Who should have commanded the Army of Tennesse after Joseph E. Johnston in 1864?
John Bell Hood -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Bell_Hood
William J. Hardee -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_J._Hardee
Patrick Ronayne Cleburne -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Cleburne
John C. Breckinridge -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_C._Breckinridge
Pierre Gustave Toutant Beauregard -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PGT_Beauregard
Joseph E. Johnston (Shouldn't have been removed) -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_E._Johnston
Other - anyone you think could have done well in command of the Army of Tennessee
Personally, my first choice would be not to remove Johnston in the first place. Then, in order of preference of the other choices given...
Hardee--the most experienced officer of the group, and well respected by the other generals and soldiers of the army (conflict between the generals of the AOT was the major cause of it's downfall, and I think Hardee could have avoided that).
Breckinridge--Had served with the AOT before, and like Hardee, was able to get along well with the other AOT generals.
Hood--I think Hood gets a bum rap in a lot of ways. His battle plans during the Atlanta campaign were quite good, and had they been properly carried out (there is a strong argument to be made that personal dislike between Hood and the other AOT generals had a role in the fact that they weren't), could have resulted in a far different outcome to that campaign. His strategy during the Tennessee campaign, particularly at Columbia/Spring Hill, was nothing short of brilliant. Again, poor execution by his subordinates (again, very likely partially due to personal animosity toward Hood by other AOT generals) caused the loss of an excellent opportunity created by Hood's planning. His one serious mistake...and it was a doozey...was Franklin. But if his subordinates had not failed him at Spring Hill, Franklin would never have occurred.
Beauregard--His one advantage is that he, like Hardee and Breckinridge, had served previously with the AOT and was somewhat respected by the other officers there. However, he was given to grandiose, extremely complicated planning which invariably led to chaos on the battlefield (Shiloh is a prime example of this). He was good at running a siege campaign where maneuvering troops in the field was not a big issue, but out in the field, well, he sucked.
Cleburne--Perhaps surprising that he should end up on the bottom of the list, but he had no experience commanding anything larger than a Division. We have no idea of what his skills would have been in the field of grand strategy. He demonstrated an excellent command of relatively small scale tactics, and he been raised to Corps command at some point, then he might have made a good choice, as that would have at least given him some idea of grand strategic movement. Hood at least had that advantage before he was raised to Army command.
Other choices...Nathan Bedford Forrest. Forrest actually, at the end of the war, did command a small army in central Alabama and did pretty well at it, despite being defeated at Selma by larger Union forces armed with massive firepower provided by Spencer repeating rifles. He had an instinctive grasp of strategy and tactics, and never seemed to have a problem communicating his plans to his subordinates. An AOT with Forrest in command could have been a deadly thing.