"George Henry Thomas - The Rock of Chickamauga" Topic

Interested in guaging the reputation of this guy amongst you ACW buffs. Is he still underrated? I'm an ACW novice, but he seems to be one of the most successful Union commanders of the war.

I am actually giving a talk on Thomas for a local Civil War Round Table that argues that he might be over-rated. The pendulum has swung too far to the good over the last few decades with Thomas, and I cite numerous examples, starting with the Camp Wild Cat fight, through Chickamauga, of where Thomas defied orders, failed to communicate effectively, and definitely had a case of the slows.

I think he was an excellent defensive commander but was indeed slow. His attack at Nashville was a powerhouse, once everything (and I mean everything) was in order. If Hood had backed off a day or two sooner there would have been howls from DC heard all the way out west. But Hood stood and took it on the chin.

Hood destroyed the Army of Tennessee, Thomas just helped a bit!

I think Thomas was a solid general, liked by the troops and good commander

I don't know that he is over-rated but he was certainly under-rated for a long time; I think as noted he is a good commander, not a great one

That being said, he was as solid on the defense as any ACW general

A competent subordinate commander that could carry out an assignment but not an original thinker

I am hesitant to disagree with Darryl on Civil War matters but I think Thomas was a first rate commander. Yes he had some faults but I think he was a good staff organizer and a steady hand in a crisis. The book, Master of War by Benson Bobrick is a good source of information. Darryl, is that the Hamilton CWRT or a different one? Love to hear your POV. H

I would describe Thomas as solid and methodical, but he was also able to step up when needed.

As a side note, Thomas was from Virginia but chose to remain loyal. I admire him for taking a principled stand as it cost him his relationship with his family.

That is the Hamilton RT meeting in November.

You may change your thinking from a first rate commander something a little less if I am successful in my talk.

As a tease about not following orders, he received a direct order from Buell at Perryville on October 8th to attack along the Lebanon Pike towards town once Buell finally got his head out of his arse and believed there was a battle going on. Thomas did not launch an attack with Crittenden's Corps. Lots of examples like this. :)

I don't think it is a contradiction to say that someone is both good and overrated. When it comes to Thomas though I think the trend is either to be a fan or to ignore him.

Well, some people overrate him, some underrate him.

I think his performance at Chickamauga is overrated. It was actually Granger and Steedman who saved the day there. Thomas could not have held on without them. And his constant calls for more and more reinforcements for the left (despite the fact that he was doing pretty well with what he had) led to the disastrous hole in the line that led to the defeat.

At Nashville, Schofield and Wilson talked him into shifting the main attack to Hood's flank instead of a frontal assault.

He never really got a chance to conduct an offensive campaign on his own, so can't rate him as a strategist.

+1 Don…we are of the same mind about Chickamauga. Rosecrans of course could have said no to move troops, especially on the last day when Thomas already had 2/3s of the army under his command and a position that was pretty tough.

And Nashville, where he does get all the credit, well, you are spot on.

My talk is how we rate leaders without digging in and learning all the facts. Using Thomas as my subject.

Yes, Thomas had several brigades in reserve in Kelly field that could have easily covered the Lafayette Road. For example, he could have used Cruft's brigade to relive Berry, and Johnson's whole division could have extended the line from the Regular Brigade west to the Lafayette Road and beyond. And the front line brigades still had a double line themselves. Definitely a poor use of available resources.

That being said, he had the right idea sending the entire Army of the Cumberland through Snake Creek Gap as the opening maneuvor of the Atlanta Campaign instead of the smaller Army of the Tennessee.

Overall, he was a solid commander, but not great. I compare him to Montgomery from WW2. Very good if he has the time to build up plan, but not decisive on the fly.

And who of you could have done better?

Brad, we have a lot of the same conclusions…might be some studying of the War at a certain battlefield in north Georgia we share. :)

I would say most of us could do better (since you decided to ask such a pointedly snarky question). But then again, I am the one giving the talk to swing the pendulum of love for Thomas back to the middle so of course I would say that. ;)

So…more like a pebble than a rock?

I like that assessment, Coop! I will have to remember that. :)

I would say, snark or not, that pretty much nobody around here could do better. Though we do have quite a few combat veterans, I am not sure how many have commanded at that level if at all. Also, as we all know the 19th century battlefield was a very different scene than the 20th-21st. Some may do better, but without proof I am very sceptical…I can kick butt with a d6 though! As to the OP, what about Thomas' use of communications, intelligence, cartography, and recon? He was methodical but very modern in many of his approaches to warfare…I would say better than most in his era. He contributed to winning the war despite a great deal of mistrust and vitriol due to his Virginia roots. War is messy, command is messier, I think Thomas was an intelligent and principled commander who did good work…

Cleburne: Nice map! Where'd you get it?

BTW, Chickamauga is the subject of my next book. It's pretty much all written. Hope to have it in print by year's end.

I would say better than most in his era.

Oh, gotta agree there! Probably one of the 1st-tier corps commanders.

RE: map

link

If I am not mistaken, not at home to verify 100%…fantastic stuff

Donlowry,

I made it!

civilwarvirtualtours.com

Some of the maps are a little dated. I could update the maps in the Allatoona and Pickett's Mill sections slightly since I've written the books. I've just been concentrating on scenario books lately.

Good luck with your book!

A competent subordinate commander that could carry out an assignment but not an original thinker.

His plan to outflank Johnston through the Snake Creek Gap at the beginning of the Atlanta campaign would have, if he had executed it instead of McPherson, ended with the destruction of the Army of Tennessee and the opening of central Georgia and Atlanta many month earlier (IMO).

And while he may have seemed "slow" I think he could be characterized as deliberate, getting his army as completely ready for a campaign as he could before launching it.

His nickname "Old Slow Trot" came from his days at West Point as the riding instructor where he tried to rein in his rambunctious students by reminding them to advance at a slow trot in order to both keep the horses from tiring and to keep the formation together.

As others have said, Thomas had been so under-rated and/or ignored for so long that IMO now he is the "vogue" ACW general. His early after the war death, the lack of any memoir by him or any of his papers surviving, and his denigration by Grant and Sherman [my opinion] have served to compound him being "ignored" for so long. Plus being a Virginian didn't help him as he was viewed by many, incorrectly, as unreliable. Fortunately he proved extremely reliable in his loyalty to the US.

Could he have done better than Rosecrans in the Tullahoma/Chickamauga campaign? Could he have done better than Sherman in the Atlanta campaign? I don't really know but from what I have read, probably so.

At least that's my nickel's worth!

Jim

When Rosecrans was sacked, Thomas offered to resign with him. Rosey told Thomas to stay. Thomas also got temporary command of Grant's army when Halleck kicked Grant upstairs and nearly got him to quit. So there was some bad blood between Thomas and Grant. Not nearly as much as the routine vendettas in Bragg's army, but still some unease.

One of the chief attacks on Thomas is that he was slow. Yet he did attack at Nashville with 2-1 odds in his favor Grant did NOT attack Lee at Petersburg and had a all so a 2-1 advantage. So who was slower?

Grant did NOT attack Lee at Petersburg

He didn't? Funny, I thought he attacked several times!

Didn't the siege of Petersburg last about nine months? Have to agree with Steve1865. Grant may have conducted many attacks during this period, but they were all fairly unsuccessful until March 1865.

To be fair to Grant, at Petersburg he was facing Lee rather than Hood, the ANV was in better shape than the AoT when the armies arrived at Petersburg, Lee had fairly good supply lines until late in the siege, and Early was mounting an effective diversion in the Shenandoah Valley.

And in the end he captured Petersburg, and Richmond, and the Army of Northern Virginia, and Robert E. Lee!

That he did.

Donlowrey. Although Grant did attack lee ; his attacks failed until 1865. Also Thomas attacked in the winter while Grant waited until the Spring.