John Bell Hood and the War for Southern Independence

Rating:
Summary: A Solid Bio
Review: McMurry writes a solid bio of Hood in this book. McMurry traces the key turning points,in his mind, of Hood's career. In doing this he delves into the battle of Chickamauga, the Seven Days' Battles, the Atlanta Campaign, and the Tennessee Campaign of 1864, and Hood's courtship of Buck Preston while hardly mentioning the battles of Antietam or Gettysburg, in which Hood played a key role. Even so, it is still a very good book with some new views of Hood. One thing I found annoying was when McMurry dealt with the Atlanta Campaign he was very harsh and critical of J.E. Johnston (who he obviously dislikes) while basically claiming Hood could do no wrong during this campaign. Still, it is a interesting and good book, while being an easy read and giving some new views on Hood the man and Hood the general.

Rating:
Summary: A Solid Bio
Review: McMurry writes a solid bio of Hood in this book. McMurry traces the key turning points,in his mind, of Hood's career. In doing this he delves into the battle of Chickamauga, the Seven Days' Battles, the Atlanta Campaign, and the Tennessee Campaign of 1864, and Hood's courtship of Buck Preston while hardly mentioning the battles of Antietam or Gettysburg, in which Hood played a key role. Even so, it is still a very good book with some new views of Hood. One thing I found annoying was when McMurry dealt with the Atlanta Campaign he was very harsh and critical of J.E. Johnston (who he obviously dislikes) while basically claiming Hood could do no wrong during this campaign. Still, it is a interesting and good book, while being an easy read and giving some new views on Hood the man and Hood the general.

Rating:
Summary: Selective.
Review: This biography of John Bell Hood is piecemeal; you will not find the whole story here. For example, it barely touches on Hood's contributions to the battles fought at Antietam and Gettysburg where Hood was openly critical of Robert E. Lee's battle plans. You have to wonder why, when focusing on an offensively minded General like John Bell Hood, the author chooses to really omit the first two Confederate invasions of the North! Surely his experiences there were the foundation for the attacks he subsequently led at Franklin and Nashville, Tennessee.

More importantly, the author does not take General Hood to task either for destroying the Army of Tennessee at Franklin and Nashville or for the continual politicking the General loved to engage in. John Bell was definitely not a loyal subordinate. He was quarrelsome, difficult and in reality, could not be trusted by his peers.

But he was a fighter. On any battlefield in which he was engaged he fought like a demon. It is quite likely that with the exception of Stonewall Jackson, John Bell Hood was the finest combat general the Confederacy possessed.

McMurry spends too much time trying to downplay the Peter Principal in John Bell's life, and, as a result, forgets to highlight those areas of this brilliant combat officer's contributions which should be thoroughly discussed in a book of this nature. As a result, he forgets to pay John Bell Hood the respect he is due.