Lee versus Thomas

[kevikens]

No, I don't mean a "what if these two had collided on a battlefield" , though I think that possibility presents an interesting scenario. I have started a new biography of Lee (Clouds of Glory) and it has raised anew for me a question I have much pondered. I have always been amazed at how two individuals can look at the same happening, same phenomena, the same data and reach diametrically opposed conclusions ( Coke versus Pepsi, Democrats versus Republicans, moral evil versus positive good). That sort of thing.

It seems to me that Robert E Lee and George Thomas shared a great deal, had much in common, yet in 1861 each made a very different decision, costly for both in different ways. I think it too simplistic to say that for Lee his country was Virginia and his first allegiance, while for Thomas the USA was his country and his primary allegiance. The question for me is why these two men decided differently. What led each to see secession in opposite terms? Is this something we can ever know with some degree of probability about why they chose the side they did or does their thought process remain forever inscrutable. What think you, readers?

PS For what it is worth I have often thought that if the two had met on a battlefield as army commanders, Lee would have struck first and might have overwhelmed Thomas with the impetus of a rapid, concentrated assault but that if he did not at once prevail and Thomas had absorbed the blow he would then have advanced remorselessly and methodically to victory.

 

[E_just_E]

Slow Trot Thomas and Bobby Lee were not that similar. Really. Lee was about 10 years older. Thomas lost his dad, his house and his family's (and he had 6 siblings) when he was 13, and his formative years was just a step above dirt poor. Lee was an aristocrat. Thomas got a charity spot in the USMA when he was 20. Much older than the average 16 and 17 year olds. (Thus the "Old Thomas"). Lee graduated without any demerits. Thomas was middle of the pack. Thomas' best buddy in school was W.T. Sherman.

30,000 feet view: similar. 1,000 feet view: not that much.

 

[NedBaldwin]

Lee came from a prominent family intertwined with the political power elites in Virginia ( his father had been governor). Thomas did not. I think that is an important factor.

 

[Drew]

Lee was an aristocrat. Thomas got a charity spot in the USMA when he was 20.

I will add to this mix that Lee's immediate family fortunes were not good when he was "coming up," but that he married well and was yes, very much an aristocrat in 1860. His own spot at USMA was the result of family connections. I wouldn't call it "charity," but momma made a few phone calls.

 

[kevikens]

Did not both Lee and Thomas lose their fathers as youngsters? Lee may not have been dirt poor but his father's financial shenanigans left his family in straitened circumstances.

 

[Drew]

Did not both Lee and Thomas lose their fathers as youngsters? Lee may not have been dirt poor but his father's financial shenanigans left his family in straitened circumstances.

Can't speak to Thomas' specific circumstances, but yes, Lee's father blew it, financially. His mother's social connections made up for it in terms of the opportunity her children would be presented with.

 

[Quara]

Also important is the fact that Lee married a woman from a prominent Virginia family (or more accurately, THE prominent Virginia family). Thomas married a woman from a prominent New York family. Even if their wives had no direct influence on their decisions to declare loyalty for union or for Virginia, it does point to the centrality (or lack thereof) of southern society in each man's lives when they were young adults.

 

[brass napoleon]

Also important is the fact that Lee married a woman from a prominent Virginia family (or more accurately, THE prominent Virginia family). Thomas married a woman from a prominent New York family. Even if their wives had no direct influence on their decisions to declare loyalty for union or for Virginia, it does point to the centrality (or lack thereof) of southern society in each man's lives when they were young adults.

This is a very important point. In cases of a "mixed marriage" (one Southerner and one Northerner), it's striking how many times the husband went with the loyalty of the wife. I'm not saying that this was Thomas' only consideration, or that it was even the most important one, but I think it can't be discounted as a factor.

 

[brass napoleon]

I think it too simplistic to say that for Lee his country was Virginia and his first allegiance, while for Thomas the USA was his country and his primary allegiance. The question for me is why these two men decided differently. What led each to see secession in opposite terms?

Actually, they didn't see secession in opposite terms. Both of them deprecated it. Lee called it "nothing but revolution", said it would lead to "anarchy", and questioned whether it was treason. I also don't think it's too simplistic to say that each man had a different primary allegiance. It seems to me they did, and that's the main driving factor in their decision. Now, the question of WHY they had a different primary allegiance could get quite complicated...

 

[ole]

But it is an interesting proposition. Lee and Thomas were opposites. Lee struck when the iron was almost hot and Thomas waited until all the irons were hot. It would have been an interesting meeting.

Irons and hot might need further exposition. Way back when irons were heated on wood stoves, about three irons were heated. If one took too long to iron a garment, one of the irons would become too hot and would scorch the object being ironed. Too many irons on the fire meant that one ought not be used.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, the Lone Ranger and Tonto ... Never mind.

Lee and Thomas were quite different in their approach. Lee looked for an immediate advantage and Thomas made arrangements to be totally prepared. Hard to say what that would have looked like in a direct confrontation.

It remains that Thomas, in Nashville, was almost totally prepared for Hood's invasion. Close enough. Some serious kick-butt action.

Now Thomas against Lee? I don't see it. Grant, yes. Lee went for the advantage as did Grant.

 

[brass napoleon]

...Now Thomas against Lee? I don't see it. Grant, yes. Lee went for the advantage as did Grant.

I'm inclined to agree. Unfortunately, Thomas didn't have enough experience in independent command to really base a sound assesment on, IMO. But given what we know, I tend to think Lee would have bested him (but to use one of Shelby Foote's favorite terms, "only by the hardest").

 

[leftyhunter]

Slow Trot Thomas and Bobby Lee were not that similar. Really. Lee was about 10 years older. Thomas lost his dad, his house and his family's (and he had 6 siblings) when he was 13, and his formative years was just a step above dirt poor. Lee was an aristocrat. Thomas got a charity spot in the USMA when he was 20. Much older than the average 16 and 17 year olds. (Thus the "Old Thomas"). Lee graduated without any demerits. Thomas was middle of the pack. Thomas' best buddy in school was W.T. Sherman.

30,000 feet view: similar. 1,000 feet view: not that much.

I read two biographies on Thomas I don't recall him getting demerits but maybe I missed that ; what where they for? Thomas was a very brave officer in the flying(horse borne) artillery and served under Major Bragg. I didn't know he was a charity case I thought Thomas was chosen to go to West Point based on merit. Again I could be wrong. Would that of been true also about Jackson? I read Jackson was not has well educated has Thomas but he had a good attitude and tried hard. I recall Thomas met Jackson who was a year ahead of him but they where not buddies. Thomas seemed to get along well with others.
Thomas served twice under Lee and while at West Point where Lee was the Commandant he and his wife had dinner with the Lee's. If I am wrong on anything please let me know.
Thanks
Leftyhunter

 

[leftyhunter]

Actually, they didn't see secession in opposite terms. Both of them deprecated it. Lee called it "nothing but revolution", said it would lead to "anarchy", and questioned whether it was treason. I also don't think it's too simplistic to say that each man had a different primary allegiance. It seems to me they did, and that's the main driving factor in their decision. Now, the question of WHY they had a different primary allegiance could get quite complicated...

Per one of the biographies I read Thomas stated that he owed an allegiance to the United States because it was the US Govt that provided him with an opportunity to have a military career . It may tell us something that Thomas was a military officer all his adult life vs others such has Halleck and McClennan that resigned from the Army and had very successful careers in civilian life. My understanding is that peace time US Army officers made very little money in contrast with does of similar education and time spent in a civilian field.
Leftyhunter

 

[ole]

Thomas gets an inordinate amount of "slows." I'd say he earned it. He was deliberate (read that as slow). It's what kept him back from promotion. It worked for him at Nashville, even though there were those sent to replace him.

 

[kevikens]

Nothing slow about his reaction at Chickamauga.

 

[E_just_E]

I read two biographies on Thomas I don't recall him getting demerits but maybe I missed that ; what where they for?

The demerits were both for academic reasons and for "behavior", neatness etc. reasons. And they were given aplenty. Grant wrote a tad about them in his Memoirs. Lee is the only known cadet to never get any. Demerits determined the rank of someone in their class. Thomas graduated 12th out of 42. So he did have demerits, but demerits were not "a big deal". It was something that it was expected.

 

[SKC]

Thomas gets an inordinate amount of "slows." I'd say he earned it. He was deliberate (read that as slow). It's what kept him back from promotion. It worked for him at Nashville, even though there were those sent to replace him.

My understanding is that he refused promotion; he was not kept back from promotion.

Thomas' "slow-trot" nickname had nothing to do with his battlefield performance.

Yes, Sherman "complained" (in a letter to Grant, that has been much quoted) about the AotC's "slows" during the Atlanta campaign, but IMO Thomas' tactical performance was quite superior to Sherman's during this campaign….and Sherman was doing nothing more than trying to use Thomas and the AotC as a scapegoat for what Sherman feared would be seen as a lack of results during the first several months of the campaign.

Overall, given his more than solid performance at Stone's River, Chickamauga, Chattanooga, the Atlanta Campaign and Nashville; I would say that he earned a much more impressive sobriquet that "slow-trot".

 

[Quara]

My understanding is that he refused promotion; he was not kept back from promotion.

Thomas' "slow-trot" nickname had nothing to do with his battlefield performance.

Yes, Sherman "complained" (in a letter to Grant, that has been much quoted) about the AotC's "slows" during the Atlanta campaign, but IMO Thomas' tactical performance was quite superior to Sherman's during this campaign….and Sherman was doing nothing more than trying to use Thomas and the AotC as a scapegoat for what Sherman feared would be seen as a lack of results during the first several months of the campaign.

Overall, given his more than solid performance at Stone's River, Chickamauga, Chattanooga, the Atlanta Campaign and Nashville; I would say that he earned a much more impressive sobriquet that "slow-trot".

I think he turned down the offer of command of the Army of the Cumberland, letting Buell stay in charge. When Buell was relieved finally Rosecrans was given command, largely because of Thomas's prior refusal. (Once bitten, twice shy, I guess--by Chattanooga they just told him to take command)

I read somewhere that the nickname 'slow-trot' originated at west point while he was training cadets on horsemanship.Apparently he would yell it at over-eager cadets to keep them from losing control of their horses, and did so regularly enough that it became a nickname (as such things do in the military). The 'rock of Chickamauga' always seemed very fitting--like a boulder on a hill, getting him started could be an issue, but once he got rolling ( or something slammed into him)...it was a bad day for the other guy...

 

[ole]

The demerits were both for academic reasons and for "behavior", neatness etc. reasons. And they were given aplenty. Grant wrote a tad about them in his Memoirs. Lee is the only known cadet to never get any. Demerits determined the rank of someone in their class. Thomas graduated 12th out of 42. So he did have demerits, but demerits were not "a big deal". It was something that it was expected.

Seems I read that Lee did get some but that they were erased by subsequent behavior, so he graduated without any.

Demerits were (and are, I think) easy to get. If your brass was not perfect in the eyes of a senior, you got a demerit. If the senior didn't like you, you got demerits for very minor infractions.

In this we can apply 21st Century logic. It's still the same as it was. Bully the new kid.

 

[Copperhead-mi]

The demerits were both for academic reasons and for "behavior", neatness etc. reasons. And they were given aplenty. Grant wrote a tad about them in his Memoirs. Lee is the only known cadet to never get any. Demerits determined the rank of someone in their class. Thomas graduated 12th out of 42. So he did have demerits, but demerits were not "a big deal". It was something that it was expected.

I believe that Charles Mason, who graduated #1 in Lee's class, also had no demerits.