John B. Hood has always been an enigma in the study of the Civil War. He routinely is described as 'aggressive', 'reckless' 'fiery' by various Civil War historians. Most of what was written about Gen. Hood usually references that Hood's records and battle reports were missing/destroyed - especially in relation to the Atlanta & Tennessee Campaigns. I have always thought that students of the Civil War hadn't received the full story regarding John B. Hood. Stephen Hood's book proved that assumption correct.
Unfortunately, the lack of records can/does often lead to the development of a revisionist record that once repeated in one footnote - seems to be accepted as the norm forever more. In the case of John B. Hood (JBH) this seems to be the norm.
Stephen Hood's discovery and painstaking review of documents provided to him though members of the Hood family debunks many of the historically accepted - but not verified - assertions made in regard to the performance of John Bell. Hood. The book is worth a read and his points should be well considered when reading any statements regarding J. B. Hood.
Through the discovery of original documents - many copies of which appear in this fine book - Stephen Hood has presented a compelling argument that sets the record straight in many areas. First of all the book is any easy read, it arrived on 2/13 - and thanks to a snowstorm - I finished it on 2/14. Secondly, my primary interest in purchasing this book was the action on November 29/30 at Spring Hill, Tenn and Hood's performance during the Atlanta Campaign.
Regarding Spring Hill - I have always been impressed how little credit was bestowed on JBH for the conduct of the Tennessee Campaign up and until Spring Hill. Spring Hill was to be a masterful trap that JBH had sprung on Union Gen. John Schofield that would have trapped virtually the entire command of Gen. Schofield. The planned attack was bungled and never brought to fruition by such revered Confederate stalwarts like Benjamin Cheatham, Nathan B. Forrest and Patrick Cleburne. I and many others have wondered How? Why?
I never really accepted the historic line that the orders were 'confused' and 'Hood was not at the front'. JBH had clearly let his subordinates know what his intentions were and yet the orders were not executed. I found the historic rationale of 'the Confederates slept while Schofield's Corps passed stealthily by in the dead of night' as being suspect and not complete as to what had actually occurred.
S. Hood has provided letters written by Gen. S.D. Lee (albeit in the 1870's) that framed the inaction of Gens. Cheatham and Cleburne at Spring Hill. The letters describe Cheatham's/Cleburne's disdain for making a night attack on November 29/20 as the rationale for refusing
to follow Hood's orders.
Students of Civil War history know that soldiers/generals had a dislike for any form of night time fighting. S Hood makes excellent reference to the wasteful night attack that Gen. Cleburne conducted at Chickamauga on 9/19/63 as being a possible rationale for eschewing the night attack at Spring Hill (Cheatham's troops were near Cleburne's Division at Chickamauga). Cheatham also failed to place his division astride the Clombia-Franklin Turnpike blocking Schofield's escape. The combination of Cheatham disregarding JBH's order to block the pike and Cheatham's/Cleburne's failure to conduct the night attack is the only rationale that makes sense of the failure at Spring Hill. Cleburne was killed leading his division at Franklin on November 30.
Even though JBH possessed the information that Cheatham & Cleburne did not did not follow his orders, JBH did not call either to task in his book 'Advance & Retreat'. One can assume that JBH did not wish to defame the honor/memory of the revered Patrick Cleburne in 'Advance & Retreat' - but what of Benjamin Cheatham? My one criticism of this chapter would have been to have S Hood offer a rationale (even if it would have been an educated theory) as to why JBH choose not to reference Cheatham's failure to block the pike - even though he was ordered more than once to do so. It would have made for good food for thought.
The written historic record stated that JBH's performance in the Tennessee Campaign was influenced by a combination of alcohol and opiates as having impact on JBH's performance. S. Hood provides ample evidence that the often repeated footnote is one that was birthed well after the turn of the 20th Century and not one that ever existed in 1863-65.
With regard to JBH's performance in the Atlanta Campaign - the primary criticism by historians has always been that JBH was insubordinate and conspired to have Ge. Jos. Johnston relieved from command. After Johnston's dismissal, historians next described Hood as 'reckless' in how he managed the defense of Atlanta.
I have never held much sympathy for the Fabian tactic of yielding space for time that was employed by Gen. Johnston. As a student of the Atlanta Campaign, the action at Cassville has always been one in which JBH was blamed for the rationale of Johnston having to yield a strong position to Sherman's army. Through the discovery of post war letters written to JBH by his peers, S. Hood has provided a new way of looking at that event.
The retreat from Cassville has historically been described as being necessary due to JBH's failure to make an attack that was ordered by Johnston. It seemed ironic to me that one supposedly so 'aggressive' as JBH would fail to make an attack. S. hood revels that the rationale for the failed execution of Johnston's order was due to a Union attack on JBH's flank. What is not surprising is that JBH and Gen. L. Polk urged Johnston to make a attack at dawn on the Union position. Equally not surprising was the failure of Gen. Johnston to order a retreat rather than to make an attack that was a gamble but would have yielded great reward if successful. Historians have blamed JBH for Johnston's retreat from Cassville but now documentation exists that calls that rationale into question.
Letters regarding JBH's wife, family (he had 10 children), the adoptions of the children after the death's of John Hood and his wife Anna are very interesting. S. Hood also provides a section of Miscellaneous Letters, the Wigfall Letters and other documents regarding the career of John Bell Hood.
As stated above, the book is an easy read. If the reader is interested in getting a bigger picture regarding John Bell Hood in comparison to what is written as a part of undocumented history, this book will certainly satisfy that need.
Kindle电子书价格: | ¥21.97 |

下载免费的 Kindle 阅读软件,即可立即在智能手机、平板电脑或电脑上阅读 Kindle 电子书 - 无需 Kindle 设备。了解更多信息
使用 Kindle 网页版即时在浏览器上阅读。
使用手机摄像头 - 扫描以下代码并下载 Kindle 阅读软件。

![“The Lost Papers of Confederate General John Bell Hood (English Edition)”,作者:[Stephen M. Hood]](https://images-cn.ssl-images-amazon.cn/images/I/41YLYycNaQL._SY346_.jpg)
The Lost Papers of Confederate General John Bell Hood (English Edition) Kindle电子书
广告
Scholars hail the find as “the most important discovery in Civil War scholarship in the last half century.” The invaluable cache of Confederate General John Bell Hood’s personal papers includes wartime and postwar letters from comrades, subordinates, former enemies and friends, exhaustive medical reports relating to Hood’s two major wounds, and dozens of touching letters exchanged between Hood and his wife, Anna. This treasure trove of information is being made available for the first time for both professional and amateur Civil War historians in Stephen “Sam” Hood’s The Lost Papers of Confederate General John Bell Hood.
The historical community long believed General Hood’s papers were lost or destroyed, and numerous books and articles were written about him without the benefit of these invaluable documents. In fact, the papers were carefully held for generations by a succession of Hood’s descendants, and in the autumn of 2012 transcribed by collateral descendent Sam Hood as part of his research for his book John Bell Hood: The Rise, Fall, and Resurrection of a Confederate General (Savas Beatie, 2013.)
This collection offers more than 200 documents. While each is a valuable piece of history, some shed important light on some of the war’s lingering mysteries and controversies. For example, several letters from multiple Confederate officers may finally explain the Confederate failure to capture or destroy Schofield’s Union army at Spring Hill, Tennessee, on the night of November 29, 1864. Another letter by Lt. Gen. Stephen D. Lee goes a long way toward explaining Confederate Maj. Gen. Patrick Cleburne’s gallant but reckless conduct that resulted in his death at Franklin. Lee also lodges serious allegations against Confederate Maj. Gen. William Bate. While these and others offer a military perspective of Hood the general, the revealing letters between he and his beloved and devoted wife, Anna, help us better understand Hood the man and husband.
Historians and other writers have spent generations speculating about Hood’s motives, beliefs, and objectives, and the result has not always been flattering or even fully honest. Now, long-believed “lost” firsthand accounts previously unavailable offer insights into the character, personality, and military operations of John Bell Hood the general, husband, and father.
The historical community long believed General Hood’s papers were lost or destroyed, and numerous books and articles were written about him without the benefit of these invaluable documents. In fact, the papers were carefully held for generations by a succession of Hood’s descendants, and in the autumn of 2012 transcribed by collateral descendent Sam Hood as part of his research for his book John Bell Hood: The Rise, Fall, and Resurrection of a Confederate General (Savas Beatie, 2013.)
This collection offers more than 200 documents. While each is a valuable piece of history, some shed important light on some of the war’s lingering mysteries and controversies. For example, several letters from multiple Confederate officers may finally explain the Confederate failure to capture or destroy Schofield’s Union army at Spring Hill, Tennessee, on the night of November 29, 1864. Another letter by Lt. Gen. Stephen D. Lee goes a long way toward explaining Confederate Maj. Gen. Patrick Cleburne’s gallant but reckless conduct that resulted in his death at Franklin. Lee also lodges serious allegations against Confederate Maj. Gen. William Bate. While these and others offer a military perspective of Hood the general, the revealing letters between he and his beloved and devoted wife, Anna, help us better understand Hood the man and husband.
Historians and other writers have spent generations speculating about Hood’s motives, beliefs, and objectives, and the result has not always been flattering or even fully honest. Now, long-believed “lost” firsthand accounts previously unavailable offer insights into the character, personality, and military operations of John Bell Hood the general, husband, and father.
商品描述
作者简介
Stephen M. "Sam" Hood is a graduate of Kentucky Military Institute, Marshall University (bachelor of arts, 1976), and a veteran of the United States Marine Corps. A collateral descendent of General John Bell Hood, Sam is a retired industrial construction company owner, past member of the Board of Directors of the Blue Gray Education Society of Chatham, Virginia, and is a past president of the Board of Directors of Confederate Memorial Hall Museum in New Orleans. Sam resides in his hometown of Huntington, West Virginia and Myrtle Beach, South Carolina with his wife of thirty-five years, Martha, and is the proud father of two sons: Derek Hood of Lexington, Kentucky, and Taylor Hood of Barboursville, West Virginia.
基本信息
- ASIN : B00TGBP7NE
- 出版社 : Savas Beatie (2022年5月20日)
- 出版日期 : 2014年6月19日
- 语言 : 英语
- 文件大小 : 25411 KB
- 标准语音朗读 : 已启用
- X-Ray : 未启用
- 生词提示功能 : 已启用
- 纸书页数 : 380页
- 亚马逊热销商品排名: 商品里排第262,746名Kindle商店 (查看Kindle商店商品销售排行榜)
- 商品里排第171名Military Biographies(军事传记)
- 商品里排第511名United States History(美国历史)
- 商品里排第514名Military History(军事历史)
- 用户评分:
无买家评论
5 星 (0%) |
|
0% |
4 星 (0%) |
|
0% |
3 星 (0%) |
|
0% |
2 星 (0%) |
|
0% |
1 星 (0%) |
|
0% |
评分是如何计算的?
在计算总星级评分以及按星级确定的百分比时,我们不使用简单的平均值。相反,我们的系统会考虑评论的最新程度以及评论者是否在亚马逊上购买了该商品。系统还会分析评论,验证评论的可信度。
此商品在美国亚马逊上最有用的商品评论
美国亚马逊:
4.8 颗星,最多 5 颗星
43 条评论

victor vignola
4.0 颗星,最多 5 颗星
Well Worth The Read - Recommended
2015年2月15日 -
已在美国亚马逊上发表已确认购买
4 个人发现此评论有用

Peter J. D'Onofrio
5.0 颗星,最多 5 颗星
John Bell Hood Redeemed
2015年4月8日 -
已在美国亚马逊上发表已确认购买
The Lost Papers is Stephen Hood’s second volume about his ancestor, General John Bell Hood. In his previous book, John Bell Hood: The Rise, Fall, and Resurrection of a Confederate General, the author examines the myths and falsehoods surrounding the last couple of years of the general’s military career. In this volume, through the availability of more than 250 letters, images, keepsakes and other items that belonged to General Hood, Stephen Hood presents the primary sources from the general’s contemporaries that debunk each and every falsehood that such “eminent, professional” historians such as Wiley Sword, Thomas Connelly, Stanley Horn, David Eicher, Webb Garrison, Jr., and several others. These so-called historians were more interested in making money than presenting a true, unbiased picture of a Southern gentleman and hero. These historians present innuendo, statements without a shred of evidence other than false statements written by previous “historians.”
What is of particular interest to this reviewer, who is a Civil War medical re-enactor and writer, are the two medical reports written by Dr. John T. Darby concerning Hood’s wounds suffered at Gettysburg and Chickamauga. The first, on the Gettysburg wound, is about 1600 words. The second, due to the very nature of the wound, is 3500 words and covers the period September 23 to November 24, 1863.
Author Hood looks at the “controversies” surrounding the general’s promotions, the Atlanta Campaign, the Cassville affair, Spring Hill, Franklin, and Nashville. Presented are letters and documents from General Hood’s peers, subordinates, and superiors. In no instance do any of these personages suggest that Hood was dependent on narcotics and/or alcohol. None suggest that he was drunk at the time of Spring Hill or unstable due to laudanum at Franklin or Nashville as many so-called historians have insinuated.
To get a true picture of this Confederate hero, one must read The Lost Papers and it is highly recommended that the reader also acquire John Bell Hood: The Rise, Fall, and Resurrection of a Confederate General.
Reviewed by Peter J. D’Onofrio, Ph.D.
President, Society of Civil War Surgeons, Inc.
What is of particular interest to this reviewer, who is a Civil War medical re-enactor and writer, are the two medical reports written by Dr. John T. Darby concerning Hood’s wounds suffered at Gettysburg and Chickamauga. The first, on the Gettysburg wound, is about 1600 words. The second, due to the very nature of the wound, is 3500 words and covers the period September 23 to November 24, 1863.
Author Hood looks at the “controversies” surrounding the general’s promotions, the Atlanta Campaign, the Cassville affair, Spring Hill, Franklin, and Nashville. Presented are letters and documents from General Hood’s peers, subordinates, and superiors. In no instance do any of these personages suggest that Hood was dependent on narcotics and/or alcohol. None suggest that he was drunk at the time of Spring Hill or unstable due to laudanum at Franklin or Nashville as many so-called historians have insinuated.
To get a true picture of this Confederate hero, one must read The Lost Papers and it is highly recommended that the reader also acquire John Bell Hood: The Rise, Fall, and Resurrection of a Confederate General.
Reviewed by Peter J. D’Onofrio, Ph.D.
President, Society of Civil War Surgeons, Inc.
7 个人发现此评论有用