George Henry Thomas - Appraisals Please

Part of the problem in answering that question is precisely that he did have so little experience in independent command. He was certainly extremely capable. I would agree that he was one of the best (but a significant stretch from being THE best), and probably the most under-rated.
 
Part of the problem in answering that question is precisely that he did have so little experience in independent command. He was certainly extremely capable. I would agree that he was one of the best (but a significant stretch from being THE best), and probably the most under-rated.

Very true. But of course, Thomas boosters argue that he nevertheless managed to play crucial roles in some battles, such as Chickamauga, even though he was not in overall command. Reasons given for his being underappreciated include the facts that he allegedly had a poor personal relationship with Grant, and that he was a Virginian who had remained loyal to the Union.
 
Very true. But of course, Thomas boosters argue that he nevertheless managed to play crucial roles in some battles, such as Chickamauga, even though he was not in overall command. Reasons given for his being underappreciated include the facts that he allegedly had a poor personal relationship with Grant, and that he was a Virginian who had remained loyal to the Union.

Agreed.
 
I love George Thomas! Here's a great Smithsonian article on him and his career.

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/histo...84/?no-ist=&=&onsite_campaign=SmithMag&page=4

I think he was an excellent commander, with Nashville perhaps being the best example: he destroyed an entire army. He was also an excellent subordinate to Rosecrans- through Chickamauga, Chattanooga and other engagements. I also think he was certainly very underrated- because of the personality conflict he had with Grant, who along with Sherman and some others did seem to want to diminish his accomplishments. Also, the hyper focus on Confederate generals and a certain narrative that prevailed after the war edged him out of Southern writings as well.

The biggest accusation that has been levelled against him, is that he was "slow"- a criticism made by Grant and others, which I think stemmed from a different command style than Grant- Grant wanted, as I think diane has noted, things done now, something that Sherman was only too happy to comply with. Thomas was methodical and not about risk his men's lives if he could help it.

It's hard to say that he was the best Union commander, though, simply because we don't know how we would have done commanding all the armies- we can't compare necessarily compare him to Grant or even Sherman, because we simply don't know how he would have done in their shoes. I'm going to still go with Grant, who by the ordain of fate got to wield a lot more responsibility and ultimately did more than him for the Union victory, and put Thomas at number two (tied with Sherman for today).
 
"Slow Trot Thomas". Rubbing both Grant and Sherman the wrong way (and having them indicating that in their memoirs,) did not do him any favors.

Really tragic character. Died early (from a stroke at age 53) and practically famililess, since his blood family disowned him after he chose to fight for the Union. Never spoke to him, neither attended his funeral in NY. Not even his mother and siblings.
 
The biggest accusation that has been levelled against him, is that he was "slow"- a criticism made by Grant and others, which I think stemmed from a different command style than Grant- Grant wanted, as I think diane has noted, things done now, something that Sherman was only too happy to comply with. Thomas was methodical and not about risk his men's lives if he could help it..

The "slow trot" nickname was given to him when he was a Cadet at West Point. He physically was moving slowly because of a back issue. And then it stuck...
 
The "slow trot" nickname was given to him when he was a Cadet at West Point. He physically was moving slowly because of a back issue. And then it stuck...

Oh, yes. Didn't mean to suggest that the nickname "slow trot" was given to him by Grant or Sherman. Though I didn't know that piece of info before- thanks! But I do know that Thomas's slowness was a major issue for Grant.
 
I love George Thomas! Here's a great Smithsonian article on him and his career.

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/histo...84/?no-ist=&=&onsite_campaign=SmithMag&page=4

I think he was an excellent commander, with Nashville perhaps being the best example: he destroyed an entire army. He was also an excellent subordinate to Rosecrans- through Chickamauga, Chattanooga and other engagements. I also think he was certainly very underrated- because of the personality conflict he had with Grant, who along with Sherman and some others did seem to want to diminish his accomplishments. Also, the hyper focus on Confederate generals and a certain narrative that prevailed after the war edged him out of Southern writings as well.

The biggest accusation that has been levelled against him, is that he was "slow"- a criticism made by Grant and others, which I think stemmed from a different command style than Grant- Grant wanted, as I think diane has noted, things done now, something that Sherman was only too happy to comply with. Thomas was methodical and not about risk his men's lives if he could help it.

It's hard to say that he was the best Union commander, though, simply because we don't know how we would have done commanding all the armies- we can't compare necessarily compare him to Grant or even Sherman, because we simply don't know how he would have done in their shoes. I'm going to still go with Grant, who by the ordain of fate got to wield a lot more responsibility and ultimately did more than him for the Union victory, and put Thomas at number two (tied with Sherman for today).

Thanks for that link, Hanna. Some day I will bite the bullet and buy myself a crisp $5 note with Thomas' picture on it, frame it, and put it up on my wall. They are pretty pricey in good condition, though.
 
Thomas was methodical and not about risk his men's lives if he could help it.

OK, I'll play devil's advocate here. I do agree with this statement, and while I think it a wonderful characteristic in a human being, this is not what made the greatest of Civil War generals. To be really great, like Grant or Lee, a general had to be willing to take risks and sacrifice lives - almost (but not quite) to the point of being rash at times. As I mentioned before, we don't have enough information about Thomas in independent command to be sure, but this does seem to be a trait of his, and if so, it's one that could make him a very good CW general, but not a great one.

(Prepares to duck)
 
OK, I'll play devil's advocate here. I do agree with this statement, and while I think it a wonderful characteristic in a human being, this is not what made the greatest of Civil War generals. To be really great, like Grant or Lee, a general had to be willing to take risks and sacrifice lives - almost (but not quite) to the point of being rash at times. As I mentioned before, we don't have enough information about Thomas in independent command to be sure, but this does seem to be a trait of his, and if so, it's one that could make him a very good CW general, but not a great one.

(Prepares to duck)

I.... I have mixed feelings about what you say above- though it's an excellent observation, brass, that I didn't think of before. I think if there's a way to maximize saving your soldiers lives, and win big at the same time, then that would be the ideal great general. But that's not always (read: probably never, especially when it comes to the ACW) practical- and as such you have people like Thomas, who achieve great tactical victories and are beloved by their men, but may not be able to make the final push or risk mens lives to win a war, and people like Grant or Lee- who could be and have been accused of wasting their men's lives, but could make the bold decisions on a moments notice, keep rolling when their bad decisions didn't work, and get up, that perhaps are needed to bring a war to a decisive close. Perhaps, you need men like Thomas to win battles, and people like Grant to win the war. And it is most often in winning the war, that the general becomes great.

Am I making sense here in relation to your comment or am I just rambling?
 
"Slow Trot Thomas". Rubbing both Grant and Sherman the wrong way (and having them indicating that in their memoirs,) did not do him any favors.

Really tragic character. Died early (from a stroke at age 53) and practically famililess, since his blood family disowned him after he chose to fight for the Union. Never spoke to him, neither attended his funeral in NY. Not even his mother and siblings.
How did Hollywood miss this story?
 
OK, I'll play devil's advocate here. I do agree with this statement, and while I think it a wonderful characteristic in a human being, this is not what made the greatest of Civil War generals. To be really great, like Grant or Lee, a general had to be willing to take risks and sacrifice lives - almost (but not quite) to the point of being rash at times. As I mentioned before, we don't have enough information about Thomas in independent command to be sure, but this does seem to be a trait of his, and if so, it's one that could make him a very good CW general, but not a great one.

(Prepares to duck)

Point taken. I guess we'll never know whether Thomas would have rolled the dice and seized a chancy opportunity if one had presented itself. Perhaps being a Southerner, and therefore potentially somewhat "suspect," made him more chary than he might otherwise have been about incurring high casualties. Being a good commander certainly is not about winning a popularity contest, but Thomas' men did reportedly adore him, and that certainly contributed to his effectiveness. They took a dauntingly defended ridge for him without even being ordered to do so.
 
Last edited:
I.... I have mixed feelings about what you say above- though it's an excellent observation, brass, that I didn't think of before. I think if there's a way to maximize saving your soldiers lives, and win big at the same time, then that would be the ideal great general. But that's not always (read: probably never, especially when it comes to the ACW) practical- and as such you have people like Thomas, who achieve great tactical victories and are beloved by their men, but may not be able to make the final push or risk mens lives to win a war, and people like Grant or Lee- who could be and have been accused of wasting their men's lives, but could make the bold decisions on a moments notice, keep rolling when their bad decisions didn't work, and get up, that perhaps are needed to bring a war to a decisive close. Perhaps, you need men like Thomas to win battles, and people like Grant to win the war. And it is most often in winning the war, that the general becomes great.

Am I making sense here in relation to your comment or am I just rambling?

You're making sense to me!
 
Last edited:
Has anyone here read "Master of War," by Benson Bobrick, about GH Thomas?

I haven't but the general sense I get from reading reviews here and other places is a) that the piece is an absolute hagiography, b) despite being an hagiography, doesn't really delve deeply into Thomas's life or really shed that much insight on him and c) I don't know what Grant and Sherman did to Mr. Bobrick in his past life, but whatever, it is that made him spend half his book bashing them instead of focusing on Thomas, I am truly sorry.

Thank you for starting this thread, by the way!
 
Last edited:
I haven't but the general sense I get from reading reviews here and other places is a) that the piece is an absolute hagiography, b) despite being an hagiography, doesn't really delve deeply into Thomas's life or really shed that much insight on him and c) I don't know what Grant and Sherman did to Mr. Bobrick in his past life, but whatever, it is that made him spend half his book bashing them instead of focusing on Thomas, I am truly sorry.

Thank you for starting this thread, by the way!

You're welcome. Thank you for saving me time and money on a dubious book.
 
Back
Top