While we are awaiting the final judgment of the Civil War Review, I have finally finished the book. It's certainly not for the novice. In general, the author goes through a variety of allegations against Hood made by various historians (the number of casualties incurred in his 1864 campaign, the opinions of Lee, Beauregard and others about him, whether he called his own soldiers cowards, whether he used frontal assaults at Franklin to punish them for timidity and failure at Spring Hill etc) and attempts to refute them one by one. He takes particular issue with Wiley Sword to the point that I almost expected him to challenge him to a duel. Very personal and vindictive. I wonder if Sword is still alive and has had a chance to respond? He even takes issue with the historical signs and documentary films played in Franklin. What he never really explains though is why he believes Hood was singled out for disparate treatment. Even among the Confederate generals, he argues Hood alone was subject to a smear campaign dating back to his feud with Johnston and the Virginians who survived the war and attempted to scapegoat him. What is less clear is why he believes several generations of historians have intentionally done so. He argues in the case of Sword that he knowingly falsified claims against Hood. Why, however, is left a mystery.
He does make some interesting points about how certain myths come into common acceptance in history simply by being repeated. Often from sources that were not present and with some grievance against Hood. When all is said and done though you are left wondering whether it really matters. The historical reality is that Hood was the commander of the Army of Tennesses and whether through incompetence or incredible bad luck he led a disasterous campaign. It reminds me a lot of the JFK conspiracy books where they find a witness or two who can rebut any point, but it really leads nowhere in the larger totality of evidence. Anyone with a real interest in Hood should certainly read it though.
