Thomas Takes Command

[Nytram01]

If there has been a thread about this posted before I appoligize.

I read somewhere, I cant remember where, that around the time of the Battle of Perryville (either before or after I'm not sure which) General George Henry Thomas was offered command of the Army of the Ohio but turned it down as he didn't believe he deserved the position.

I thought it would make somewhat of an interesting scenario if General Thomas had accepted command of that Army and I wondered how placing him in command then would have changed the war.

Any thoughts?

[Elennsar]

Before the battle. As to how it would have worked out...

Thomas would have most likely done better than Buell and quite probably than Rosecrans (who took over after Buell).

I am not familiar enough with Thomas for a more precise speculation, but judging by his performance after Perryville, it is quite believeable that he would have been more aggressive, and unlike Rosecrans, would not have suffered the kind of battle the Army of the Cumberland faced at Chickamauga.

As stated in another thread, Thomas was a professional soldier in the best sense of the words. I'm not sure I'd expect miracles. I would expect things to run as smoothly as they could be made to run, which is miraculous enough.

[ole]

General George Henry Thomas was offered command of the Army of the Ohio but turned it down as he didn't believe he deserved the position.

As I understand it, he turned down command mainly because he didn't believe that shifting commanders during an impending face-off was a good idea. (The old changing horses in mid-stream thing.)

It may have cost him dearly. Some say that his eventual promotion to army command was set back because of this refusal. Had he acceded to the promotion, it would have been Thomas in charge, rather than Rosecrans, and he might have ended up as Grant's equal rather than Sherman's subordinate.

As to how it might have changed the war, that's the stuff of CW discussion boards. Was he a better general than Rosecrans? Lots of possibilities.

ole

[OpnDownfall]

Thomas objected to the timing of the change in command. He felt it was not only unfair to Buell, But, Also, unfair to himself.
In hind-sight, Thomas did his career no favor. When it was decided to replace Buell, after all, Thomas' name came up again as the replacement and Lincoln, apparently, deliberate rejected Thomas in favor of Rosecrans rather than simply choosing Rosecrans over Thomas. I know it is a small difference, but, IMO, fairly typical of the nuanced decisions that, at times, Lincoln was noted.
A good historical case can be made for the proposition that in military affairs, this was one of the worst decisions of Lincolns'; storing up much more pain and grief, for Union forces in Tn. than was, probably, necessary.

[ole]

Hoorah! Opn. Plainly speaking, you don't choose the reluctant. Thomas's name came up and he was offered the spot. He demurred. Back of the line. **it happens. Thomas screwed himself right there. However correct and thoughtful his response we deem it to be, he made himself at cross purposes with the CnC. Never a good idea.

ole

[5fish]

Lincoln like ambitious men. It is one reason why he stuck with Hooker.

Lincoln must have felt he could directed and ambitious man's self-interest to serve is best interest. If one looks at Lincoln, he surround himself with self-serving ambitious men and was able uses them to achieve his best interest and the nations.

FDR had the same ability.....

[timewalker]

As to the question of what if Thomas had taken the command, I think it a good question. Was Thomas ready? An argument could be made that Grant rose to prominence at just the right speed. Any fast and he might not have developed the proper skill set for higher command; any slower and others would have been Grant's senior. I don't know enough about Thomas at this point to know whether he had the skills at that point for higher command.

His later record, or course, suggests that he was a highly competant commander. Could he have done better than Old Rosey? Possibly. Rosencrans did pretty well up until Chickamagua. While the error that opened up the line at Chickamagua was possibly not Rosencrans' fault, his failure to "stem the tide" in the aftermath was certainly a black mark and Thomas shined there. But I don't know that Thomas would have been any more agressive than Rosencrans up to that point. Thomas was pretty methodical, but heaven help those in his way once he got moving.

[Baggage Handler #2]

Since I'm on another Ambrose Bierce kick, I'll offer this from "What I Saw at Franklin"

that night we encamped under the protecting guns of Thomas, at Nashville. Our gallant enemy audaciously followed, and fortified himself within rifle-reach, where he remained for two weeks without firing a gun and was then destroyed.

The foul up at Franklin made it a much nearer thing than it ought to have been, but the last four words of that quote, from an eyewitness. Like snuffing a candle.

While I'm no Thomas expert, his performance at Nashville and Chickamauga make me wonder if he wasn't one of the better generals on either side. Offense, defense, outnumbered, outnumbering...

Could there be a scenario where he ends up at Gettysburg instead of Meade?

[Elennsar]

I think so. I'm not convinced Thomas would have done better than Meade, but an arguement could be made for it.

The only problem is that you'd have to replace Hooker in time to get Thomas there.

Minor organizational effects...Meade stays a corps commander, which means Sykes stays a division commander, which means Aryes is either out of a command or taking something else.

Would be interesting. Thomas would be even more of a stranger to the Army of the Potomac than Meade, who is at least known of.

But he was a solid officer, I think he could handle it.