gives his positive analysis of them. The problem is that neither of the quotes are the kind of unequivocal support for General Hood that he claims they are. Neither quote is a ringing endorsement, and they're both vague enough to be open to the interpretation of the reader.
While not flawless, this book is certainly well written and well argued. Stephen Hood has performed a valuable service by questioning the established historical narrative regarding General Hood, and pointing out parts of it that need correction. He also rightly brings the use, or misuse of citation by other authors, and the use of unsubstantiated claims to support their points into the spotlight.
December 17, 2013
If you've ever wanted to know everything anyone ever said bad about John Bell Hood and why they were wrong, this is your book. On the other hand, we don't find out a great deal about Hood himself in many respects, which seems a bit odd to me. The chapter on Hood's activities during the war is rather brief considering we are asked to make judgements on the man himself in considering the assertions made in the book. It is clear that a great deal of effort went into it, and having read it, I'm willing to accept that much of what has been written about the man is overdone. But in the end, his record in the second half of the war was entirely unsuccessful. The author makes his point that it was pretty much downhill for one and all from that point on and that's true, of course if not an entirely successful explanation of his war record from taking over from Johnston on. One thing is clear, Jeff Davis put him in command at Atlanta because he wanted a fighting general who would at least attempt to hold that city. In the end though, it doesn't seem to have made much difference in the outcome. heading north while Sherman took off in another direction ended up in the destruction of a large chunk of his forces and a substantial number of his primary officers. it might have ended rather differently, but it didn't and Hood was removed, deservedly so given the results. I think the real difference in assessing the value of the various Confederate officers who fought in the West depends a lot on the Northern military leaders who by in large seem to have been far better than their Eastern counterparts. Who can say what we'd think of Stonewall himself had he come against Grant and Sherman?
A lot is made out of the various stories that he considered his forces cowards when he took over and later at Spring Hill when the Yankees were able to escape from a vicious trap. Various other authors think that accounts for the fiasco later at Franklin, the Battle of the Generals, when Hood's attacking forces lost 5 dead and 6 wounded general officers, including Pat Cleburne one of the true heroes in the West. The author doesn't blame him for this of course, but I think the best you could say for Hood is that he lost control of the battle and the butcher's list was the result. In any case, whether or not he actually called his officers and troops cowards, it's clear from the various passages that the author quotes that Hood did have very serious doubts about their fighting abilities and willingness to attack and said so.
In any case, it's worth reading for any even vaguely serious reader of the Civil War. anything that challenges the usual interpretation of events and personalities is always worth considering and there are things of real value here.
A lot is made out of the various stories that he considered his forces cowards when he took over and later at Spring Hill when the Yankees were able to escape from a vicious trap. Various other authors think that accounts for the fiasco later at Franklin, the Battle of the Generals, when Hood's attacking forces lost 5 dead and 6 wounded general officers, including Pat Cleburne one of the true heroes in the West. The author doesn't blame him for this of course, but I think the best you could say for Hood is that he lost control of the battle and the butcher's list was the result. In any case, whether or not he actually called his officers and troops cowards, it's clear from the various passages that the author quotes that Hood did have very serious doubts about their fighting abilities and willingness to attack and said so.
In any case, it's worth reading for any even vaguely serious reader of the Civil War. anything that challenges the usual interpretation of events and personalities is always worth considering and there are things of real value here.
December 5, 2013
Not a full biography. More of a defense of JBH from the perspective of an historian who feels that JBH has been given a raw deal by historians. Has some good stuff and persuaded me that the assumption that JBH was a narced out wild man bent on destroying his troops has been fabricated one the years by lazy historians. Also further illustrated what a mess the western confederate army was from the perspective of generalship.
November 11, 2020
A bit boring.
Displaying 1 - 15 of 15 reviews