The Gallant Hood

I just finished reading the Gallant Hood. I found the book provided a refreshing, thorough, and compassionate look at one of the more complex and misunderstood key participants in the war between the states. In this book, we get to see Hood the person, a man with unquestionable valor and bravery, yet one who, through circumstance, was put in a position that was not conducive to his strengths. Despite this, if not for several "unlucky breaks," Hood very well might have gone down in history as a great hero who lead the Confederacy to its independence. However, as it turns out, events were not so kind to Hood; he suffered both on the field (mangled arm, amputated leg, disgrace due to the results of the Nashville Campaign) and in his personal life (dead at the young age of 48, along with his wife and 10-year-old daughter due to yellow fever). As a result, Hood is often portrayed as a tragic historical figure. This book shows us that the tragedy in Hood's life was not the complete story and that for much of his life, Hood truly was Gallant.

It may seem contradictory to describe something originally published in 1950 as refreshing, but that's exactly what Dyer's Gallant Hood is. We actually get a balanced account of the star-crossed Kentuckian (that's right--not originally a Texan) who despite his father's desire for him to become a doctor, became instead a soldier. The death-defying hero of Gaines' Mill will always be overshadowed by the commanding general that ordered the assault at Franklin during the twilight of the C.S.A. However, in recent years the tabloid sensationalism and filtering out of positive primary sources has rendered Hood an egregious caricature, and made it very difficult to get more than a very superficial appreciation of him. Dyer does a good job of emphasizing the gallantry and devotion to duty of Hood, and lets positive primary sources speak to us. Nowhere does he even intimate that Hood was under the influence of drugs at Spring Hill, something which has become pabulum for civil war "buffs" but lacks any support from primary sources. Dyer stops far short of an encomium for Hood, however. He concludes that the same traits that made Hood an outstanding field commander made him an unsuccessful army commander. He was at his best leading his brigade or division in desperate battle charging toward the enemy. Dyer concludes that Hood's visceral bravery and impetuousness displayed as a field commander became a liability when it came time to carefully plan a campaign, and that Hood lacked the introspection necessary to identify and rectify one's own faults.