A Gauntlet Thrown – Rescuing General Hood
by Daniel Mallock
Sam Hood and the John Bell Hood Historical Society have a mission. Every honorable historical society should have such a mission. The mission is to learn history – the truth of history (no matter where it may lead)- and share the truth with others. This is a mission that every historian and truth-teller should readily embrace.
I know the members of this excellent and scholarly group. I took a tour of Franklin and Spring Hill with them last year. I wrote a post about it which you can read here. The purpose of the tour, as one might expect, was to walk the ground General Hood walked during the Spring Hill/Franklin campaign and understand his command decisions based on all the evidence available, and the contours of the ground. There is no better way to do battlefield history than this. No less than Eric Jacobson was the guide. His book For Cause and Country is currently the standard in Spring Hill/Franklin historiography. My affection for the Hood folks, and for their mission, should not suggest to some analysts that my opinions on the matter at hand should therefore be dismissed. They ought not to assume that I am biased and cannot unravel an historical mystery. I have opinions, but I am not biased. As an historian that is my job – to allow the facts to override my opinions. I take my work very seriously.
I have written on the Battle of Franklin extensively on this blog and elsewhere, as well as on General Patrick Cleburne and his plan to free the slaves of the Confederacy. I have been a student of the War for over 30 years. This work is a passion to me, it’s very important. Two articles have appeared in North and South magazine.
General Hood’s performance at Spring Hill and Franklin and then later at Nashville were the disastrous finales to a fantastic career of bravery, sacrifice, and suffering for the cause of southern independence. Few sacrificed as much as he for the Cause. The controversy surrounding Hood’s actions at Spring Hill and Franklin has been the stuff of legend and argument for several generations. Spring Hill is considered the greatest “lost opportunity” of the entire war.
Examining Hood’s command decisions at Franklin was one of the key purposes of the tour that I took with the Hood Society last year. Even after decades of study of this battle, I learned more that day. My opinion of Hood has changed over time. With more research, and understanding of the ground and of the situation of November 29- 30, 1864 I am now much more forgiving of the general than I previously have been. I think I understand him and his motives better now than I ever did previously. This change of heart caused me to write a piece about Hood decision to attack at Franklin which the Hood Society published in their spring 2008 newsletter. You can read it here.
You may disagree with my conclusions and that is fine. There is room for disagreement on all points of history so long as that position of opposition is based upon fact and not hearsay, rumor, or opinion. Hearsay is the realm of the novelist and fantasist, not the historian.
It has been observed that perhaps no other canon of another war is as large as that of the Civil War; most controversies have been resolved. New information still comes out, new insights are gained, new learning occurs. But much of the real controversies are resolved. Not so with General Hood and Spring Hill/Franklin.
Mr. Wiley Sword is considered an authority on Franklin and Spring Hill mainly because of his book “The Confederacy’s Last Hurrah”. But Mr. Sword does not like General Hood. This bias is clearly evident in the book and in subsequent studies, most recently “Courage Under Fire”. The Hood bias is alive and well with Mr. Sword. Because Mr. Sword’s book has such excellent market penetration many people who read one book only on Franklin will likely read his. This is unfortunate because his work is problematic.
What is problematic about Mr. Sword’s work is that he is entirely unfair to General Hood. The author’s anger is obvious, his negativity is clear – Sword dislikes Hood with a passion. But Mr. Sword does his readers a disservice. Allegations are made regarding the General’s mental acuity, his physical condition, his mental state, and his emotional and intellectual capacity for command. These allegations specifically about Hood’s drug use and his mental state (Hood was pining for his lost love, Buck Preston, etc.) are not substantiated. What Mr. Sword neglects to say is that the Confederate Army of Tennessee came very close to success at Franklin, closer than is widely known or acknowledged. I make this case very strongly in the article published in North and South magazine, “For Want of a Primer”.
Mr. Sword has an agenda to destroy the reputation of General Hood regardless of the absence of primary source material to sustain his arguments. This is clear bias and it has no place in historical scholarship. This is the bias and false history that the Hood Society historians are fighting to expose.
The John Bell Hood Society and their historians have a mission. Their mission is based upon truth, specifically finding and sharing the truth about John Bell Hood, one of the most controversial generals of the entire war.
This mission of the Hood Society puts them in direct conflict with Mr. Sword and his baseless accusations against General Hood at Spring Hill and Franklin. My research, that of Mr. Jacobson, and that of every primary source participant, and witness that I have read contradicts Mr. Sword and his calumnies against Hood, and supports the contentions of the Hood Society. Sam Hood, the Society President and descendent of the General, states his case here.
The Hood Society folks are not hagiographers as some bloggers have suggested (here and here). They are historians who have done their research and want the truth told, and the lies vanquished. They are passionate and this passion alienates some who are unused to such things in the world of history.
Every truth-teller, every historian of value should support the Hood Society in this mission to correct the record of General Hood. Some critics have even suggested that the advertisement shown above (published in Civil War News) should be pulled! Some do not like the deep commitment, and the strong defense of the truth that is demonstrated by the Hood historians. Such detractors are irrelevant.
This debate is one of the last unfinished true controversies of the “late unpleasantness”. Hood gave everything for what he believed was the right path, southern independence. Hood’s commitment for his mission was total. So it is with the Hood Society. These historians are to be applauded and their efforts at overturning shoddy history and correcting the historical record supported. We as historians are supposed to support the truth, no matter how pleasant or unpleasant. Our main purpose is to find the truth, then share it. This is what the Hood Society is doing.
Mr. Sword must engage. As the purveyor of inaccuracies for well over 20 years he must defend his published statements. If he has a case he must make it. I support the Hood Society in calling out Mr. Sword for his bias.
Mr. Sword must engage. This debate is central to understanding the War in the west. If he will not engage, he must forfeit the debate and become irrelevant.
An author’s book is an invitation to engage. It is an entree into the marketplace of ideas. For those of us who dwell in this ocassionally controversial realm we must step up when we are called upon to answer for an error or worse. This is the foundation of learning and this debate advances the canon. Without this engagement on the part of Mr. Sword, his position is intellectually untenable.
The Hood Society has called out of one of the Civil War community’s favorite authors, he must answer the call. I would like to see a debate between Mr. Sword and Mr. Hood on this matter so that once and for all the two positions can be weighed and the invalid one dismissed. I applaud Mr. Hood and his fellow historians at the Hood Society. They are doing what all of us historians yearn to do, they are doing history. They do it with passion, and with facts.
The gauntlet is thrown. Mr. Sword, please pick it up as I would very much like to hear your defense of your assertions about General Hood at Franklin. The gauntlet is thrown and we are waiting.
Roman historian Cicero wrote, “The first law of the historian is that he shall never dare utter an untruth. The second is that he shall suppress nothing that is true. Moreover, there shall be no suspicion of partiality in his writing, or of malice.”
Wiley Sword breaks every rule of historiography, and his deeply personal attacks on Gen. Hood’s honor and character crosses the line of human descency.
Furthermore, research by Eric Jacobson in his book “For Cause and For Country” uncovered major factual errors in Sword’s earlier book.
Mr. Sword should step forward and defend himself. I stand ready to debate him any time, any place, under any format. I will personally pay his expenses.
Thanks for bringing this matter to the forefront Dan.
Sam Hood
President, JBHHS
I much appreciate your latest posting – I wish I could express myself as clearly as you in this instance. Sam knows how I feel about this and if memory serves I believe I shared some of my thoughts with you some months ago. At the risk of repetition; I always go back to the question of the general’s options at Franklin and what would be said of him had he exercised them.
The first one is a favorite of his critics and has been debated to death – the (in)famous Forrest flanking request. Time and distance were against JBH had he chosen to turn Bedford loose. And how convenient that those who advocate this option somehow neglect to mention the fact that Union General Wood (by noon of the 30th) was in position on the north side of the Harpeth to confront such a maneuver. Schofield’s army would have skedaddled to Nashville while this option was attempted and arrive basically intact. The losses they suffered at Franklin would have not occurred and the whole healthy kit and kaboodle would have joined Thomas behind the formidable works of Nashville.
And God help JBH had he delayed on the southern outskirts of Franklin to fight another day. While he is now criticized for his aggressiveness, he’d be painted a coward for saving his army to do so. Nashville (still) would not have fallen to him with Thomas, Schofield, etc. firmly entrenched behind those works.
It really bugs me that General Hood has been so severely judged by virtue of Swords speculation. There wouldn’t be a favorable reputation of any major general on either side if subjected to this kind of psuedo-history. Maybe we should suggest that Mr. Sword turn his attentions to Lee, Grant, both Johnston’s, Beauregard, Sherman and Sheridan, for example; surely he can find a record or two left by an obscure private to “prove” a theory or two.
The way I look at it, unless you’ve ever been in their shoes (and thousands of other American heroes) you’re in no position to second guess them. JBH took a tremendous gamble to attack at Franklin, he lost by a whisker; end of story!
Fish
Daniel,
Way to go! You said it like it is man! I’ll be writing my thesis on Hood’s Tennessee Campaign and the Battle of Nashville, and will be examining all of the points Sam went over. My introduction, already written, discusses our friend Sword, the “artful dodger!” Let’s keep on fighting the good fight for historical accuracy and objective thinking! I was with you on last year’s JBHHS tour in Nashville.
Bravo to Mr Mallock! Fortunately, others liked Stephen Davis and Winston Groom have taken more objective looks at Genl Hood’s career and actions out West. Sword’s Last Hurrah is nothing more than an op-ed character assassination disguised as history. Does Sword take Lee to task for the frontal charge at Malvern Hill? Does Sword spend 500 pages attacking Genl Grant for Cold Harbor? Shame, Wiley, shame…
The title of Irving Stone’s 1961 novel about Michelangelo, “The Agony and the Ecstasy” might also describe my experiences as a Civil War enthusiast and admirer of John Bell Hood.
On the weekend of June 27, 2009 I had one of my most rewarding and enjoyable Civil War experiences in Richmond when 20 members of the JBHHS toured 1862 Peninsula Campaign sites and the Battle of Gaines’ Mill. The study and celebration of Gen. Hood and his beloved Texas Brigade, on the anniversary day and time and on the very ground where these heroic men did heroic deeds, was educational and inspiring beyond description. No “hobby” or cause could be more rewarding.
Then there is the “Wiley Sword thing” which must be dealt with. Sword’s incomplete, misleading, distorted, and often slanderous portrayal of John Bell Hood has soiled not only Hood’s historical reputation, but contaminated and infected the history of the Army of Tennessee, the 1864 Tennessee Campaign, and the Battles of Spring Hill, Franklin and Nashville.
Unwilling to allow Civil War scholarship to evolve and mature, Sword will reappear out of nowhere to stoke the fires of resentment and ignorance. The Hoodophobic essay in his current book “Courage Under Fire” is his latest attempt to keep the history of the 1864 Tennessee Campaign in the dark ages.
With the Civil War sesquicentennial era upon us I yearn for the day when I can simply enjoy and gain inspiration in the study and celebration of Gen. Hood, his soldiers, his worthy opponents, and his battles and campaigns.
However, I will yield neither Gen. Hood’s well-earned honor nor the complete and accurate history of the 1864 Tennessee Campaign to Wiley Sword.
Sam,
I believe I told you the story of my new puppy.We left her alone one afternoon and she made her way into my office and climbed up on a chair. I was boning up on Franklin and had a pile of 5 or so books on the battle/campaign at the corner of the desk.Only one of the titles was mangled and that was the one penned by Sword.
Well said! We will all keep the banners flying concerning the whole truth about the General’s reputation. The more I learn, the more I become involved in seeing that no more slander takes place, if I can help it.
I would like to see Mr. Sword defend his position. If he is correct, he should be proud to come out with banners flying!
Historians all await his answer.