Catching Up With "Old Slow Trot"
Stubborn and deliberate, General George Henry Thomas was one of the Union's most brilliant strategists. So why was he cheated by history?
- By Ernest B. Furgurson
- Smithsonian magazine, March 2007, Subscribe
(Page 3 of 7)
The truth is that Thomas, like many other soldiers, was torn by the wrenching decision he was forced to make. So was his friend Lee, who opposed secession and agonized over resigning from the U.S. Army that he had served so faithfully. But Lee ultimately headed South, saying he could not bring himself to fight against his home, family and friends. It is also true that Lee had a much larger stake in Virginia, in its plantations and history, than Thomas did in his more modest place in Southampton. And besides his loyalty to the old flag, Thomas was committed to a Northern wife who was as strongly Unionist as his sisters were secessionist.
His memories of Nat Turner's insurrection might have hardened him into a determined defender of slavery, as it did for so many of the Southern officers who went with the Confederacy. Instead—perhaps remembering the eager blacks he had taught to read and write—he fought to overturn the "peculiar institution." Though he left no bold statements of how he felt, when his duty came to include ending slavery, he carried it out just as forcefully as when it stood for simply preserving the Union.
Those who protest Thomas' decision have made less of the fact that old Winfield Scott, general in chief of the Army in the early months of the war, was also a Virginian. He had been a national figure since the War of 1812, but by late 1861 he had retired and no longer mattered. Tens of thousands of Southerners fought for the Union, but Thomas has been the focus of resentment for one reason: he was a better general than the others.
As early as his cadet days, Thomas' contemporaries had seen a resemblance to George Washington in his classic profile, his integrity and his restrained power. In 48 months of war, as his brown hair and well-trimmed beard began to gray, he would attain a certain grandeur that only strengthened that comparison. He seldom showed his explosive temper, but when he did, it was remembered. He disdained theatrics and politics; to general and future president James A. Garfield, his whole life seemed "frank and guileless." Thus in character, if not in gambling instinct, he also closely resembled Lee, who was a role model for so many younger officers who served under him.
Thomas would earn the undying loyalty of soldiers like Henry Van Ness Boynton, who won the Congressional Medal of Honor fighting under him in 1863. Boynton wrote that Thomas "looked upon the lives of his soldiers as a sacred trust, not to be carelessly imperiled. Whenever he moved to battle, it was certain that everything had been done that prudence, deliberation, thought and cool judgment could do under surrounding circumstances to ensure success commensurate with the cost of the lives of men. And so it came to pass that when the war ended it could be truthfully written of Thomas alone that he never lost a movement or a battle."
But for Thomas, every battlefield success seemed to stir controversy or the jealousy of ambitious rivals. Unlike other noted generals, he had no home-state politicians to lobby on his behalf in Washington. Ulysses S. Grant, for example, was championed by Illinois congressman Elihu Washburne, and Sherman by his brother, Ohio senator John Sherman. For Thomas, every step upward depended solely on his performance in the field.
In one of the war's first skirmishes, he led a brigade in the Shenandoah Valley that bested Confederates under Stonewall Jackson. When the dashing Rebel J.E.B. Stuart heard that Thomas was commanding Union cavalry, he wrote to his wife that "I would like to hang him as a traitor to his native state." Even after that, there was lingering doubt among some Unionists, including Lincoln. Unlike Grant, Sherman, George McClellan and some other ranking Union officers who had broken their military service with years as civilians, Thomas had been a soldier since the day he entered West Point. Yet when his name came up for promotion, the president, restrained by Northern radicals and surrounded in the Federal bureaucracy by Southerners, said, "let the Virginian wait." But Sherman among others vouched for Thomas, and soon the Virginian was elevated to brigadier general and ordered to organize troops away from Virginia, beyond the Appalachians.
There, in January 1862, he sent a bulletin of encouragement to a Union hungry for good news. After an 18-day march on muddy roads, his division confronted Rebels at Mill Springs, Kentucky. Amid cold rain and gun smoke, he led his outnumbered troops in repulsing Confederates under Maj. Gen. George Crittenden and then drove them across the Cumberland River. Though not a massive victory, it was the first notable Northern success of the war, turning back a Confederate move from eastern Tennessee into Kentucky. Thomas was promoted to major general, an advancement that would soon create friction with his old roommate "Cump" Sherman and Grant, who had become so close that an affront to either was resented by both.
Single Page « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next »
Subscribe now for more of Smithsonian's coverage on history, science and nature.










Comments (15)
There are several good biographies of Thomas. The best is likely Francis McKinney's "Education in Violence" (http://www.amazon.com/Education-Violence-George-History-Cumberland/dp/0962529052). It really gives a positive, but fair view of GHT. Christopher Einholt's "George Thomas: Virginian for the Union (http://www.amazon.com/George-Thomas-Virginian-Campaigns-Commanders/dp/0806141212/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1332444400&sr=1-1) is also very good. Brian Steel Wills (who wrote perhaps the definitive biography of Nathan Bedford Forrest) has a new one out as well, which is likely very good. Thomas' gravesite in Troy is simple and very moving.
Posted by Glenn Raucher on March 22,2012 | 03:28 PM
I would agree whole-heartedly with the description of Thomas as "guileless". At Nashville somebody kept sending telegrams to Washington informing Stanton and Halleck that Thomas was incompetent, lacking confidence of his officers, etc. When John Schofield was caught red-handed by one of Thomas's staff sending a telegram to D.C., Thomas's response was "Why would he want to do that?" The officer had to explain that Schofield wanted Thomas's job. Thomas was stunned that a fellow officer would put politics above the national interest. When passing Thomas Circle on a bus in the fall of 2009, the driver and passengers all wondered who the statue was for, and I happily explained that it was to honor the one general who never lost a battle in the Civil War. They thought that was pretty neat. So did I.
Posted by John Hartman on January 19,2012 | 12:14 AM
A sidebar on George H Thomas' statue in Washington DC. The statue was paid for by contributions from his soldiers of the Army of the Cumberland. No tax payers funds were used. The ironical part and so appropiate is that the statue is made of bronze. The bronze source was captured Confederate cannon surrendered and melted down.
Posted by Dan Hughes on November 22,2011 | 04:07 PM
Thank you soooo much for this story. It was such a great help for my report on Thomas. The only thing I question is
"By late 1883, U.S. Colored Troops were filling some of the gaps opened in Federal forces by battle and disease."
-is 1883 supposed to be 1863?
It seems crazy that he was such a great hero but no one really even knows about him...
Posted by Breanna Naylor on October 30,2011 | 09:36 PM
incredible story, that if allowing assess what identifies us as a nation today, history is not forgotten and we should occasionally look in those who once gave everything for consseguir which millions enjoy today, freedom. excellent article.
Posted by Seguros online on October 24,2011 | 04:45 AM
"By late 1883, U.S. Colored Troops were filling some of the gaps opened in Federal forces by battle and disease."
Apparently the Civil War went on a lot longer than I thought it did.
Posted by William Stephens on February 4,2011 | 06:11 PM
That was a very enjoyable story, Thank-you! It's to bad his brother couldn't find him a Virgina bride.He certinly deserved it. Respectfully, John
Posted by John Bridges on February 4,2011 | 10:58 AM
I really learned a lot from this article. I was a Civil War buff in school and don't remember anything about Thomas.
PS- fix the picture caption.
Posted by CD Willliams on January 8,2011 | 06:13 PM
this is a good ariticle but yea as posted bii micheal i would like to know were is thomas burried
Posted by sylvia on December 9,2010 | 03:50 PM
this still dont answer mii question why was he created by history
Posted by sylvia on December 9,2010 | 03:24 PM
Thank You for the excellent article!
I just read Benson Bobrick's book, and then your article, immensely enjoying both. What is the best biography of Thomas, in your estimation? Also,has anyone done a systematic review of Grant and Sherman's alleged reconstruction of the war? Sounds like it started from the beginning, within days after Nashville.
-Bill Strubbe
Posted by William Strubbe on August 15,2010 | 09:53 PM
Thomas is buried in Troy, NY. A picture is on my website "Army of the Cumberland and George H. Thomas Source" (www.aotc.net). Click on Photos. See also my essay "Bring Thomas Home" (click on Archive).
Posted by Bob Redman on November 28,2009 | 03:54 PM
1. i would like to know where gen thomas burried and if possible a picture of the grave site. 2.who is the army of the cumberland? is it an ongong group of people?--who gave money for the 1879 equsterian statue. 3. an info fact sheet would povide essential fact on all washington dc statues and their locations by the smithsonian institution.
Posted by michael consiglio on September 7,2009 | 09:54 PM
The irony of Grant and Sherman's continued jealous belittlement of Thomas is that without Thomas's calculated as well as impromptu victorious deeds in the West (and I count Chattanooga as calculated rather than miraculous), the names of Sherman and Grant might today be remembered in an altogether different light; in fact, the outcome of the war itself may have changed. Great article.
Posted by Todd Norris on June 24,2009 | 05:21 PM