"Was George Thomas Slow?" Topic

I did a search and did not find anything on point so I thought I would ask the question; was George Thomas actually slow? Simply being called "slow trot" does not answer the question. Are there examples of his failure to meet a timetable that cannot be ascribed to other causes, such as enemy action, geography or weather?

I admit to liking Thomas and believing that his reputation has suffered from unsubstantiated slurs advanced by his contemporaries and by his early death, depriving us of his own take on his service in the war (recognizing that he rejected the idea of writing his own memoirs while still on active service). Sherman, his friend, thought very highly of Thomas, however, I'm willing to be persuaded otherwise.

Thomas was one of the top Generals in the Union Army. There are good books on him out there that will give you better information on him. 🙂

He was one of the most effective Union generals of the war. I think the name calling was because of personal feelings rather than factual substance.

I think the name started when he was teaching cadets at West Point as the cavalry instructor – "slow trot, gentlemen, slow trot" to keep them in good order (when, as I recall, Lee was the superintendent)

He was a great general – didn't attack until he was ready, took care of his troops and was absolutely unshakeable in defense

I'd say careful and methodical. His successes tell the story.

Thomas had a superb command of the local battlefield. We all know of his performance at Chickamauga. At Nashville, he resisted rash directives from Washington to prematurely attack Hood (and the threats that came with them) until the Confederate Army was spread hopelessly thin along the South Nashville hills. He then unleashed a juggernaut that crushed Hood and sent the Army of Tennessee reeling all the way back to Alabama.

Not one of my favorite generals but everything they say above is true.

I have often wondered what would have happened if the French in 1870 would have had George Thomas instead of Bazaine and MacMahon.

Agree with all of the above. As Frederick said, his nickname came from his exhortation to his cavalry students to keep them in good order rather them just busting out "hell for leather."

In my opinion, he was the best Union general. Unfortunately his wife destroyed all of his papers after he died so we don't have any personal accounts from him.

Jim

I'll go with "methodical." There are plenty of generals who are slow without being methodical, but when Thomas hit, everything was in place. For an overall assessment, I'd like a bigger sample than we have.

One of my favorites. Would use word Intentional and not wasteful

Yes. He was. Slow.

Yes, he was a good general, and yes slow when in command (some would call him "methodical" to be politically correct I suppose.)

Grant considered him so slow that he had one of his staff officers in route to Nashville to relieve him of his command for inaction, only to find that Thomas had finally attacked Hood and effectively destroyed the Army of Tennessee. The action saved his job and reputation.

Kim