For all the literature about Civil War military operations and leadership; precious little has been written about strategy; particularly in the eastern theater. The Civil War in the East takes a fresh look at military operations in this sector and the assumptions that shaped them.With opposing capitals barely a hundred miles apart and with the Chesapeake Bay–Tidewater area offering Union generals the same sorts of opportunities that Confederate leaders sought in the Shenandoah Valley; geography shaped military operations in fundamental ways. Presidents; politicians; and the press peeked over the shoulders of military commanders; some of whom were not reluctant to engage in their own intrigues as they promoted their fortunes.The location of the respective capitals raised the stakes of victory and defeat. At a time when people viewed war in terms of decisive battles; the anticipation of victory followed by disappointment and persistent strategic stalemate characterized the course of events in the East.
#712593 in Books 2016-05-16 2016-05-30Original language:EnglishPDF # 1 9.10 x .70 x 6.00l; .0 #File Name: 1611213304384 pages
Review
8 of 8 people found the following review helpful. Civil War Scholars: Buffs or Buffoons?By Dean Charles MarshallIf you believe Confederate General John Bell Hood has unjustly and egregiously been made a "scape goat" by contemporary Civil War historians than you'll feel a certain vindication after reading Stephen Hood's; "John Bell Hood: The Rise; Fall and Resurrection of a Confederate General". Stephen Hood; a distant relative of JBH; is a tenacious "pit bull" author who exposes and refutes the lies; innuendos; misquotes and "dubious" scholarship that have been written by such civil war historians as Stanley Horn; Thomas Connelly and Wiley Sword to defame and discredit the career of John Bell Hood. Make no mistake about it; Stephen Hood has his facts thoroughly researched and substantiated; sometimes to a fault. Sadly; historians are not satisfied with the fact that Hood "gave his all" for the Confederacy; sacrificing an arm at Gettysburg and a leg at Chickamauga in the process. The Confederacy was in its final death throes in late 1864 when President Jefferson Davis and the Confederate cabinet made a desperate decision to replace the always "retreating and lamentable" General Joe Johnston with Hood and then "ordered" Hood to go on the offensive to save Atlanta and reverse the South's ebbing fortunes with a "Hail Mary" gamble dubbed the Tennessee Campaign to recapture Nashville and draw the pressure off Lee in Virginia. Noted historian Wiley Sword in his book; "The Confederacy's Last Hurrah" seems to relish berating and finding fault with every detail (both real and imagined) of Hood's personality and his conduct of the campaign. According to Sword; despite having to cope with the most dire of manpower and supply shortages General Hood should have miraculously "saved the day" and because he didn't deserves being held solely responsible for losing the entire Civil War in the West for the Confederacy. That's quite a stretch Wiley! Truth is; at this stage of the war; as with General Robert E. Lee in Virginia; Hood and the Army of Tennessee were confronting the ominous reality of the North's "overwhelming numbers and resources". Seriously; how much longer could Lee and Hood have delayed the inevitable? Yes; the battles around Atlanta; Spring Hill; Franklin and Nashville where Hood commanded were "tragic and bloody" affairs that may have yielded very different results if Hood's corps commanders; Generals Ben Cheathem; William Hardee and Stephen Lee had properly followed orders and exercised some real initiative when it counted; but they didn't; and the "blame game" against Hood commenced and has been going strong ever since. As author Stephen Hood explains with exacting detail; the life and times of General John Bell Hood have been grossly misinterpreted. Have historians like Sword and Connelly made Hood out to be one of those civil war generals "everyone loves to hate"? Perhaps; but in all fairness; Lee fumbled greatly at Gettysburg; Burnside at Fredericksburg and Grant at Cold Harbor; yet those generals don't receive anywhere near the criticism or venomous treatment Hood got for the so called "debacle" at Franklin. At the end of the day much Civil War scholarship is really just a lot of "woulda; coulda; shoulda" speculation awash in minutia. And where playing "fast and loose" with the facts has become de rigueur. Stephen Hood challenges that paradigm and makes a persuasive case with this extremely well documented effort to set the record straight about General John Bell Hood. And frankly; it's about time. An excellent book worth reading. Unequivocally five *****!7 of 7 people found the following review helpful. I am a Nashvillian who; after extensive previous reading ...By B SmithI am a Nashvillian who; after extensive previous reading has long held the common local contempt and anger against General J B Hood for what I had concluded were his insane mistakes at Franklin. But I am also an admirer of diligent; difficult research and the ability and willingness of an author to state truth convincingly and infectiously. I have been so infected by Sam Hood and solely because of his book have become a complete convert on John Bell Hood; I apologize for my years of ignorance.5 of 5 people found the following review helpful. Don't read another work on John Bell Hood until you start with this work by Stephen "Sam" HoodBy Tom KriegerWhile I can't profess to be a scholar regarding Civil War history; as a West Pointer and practicing attorney; I know something of military strategy and factual scholarship. Sam Hood has written the definitive historical account of the life and times of General John Bell Hood and; hopefully; has put to bed the many unsupported myths that besmirch his life and reputation. After reading this well documented and factually researched book; I was surprised and somewhat stunned at the "literary license" many historical writers took in their biased efforts to make General Hood the scapegoat for the Confederacy's failure in the West. Sam Hood's well researched and detailed accounts of what really happened debunks the loosely written and unsupported accounts passed on from one Hood critic to another. While his work may not make you like General Hood if you started your research with other negative writers; if you are open to historical fact rather than fictionalized storytelling; you will appreciate the time and effort Sam Hood has put into this work. I found General Hood to be a most accomplished military tactician and commander who had a real compassion for his troops but who was victimized by short-sighted and disloyal subordinates whose own agendas surpassed what was required to accomplish the bigger mission of their commander. Until this work; history has not been fair to John Bell Hood. Now there is another point of view that is factually supported and portrays General Hood in a much more positive light.
