"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

IIRC, it was John Logan that Grant sent, then decided to go himself, but only got as far as Washington when he got word that Thomas had defeated Hood at Nashville.

Correct Don,

He was in Louisville when he found out about Thomas,s win.

Logan assumed command of the Army of Tennessee during the battle of Atlanta when James McPherson was killed, but was by passed for permanent command by Oliver Howard.

At the end of the war Sherman would have Logan lead the Army for the Grand Review in Washington to make up for the slight. For a Political General, he was actually pretty good.

Kim

Slow NO,
Nashville was the work of a Master.
Was Grant slow still sitting in front of Petersburg?
Asking for a friend.

Kim, always thought there was jealousy between Grant and his generals and army and those of the Army of the Cumberland. This was shown at Chattanooga and missionary Ridge and later with Thomas, IMO. Grant always felt his men and generals were better. The army of the Cumberland believed they had fought the better Confederate Army and he had belittled them due to Chickamauga. They proved him wrong at missionary Ridge and afterwards as well.

I do believe Grant and to an extent Sherman, treated them unfairly. That favoritism and to an extent, blindness to faults, was repeated by Grant as president.

One must keep in mind at two of their major battles, they were outnumbered or had a very minor numbers advantage ( Stone River in Chickamauga).

As much as I like Thomas, he did do one thing that contributed heavily to the fatal mistake at chickamauga. He hounded Rosecrans constantly for more troops, which Rosecrans kept accommodating. Finally leading to the fatal withdrawal of a division in his battle line, that allowed Longstreet to penetrate unopposed.

At Nashville, Schofield and Wilson had to talk Thomas out of a frontal attack, and in the pursuit, he took the wrong road.

Grant and Sherman (an old friend of Thomas's) both considered him slow. I'll take their word for it.

Donlowry I've read there was more behind both Schofield and Wilson's remarks, that bring questions about what they said.

There was friction between Schofield and Thomas, especially after Schofields performance at Nashville.

But it started much earlier

"John M. Schofield graduated in the West Point class of 1853, but not before being dismissed first and then being re-instated. Schofield's dislike for General Thomas started at this time. George H. Thomas was an instructor there and a member of Schofield's court of inquiry for an incident of lewd behavior towards several cadet candidates that Schofield was responsible for, which cost the candidates a chance of passing their entrance exams. McKinney writes:

"The Schofield court was one of the disciplinary measures in which Thomas became involved during this tour of duty. The enmity of John M. Schofield toward Thomas is a matter of history. It probably started at this time."

It progressed from there.

"General James Harrison Wilson was a close associate of General Ulysses S. Grant during the American Civil War"

In other words, he was Grants man.

Darryll,

Can't disagree about Grant's view of "his" generals, but keep in mind that Sheridan did not start out as one of "his" generals and ended up second only to Sherman as one of his most trusted confidantes. This would skew his view of good generals like Gouverneur K. Warren when he allowed Sheridan to remove him from command from V Corps in the waning days of the war.

I do agree with Don Lowery and believe that he was slow (or as I said previously "methodical"} but that does not make him a Bad general.

I would personally rank him 4th behind Grant, Sherman and Sheridan among Union generals.

Kim

Kim, I'd rank him 3rd. I personally think him better than Sheridan. 🙂

Kim, I am inclined to agree with you, mainly because I don't know of a better candidate. However, what I have read recently about Curtis would put him in the running.

The trouble with being slow is that it does not keep the pressure on the opposition and may give them a chance to seize the initiative.

35th OVI: I agree with you about his performance at Chickamauga, begging and borrowing half the army to defend his sector and thus stripping the other corps too much. Of course the actual mix-up with opening a hole in the line was not his doing, directly -- lay that on Rosecrans and McCook.