The Life, Death, and Legacy of John Bell Hood

Brian Craig Miller. John Bell Hood and the Fight for Civil War Memory. The Western Theater in the Civil War Series. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 2010. 317 pp. $37.95, cloth, ISBN 978-1-57233-702-2. Reviewed by Steve Rockenbach Published on H-CivWar (January, 2011) Commissioned by Martin P. Johnson (Miami University Hamilton) As the sesquicentennial of the American Civil only Hood’s story, but also the story of men like War officially kicks off this April, readers will no‐ Hood who experienced the Civil War as soldiers, tice a rising tide of published work on the major amputees, and defeated warriors of a lost cause. figures of the war. Already a wave of biographies The details of Hood’s early life are so scarce are hitting the shelves, awaiting Civil War buffs to that the society in which he lived is perhaps the soak them up. But biographers often fall into two best evidence of his transition from boyhood to groups. There are those who lionize their subjects manhood. Miller uses the current scholarship on and those who criticize them. However, Brian Hood’s native state of Kentucky to create the back‐ Craig Miller is one of the few biographers who is drop for Hood’s life. Hood’s father was a doctor willing to balance conflicting perspectives in fa‐ and slaveholder of considerable means by Ken‐ vor of putting his subject in the social and culture tucky standards. Hood also benefited from an un‐ context of the world he lived in. This approach cle with political influence, which led to Hood’s provides a window into the life of John Bell Hood successful application to West Point. Although that other historians were unwilling or unable to there are not many other indications of what open. Instead of fxating on what role Hood may Hood’s youth was like, Miller provides a reason‐ or may not have played in the fnal military cam‐ able assessment of the concepts of “masculinity” paigns of the war, Miller seeks to understand how and “manhood” that no doubt shaped Hood’s de‐ Hood’s reputation was forged during the war and velopment. Steeped in a culture of physical com‐ well into the postwar era. The strength of this bi‐ petition, gambling, drinking, and hunting, Hood’s ography is Miller’s willingness to view both adula‐ choice to enter the military makes perfect sense. tion and condemnation of Hood as part of a strug‐ The life that Miller describes explains how Hood gle for memory. Suppressing the urge to either de‐ would forge a rigid idea of manhood that would fend or condemn Hood allows Miller to tell not influence his later life. Hood’s service on Texas H-Net Reviews frontier during the 1850s further inculcated the during his recovery. Miller’s analysis of gender is concepts of “self-sacrifice” and “duty.” Miller particularly useful here. Hood’s dalliance with demonstrates that Hood’s experience was similar Richmond socialite Sally Preston ended in disap‐ to many other young officers, some of whom pointment, but in turn Preston faced criticism for Hood would serve with or against during the Civil spurning Hood. Even during the war, Confederate War. Less clear is Hood’s decision to join the Con‐ leaders implored citizens to respect and even re‐ federacy, which may be linked to his relationship vere wounded soldiers who had given not their with General Robert E. Lee and other Southern of‐ lives, but their limbs for the cause. It was second ficers. Miller leaves these sorts of conclusions to nature to mourn the glorious Confederate dead, the reader, but it is clear that Hood’s military ser‐ but men like Hood were constant reminders of vice led him to adopt Texas as his home state and sacrifice and loss. leave the conflicted border state of Kentucky be‐ Miller deals with Hood’s command of the hind for the Confederacy. Army of Tennessee with similar evenhandedness. The most unique aspect of this book is Miller’s Although other historians were quick to condemn handling of Hood’s military career during the Civ‐ Hood, including repeating claims that Hood’s il War. Hood’s charismatic and dynamic leader‐ judgment was affected by alcohol and drug abuse, ship in the Texas Brigade led to a promotion to Miller presents the entire story of Hood’s role in brigadier general, command of the brigade, and the fghting around Atlanta and the campaign into eventually won him the approbation of Lee. It Tennessee. Miller found no convincing evidence would be easy enough to simply recount Hood’s that Hood was impaired during his command of military achievements by sorting through the Offi‐ the army. Instead, the fate of the Confederate cial Records and pulling out some apt quotes, but army in the West was undoubtedly tied to the in‐ Miller’s analysis of Hood’s wartime exploits goes creasingly dire situation the Confederate govern‐ further. Descriptions of Hood’s performance at ment faced during the last full year of the war. the battles of Gaines Mill and Second Manassas President Jefferson Davis’s controversial removal are interspersed with the reactions and experi‐ of General Joseph Johnston from command of the ences of the men who served with Hood. As bi‐ Army of Tennessee put Hood in command of men ographies tend to be “top down,” Miller includes a he did not know well at a time when the odds very effective “bottom up” approach by using frst were against the Confederates. Miller’s narrative person accounts to provide a nuanced picture of of events shows that Hood was only doing what the battles and campaigns Hood engaged in. he believed to be his duty, pushing the army to This attention to the experiences of other sol‐ fight in what he later called “a forlorn hope.” Per‐ diers of various ranks is particularly useful when haps historians have made the mistake of assum‐ studying the wounds that Hood suffered. Hood ing that every general expected to defeat the lost use of his left arm at Gettysburg in 1863 and armies before him and single-handedly rise to vic‐ at Chickamauga he received a devastating wound tory. Hood, it appears, was doing as he always had to his right leg, resulting in amputation. Although done. He was performing his duty as a soldier, fol‐ Hood’s situation was unique for a feld officer, he lowing orders, and leading his men. was one of thousands of Confederate soldiers who Much of the post-campaign criticism and grappled with the implications of debilitating backseat generalship that came at the end of the wounds in a society that valued manhood and war was aimed at creating a memory of the war mastery. Hood, like many other amputees, was de‐ that would pin Confederate defeat on a few indi‐ pendent on women for care and companionship viduals and exonerate the efforts of other Confed‐ 2 H-Net Reviews erate leaders. Miller shows that Hood became the Miller’s biography of Hood provides a useful center of former-Confederates’ struggle to under‐ model for examining the lives of controversial stand Confederate defeat and create the Lost historical fgures in a way that rises above the Cause. Hood’s detractors blamed the defeats at need to assign blame for military events or ex‐ Spring Hill and Nashville for the collapse of the plain the course of history. Professional historians Confederate army in the West, while concealing will appreciate Miller’s ability to deftly weave to‐ the fact that Union General William Tecumseh gether several threads of historiography to recre‐ Sherman had hastened the demise of the Confed‐ ate the fabric of the world Hood lived in. Those in‐ eracy when he captured Atlanta. During the post‐ terested in a straightforward narrative or an ex‐ war years, the Southern Historical Society’s basis tensive analysis of military strategy will be disap‐ shifted from Hood’s New Orleans to Richmond, pointed. But historians who are looking for some Virginia. As Jubal Early and other Virginians came new material to liven up their Civil War course to dominate the society, Hood’s role in early cam‐ will be fascinated by the level of detail Miller pro‐ paigns was downplayed and his actions at the vides on everything from camp life in the Texas head of the Army of Tennessee were overempha‐ Brigade to amputation. The only problem with sized. Hood was largely unsuccessful at reversing this book is the title. The last half of the book these attempts to blame him for Confederate de‐ deals with memory, but the frst several chapters feat, although he staunchly denied full responsi‐ use the concepts of “manhood” and “honor” to ex‐ bility. Miller’s detailed account of the heated ex‐ plain Hood’s motivations. Perhaps a better title change between Hood, Johnston, and their respec‐ would have been “John Bell Hood, Confederate tive allies offers an intriguing demonstration of Manhood, and the Fight for Civil War Memory.” the creation of postwar memory. Regardless, this book provides a unique blend of Even after Hood, his wife, and eldest daugh‐ social and cultural history that will offer a re‐ ter died in the yellow fever epidemic of 1879, freshing alternative to the military narratives that Hood’s legacy remained intermingled with Con‐ publishers will continue to print over the next federate defeat. Although the obituaries and eulo‐ five years. gies tended to be gracious, those individuals who remembered Hood’s military career felt the need are to explain away the loss of Atlanta and the disap‐ their pointment of the Tennessee Campaign.

Load more