George Thomas has some very partisan biographers

Did you ever disagree with one of your friends? Grant liked Thomas. But General Thomas thought he could out prepare the Confederates. Backed by US quartermaster and commissary capabilities, and his own teaching skills, it turned out the George Thomas was almost always right. But he was consistently engaged in the slowest, most cautious operations of the Civil War.
Nonetheless, when the Civil War ended Thomas got the assignments in Kentucky and then in California that he had requested.
Sherman and Grant disagreed about almost all political issues, other then reunification of the US. Nonetheless they remained friends once those disagreements became less pressing.

He actually requested for a post in the east, but these went to Meade, Hancock etc,. He replaced Halleck in the west, while Halleck went to Kentucky.
 
One of the reason why Grant was fed up with Thomas in the Nashville campaign was the fact that John Logan was sending Grant messages that where meant to get Grant to get rid of Thomas and give him the job. Grant was acting on this false information when he considered relieving Thomas. Now that I think of it it might have been that weaselly John Schofield. I get back to you on that.
Some times I wonder if the generals on both sides had spent more time co-operating and less time conniving, the war might have ended sooner, with less carnage.

It was Logan, as he was sent to replace Thomas. I'll have to dig out my source.

Schofield was second in command to Thomas at Nashville. Logan was just coming back to duty from the election cycle.

While I haven't seen anything from Schofield bad mouthing Thomas, it makes sense. However, if true, then I'd like a decent explanation of how Grant brought Schofield east to meet up with Sherman instead of Thomas.
 
No you are correct, Grant & Thomas did not have the best relationship. I believe Grant recognized Thomas's qualities but found that he was not the type of subordinate he could work well with. Sherman & Thomas were much closer, but also Sherman bad-mouthed Thomas quite a bit.

When? That he was slow?
 
I think it wasn't that they didn't like him, but his was of waging war was different, but also successful. Thomas destroyed the opposition, but he was methodical and slow. Grant and Sherman liked speed of execution. Thomas had everything needed. Grant and Sherman preferred their troops to travel light.

Thomas was prickly regarding manors of honor. He didn't like the way Buell was treated, and refused to take over for him. he also refused a few other promotions that he felt were uncalled for, so they stopped offering them to him.

Sherman admired Thomas a lot. His funeral oration for Thomas was extremely fulsome.

Buell's treatment had nothing to do with it. Thomas even wrote why, which was due to the fact that he did not know Buell's plans.
 
Buell's treatment had nothing to do with it. Thomas even wrote why, which was due to the fact that he did not know Buell's plans.
I found it odd that Thomas would appoint Steedman to investigate that particular incident. Steedman had been involved twice with nefarious behind-the-back tactics, once against Sherman in front of Corinth, 1862, (successful) and also against General Buell; the man liked to team up with co-conspirators, and Thomas would have known about both. Experience should not rule out trust. I find Steedman's report as a barb meant to inflict pain, and disgrace Schofield. I take no stock in its verity!
Thanks, Lubliner.
 
Here is the letter from Grant to Schofield confirming that Schofield did not send any messages to Grant during the Nashville situation backstabbing Thomas. In fact, Grant writes that he remembers a conversation with Schofield after Nashville, and that Schofield defended Thomas and the delay to attack:

New Tork, Aug 1 188\ Gen. J. M. Schofield.

Dear General:— Your letter of the 12th of July has just been handed me by Col. Wherry of your staff. I have read it carefully, together with the article from the "Toledo Democrat." The lapse of time since the event spoken of in that article is so great that I feel some hesitation in answering your letter, and the article from the Democrat, as I might do if I had access to the archives at Washington; but writing from memory I think I can say with great positiveness there was never any despatch from you to me, or from you to anyone in Washington, disparaging Gen Thomas' movements at Nashville.

On the contrary my recollection is that when I met you on your way to Wilmington, North Carolina, subsequent to the battle of Nashville, you explained the situation at Nashville prior to Gen Thomas' movement against Hood, with a view of removing the feeling that I had that Thomas had been slow. I was very impatient at that time with what I thought was tardiness on the part of Gen Thomas, and was very much afraid that while he was lying there at Nashville and not moving his army, that Hood might cross the Tennessee River either above or below the City of Nashville, and get between him and the Ohio River, and make a retrograde movement of our army at Nashville a necessity, and very much embarrass and delay future operations of the armies. Laboring under this feeling and impression I was telegraphing Gen Thomas daily, and almost hourly, urging him to move out and attack Hood, and finally became so impatient that I contemplated his removal and the substitution of another officer in his place; but this feeling on my part was not added to by any despatches from any person from the scene of action except those from Gen Thomas himself I have certainly no recollection of receiving any despatches from Nashville during the time spoken of in the Article in the Democrat from any person but Gen Thomas himself I feel very sure that if any despatches had been received from you, I should now recollect it, and I am free to say that it would have created a prejudice to your disadvantage if I had received such despatches.

This much you are at liberty to use in any way you may deem proper. The other reflections which the author of the article here alluded to against you I of course am not called upon to say anything in regard to. The fact is your subsequent promotions are proof positive that I entertained none of the views set forth to your disadvantage in this article.

Very Truly Yours, U. S. Grant
 
if not true, why would Steedman make such claims? Only to defend Thomas?
Yes, Steedman was bent out of shape from what he perceived as attacks on Thomas' generalship in Schofields writing on the battle. Schofield wrote a paper for the Society of the Army of the Cumberland in 1880 that set Steedman off.

Schofield was a little critical of Thomas in his autobiography too, but I thought it was pretty mild.
 
Here is the letter from Grant to Schofield confirming that Schofield did not send any messages to Grant during the Nashville situation backstabbing Thomas. In fact, Grant writes that he remembers a conversation with Schofield after Nashville, and that Schofield defended Thomas and the delay to attack:

New Tork, Aug 1 188\ Gen. J. M. Schofield.

Dear General:— Your letter of the 12th of July has just been handed me by Col. Wherry of your staff. I have read it carefully, together with the article from the "Toledo Democrat." The lapse of time since the event spoken of in that article is so great that I feel some hesitation in answering your letter, and the article from the Democrat, as I might do if I had access to the archives at Washington; but writing from memory I think I can say with great positiveness there was never any despatch from you to me, or from you to anyone in Washington, disparaging Gen Thomas' movements at Nashville.

On the contrary my recollection is that when I met you on your way to Wilmington, North Carolina, subsequent to the battle of Nashville, you explained the situation at Nashville prior to Gen Thomas' movement against Hood, with a view of removing the feeling that I had that Thomas had been slow. I was very impatient at that time with what I thought was tardiness on the part of Gen Thomas, and was very much afraid that while he was lying there at Nashville and not moving his army, that Hood might cross the Tennessee River either above or below the City of Nashville, and get between him and the Ohio River, and make a retrograde movement of our army at Nashville a necessity, and very much embarrass and delay future operations of the armies. Laboring under this feeling and impression I was telegraphing Gen Thomas daily, and almost hourly, urging him to move out and attack Hood, and finally became so impatient that I contemplated his removal and the substitution of another officer in his place; but this feeling on my part was not added to by any despatches from any person from the scene of action except those from Gen Thomas himself I have certainly no recollection of receiving any despatches from Nashville during the time spoken of in the Article in the Democrat from any person but Gen Thomas himself I feel very sure that if any despatches had been received from you, I should now recollect it, and I am free to say that it would have created a prejudice to your disadvantage if I had received such despatches.

This much you are at liberty to use in any way you may deem proper. The other reflections which the author of the article here alluded to against you I of course am not called upon to say anything in regard to. The fact is your subsequent promotions are proof positive that I entertained none of the views set forth to your disadvantage in this article.

Very Truly Yours, U. S. Grant
Okay, as I cannot remember and am away from my books, I will retract that statement about Nashville, although I will retain my opinion that he is a weasel. Apologies to General Schofield.
 
Yes, Steedman was bent out of shape from what he perceived as attacks on Thomas' generalship in Schofields writing on the battle. Schofield wrote a paper for the Society of the Army of the Cumberland in 1880 that set Steedman off.

Schofield was a little critical of Thomas in his autobiography too, but I thought it was pretty mild.
Thanks, Dan!
 
On the subject of the aftermath of Nashville, did Thomas ever fight on the offensive during the war? It seems that in all of the battles he took part, he was resisting the enemy's attacks.
 
I found it odd that Thomas would appoint Steedman to investigate that particular incident. Steedman had been involved twice with nefarious behind-the-back tactics, once against Sherman in front of Corinth, 1862, (successful) and also against General Buell; the man liked to team up with co-conspirators, and Thomas would have known about both. Experience should not rule out trust. I find Steedman's report as a barb meant to inflict pain, and disgrace Schofield. I take no stock in its verity!
Thanks, Lubliner.

Thomas wrote to Halleck, upon receipt in orders to replace Buell. Nothing to do with Steedman.
On the subject of the aftermath of Nashville, did Thomas ever fight on the offensive during the war? It seems that in all of the battles he took part, he was resisting the enemy's attacks.
Nashville. Mill springs
 
Thomas wrote to Halleck, upon receipt in orders to replace Buell. Nothing to do with Steedman.

Nashville. Mill springs
Not to be in disagreement, I have heard nothing with Thomas being implicated in Buell's trial and courts-martial. I have been researching this particular incident, and posting on a thread called The Buell Commission in the General History Discussion Forum. There are anywhere from 8 to ten or more names given that signed a petition, (and as many as 22 total), sent directly to the President, and Steedman was at the top of the list. The whole trial is found in Series 1, Volume 16, Part 1, of the official records, from page 67 to 776 approx. Can you steer me to a Thomas and Halleck connection? I know Thomas was in disagreement with Buell during his testimony regarding the ability to attack the rebels before they passed into Kentucky. Thanks, it would help me a good deal.
Lubliner.
As far as a defensive posture, he was under orders, and when given opportunity he fought well. Nashville was a northern offensive. He was attacking.
 
Back
Top