Comments on: Was Gen. George Thomas Right – A Civil General Controversy

By: Andrew

Andrew — Fri, 09 Dec 2011 14:03:33 +0000

I think if Thomas were in command of Gettysburg, instead of Meade, Thomas would have completely annihilated and destroyed Lee’s Army of Northern Virginia. He was master at both defensive and offensive maneuvers and was a genius in warfare. The war probably could have ended years earlier if Thomas were left in command of the Union forces. He was meticulous in planning and one may think at first glance he was cautious like the do nothing McClellan, however there is a huge difference between McClellan and Thomas. Thomas used his caution and planning to his advantage and found the perfect time to destroy his enemies. McClellan was just too afraid to engage in battles and would withdraw whereas Thomas would follow every movement of his enemies (like a lion stalks it’s prey before attacking them) and then strike the enemy with a devastating blow. He knew exactly what he was doing. He did his attacks in a way to minimize casualties in order to achieve a decisive victory. He was a genius in war and probably the best general on either side of the war.

By: Andrew

Andrew — Fri, 09 Dec 2011 13:32:46 +0000

I think Thomas had to be the best general of the war and in fact was even better than Lee, Grant, Sherman, Jackson, Forrest and Stuart. He should have gotten credit for what he did. Grant and Sherman did try to take credit all for themselves for what was due to to Thomas, however we must also think of what John Schofield did to diminish Thomas’s reputation. Schofield, in my opinion, had to be perhaps the lowliest excuse for a man ever produced in the Civil War and was a total jerk. Although he was a competent officer, he was full of ambition and did anything he could to advance his career, even if it meant backstabbing others to get himself promoted. He deliberately fed Sherman and Grant false information and lies about Thomas, just to get himself promoted for higher commands. He was expelled from West Point by none other than Thomas years earlier for basically turning Thomas’s class into a partying brothel when Thomas had an important class assignment and left Schofield in charge. That’s why Schofield wanted revenge and tried to get Thomas removed at Nashville. As far as I am concerned, Thomas did everything right and was a thorough professional and was also a great man. He did exactly what he was supposed to. He was good to his men, never had any ambition, was honest, modest and always put his soldiers needs before his.

By: Andrew

Andrew — Fri, 09 Dec 2011 13:10:44 +0000

I agree. Thomas in my opinion was even better than Lee, Grant, Sherman, Forrest and Stuart. I wish he got more credit for what he did and I also wish he was just as famous as all the other great generals. He was also a good man. In fact, I think he had to be the best general of the war.

By: Andrew

Andrew — Fri, 09 Dec 2011 13:06:40 +0000

Actually Jackson and Thomas did go up against each other during a small battle in 1861 during the First Bull Run Campaign called the Battle of Hoke’s Run (also called Falling Waters). Although it was a small skirmish, guess who won the battle? Thomas won. Both men were colonels and commanded brigades, however it was a Union victory and Jackson was forced to withdraw. Thomas, in my opinion had to be the best general on either side of the war, even better than Jackson, Lee, Grant, Forrest, Sherman or Stuart.

By: James Simcoe

James Simcoe — Fri, 12 Aug 2011 20:49:16 +0000

Grant the dullard. A common sentiment. When he came East, he was at pains to keep the trust of the leadership of the AOP, but Meade was not the man for the moment.
It was Meade who pulled up short in the Wilderness, setting the stage for the grinding Overland campaign. It was Meade who held Sheridan back because of reports that Stuart was operating near Fredericksburg, even after Grant voted to let the cavalry arm operate more aggressively. Grant shifted his whole operational idea on the spot. Initially, he’d even assumed that he would lead from out west.
It was Meade who panicked and ordered the 5th Corp to attack before locating their flank support, the 6th Corp. it was Meade who did not order or verify his subs planning of a coordinated offensive at Cold Harbor. It was Grant who sent the AOP south of the James, delivering enough force to bust the Petersburg lines. Smith and then Hancock held back. It was Grant who ordered the surprise attack at the Spotsylvania salient, bagging one of the ANV’s premier brigades and it’s commander (Steuart).
He assumed the bad roads and rain would forestall attack at Shiloh, and it was indeed these things that delayed the Confederates such that Bueregard advised calling the attack off.
It was Grant who placed Smith at Donelsen. A commander with no competent subordinates equals Braxton Bragg. (Cleburne excepted, and to some degree, Hardee).
True, Grant was prone to ‘point A to point B thinking, trusting the men and his own ability to improvise (Champion’s Hill). True too that Sherman was prone to favoritism. But he kept a force together that still had punch at Atlanta, leading the artillery reserve himself to thwart Hood’s Peachtree Creek offensive.
His handling of his supply train is still studied at the Army’s War College. The March to the Sea was by necessity a very closely enginered move, the columns had to stay close, there was no going back to collect stragglers. Then there’s the near-miraculous crossing of the Salkahatchee morass that drove straight up the middle of Johnston’s defensive line, causing him to abandon South Carolina.
Grant was socially autistic, proven by his inability to spot con artists, outside of braggarts (McClernand).
At the Crater, it was Meade who did not want Black troops leading the charge, men who had been trained specifically for this task. Ahhh, if only Grant had put on his hat, said, “I’ll lead it and take full responsibility,” Lee would have been leveraged out of his lines, unable to last the winter. Ulysees was at his best ‘hands on’, it wasn’t his nature to have to work at one step remove.
Remember, the odds in May ’64 were 2 to 1, they were still 2 to 1
in late July. It’s nonsense to state that Grant could take for granted an “infinite” supply of troops. The conscripts were proving more a headache than anything else. (See Lyman’s memoirs).
It took Grant 90 days to take the war from the Rapidan line to pinning Lee down for good. It was the ANV that was ‘stymied’, although I understand the Northern public’s sentiments on the matter. His aggresive extension of the siege lines created the rapid collapse of spring ’65.

By: This Day In History - July 31 |

This Day In History - July 31 | — Mon, 01 Aug 2011 02:50:59 +0000

[...] more >> This Day In History General George Thomas – SonOfTheSouth Was Gen. George Thomas Right – A Civil General Controversy Battle of Chickamauga (lithograph by Kurz and Allison, [...]

By: Ajay

Ajay — Tue, 28 Jun 2011 03:33:43 +0000

Lee vs. Thomas would have been very interesting. Lee the brilliant gambler against the Professional. Lee’s very strength could be turned against him. Taking a gamble against Thomas could turn badly. Something else to concider is that Thomas was second in command under Lee in Texas and the two men new each other extremely well. Thomas would have used the superior numbers both effectively and efficiently. You sure wouldn’t have had a Cold Harbor ,

By: Steven Collins

Steven Collins — Fri, 17 Jun 2011 07:40:35 +0000

Grant was inept and negligent in most of his battles. He concistently had high caulsality rates.
To show how bad both Grant and Sherman were take a good look at the Battle of Shiloe. Halleck, Grant’s Commanding Officier ordered him tto fortify his position. Not only did he not do this, but he allowed his suborniates to camp like they were on an outing. In their arrogance, Grant and Sherman ignored and belittled the intelligence and contact reports from their own People. They allowed the surprising and almost defeat of their Army. Instead of being heroes, they should have been Court-Martialed. The only battle that compares is MacArthur in Korea at the Chosan.
Knowing Thomas’s style, can you see him not having forified Defensive Positions? With his Staff having an Intelligence Officer for collilating of reports and information.and the importance he placed on it in his planning, Thomas didn’t make mistakes and was an expert at anticapating and reacting to the mistakes of his oppodents.
The nickname “Slow Trot” dates back to when he was an Instructor of Horsemanship at West Point. He was continuely telling the Cadets to fall into a “Slow Trot, Gentleman. It was his supposed good friend and Roommate at the Point, Sherman, and used later to demine Thomas behind his back.
Grant, Sherman, and the biggest liar of them all Schofield, were all the types to put self interest and promotion ahead of all else. Thomas was an easy mark for them because he was so honorable and honest it was difficult for him to see it in others. All you have to check their battle reports if you’re into fiction. They were equally adapt at stealing credit as shifting blame.
To me the most telling factor was Thomas’s ability to command the loyality of all who served under him with one exception, Schoefield, included the likes of “Fighting Joe” Hooker and William Farrar “Baldy” Smith, two smart, ambitous, and difficult Generals who drove others to distraction.
At a gathering of the AOTC and NAOT, following the death of Thomas, following some derrogative statements made ealier in the papers by them, Sherman and Schoefield were booed of the stage, literally. All these men years after serving with him rose to his defense and drove the offenders from the stage.
Lee vs. Thomas would have been very interesting. Lee the brilliant gambler against the Professional. Lee’s very strength could be turned against him. Taking a gamble against Thomas could turn badly. Something else to concider is that Thomas was second in command under Lee in Texas and the two men new each other extremely well. Thomas would have used the superior numbers both effectively and efficiently. You sure wouldn’t have had a Cold Harbor.
Thomas would not have been intimanated by Lee or underestimate him, and would have probabily been able to follow Lee’s thought process. Lee would have a hard time fooling him. Thomas was an expert at useing all three types of units, infratry, artillary, and calvery to their best advantage.

By: Molon Lobe

Molon Lobe — Sat, 11 Jun 2011 20:41:07 +0000

Thomas never faced a first rate opponent. His victories against Bragg and Hood bwere achieved when the Confederacy was in decline. Had he faced Lee, Jackson, or even Forrest I doubt he would have fared as well.

Over rated. Its easy to achieve victory when you outnumber and out gun your enemies. I’d like to see how well he would have done against Grant had he replaced Lee in 1864. I think the Confederacy wouldn’t have fared half so well, nor Grant faced such rough handling.

By: Topm Durham

Topm Durham — Wed, 11 May 2011 23:22:52 +0000

I AGREE
THOMAS WAS IN MY OPINION THE BEST GENERAL ON EITHER SIDE.