Master of War: The Life of General George H. Thomas
by David Poremba
Bobrick, Benson. Master of War: The Life of General George H. Thomas. Simon & Schuster. Ill. Maps. Bib. 432p. $28.00 Feb. 2009.
Some of the benchmarks of good historical writing is the author’s ability to let the reader see things from a different perspective and present the argument in a convincing manner, leaving the reader with things to ponder.
In this delightful romp through Civil War generals’, politicians and modern historians reputations, Benson Bobrick marches to the front rank the life of General George H. Thomas, whom he claims is the greatest Civil War general, better even than Robert E. Lee. Certainly, on record alone, as a general who never lost a battle, the case could be made.
Bobrick spends a considerable amount of time on Thomas’ early life and pre-Civil War career to good effect. Thomas was born into a well-to-do slave-holding family in Virginia, had African-American playmates, and, as a young teenager witnessed some of the more violent aspects of slavery when he and his family barely survived Nat Turner’s Rebellion. Later, while serving as a law clerk in his uncle’s office, Thomas was nominated for a cadetship at West Point, entering in July, 1836, as a twenty-year-old, slightly older than his classmates. He shared a room with William T. Sherman, graduated in the middle of his class of forty-two and was posted into the 3rd Artillery, then stationed at Fort Columbus in New York Harbor. Over the next two decades of his career, Thomas saw active duty in many parts of the country.
His first combat action took place in the Everglades, Florida, where he won his first brevet “for gallantry and good conduct” against the Seminole Indians. Afterwards, service at Ft. Moultrie, South Carolina and Ft. McHenry, Maryland, exposed him to some of the social aspects of commissioned rank and reunited him some of his West Point classmates, among them Braxton Bragg. Upon the outbreak of the Mexican War, Thomas and his company were ordered to Texas and service under Zachary Taylor. Here he learned how battles are fought and won on a large scale, lessons he learned better than most of his colleagues.
Returning stateside with two more brevets (for Monterrey and Buena Vista), Thomas began a three-year stint at West Point as an artillery instructor. In recognition of his skills, his duties were expanded to include cavalry instruction – two of his star pupils were Phillip Sheridan and JEB Stuart. He also became close friends with Robert E. Lee, who was the Superintendent at the time, even sharing married quarters with the Lees after Thomas’ marriage in 1852.
Subsequent hard duty at desolate posts in the Pacific Division preceded a posting as major in the 2nd Cavalry, an elite new outfit created by War Secretary Jefferson Davis in 1855. This regiment would supply more officers to high command than any other in military history – sixteen officers would wear stars in the coming conflict. It was certainly a testament to Thomas’ reputation and skill as a professional to be posted here.
Thus the stage was set for the opening volleys of the Civil War and the facts upon which Bobrick’s argument for Thomas as the best general rests. No one among the major players, be he politician or soldier, is safe from the author’s assessment of their words o actions. These assessments are not made up but based on actual correspondence, contemporary accounts and reminiscences.
George Thomas was a political orphan, as opposed to Sherman and Grant, who were manipulators of power and patronage. This, coupled with the fact of his southern birth, led Lincoln and others, to doubt his loyalty; this attitude cost him a promotion after the Battle of Mill Springs. Thomas was a stickler for protocol, especially concerning rank and seniority. Thus, after Buell’s Division saved the day at Shiloh, Thomas was promoted and Grant was demoted in Halleck’s reorganization of the command structure. In respect to Grant’s seniority, Thomas asked to be relieved and reassigned back to Buell, an act of gallantry Grant never forgot nor forgave.
The War Department’s unhappiness with Buell’s whole campaign around Chattanooga led to the order for Thomas to replace Buell – and again he asked that the order be rescinded due to the fact that the army was in the early stages of active operations. Although appropriate, this led to the belief that he was unsure of himself in high command and when it came time to replace Buell, he was passed over in favor of Rosecrans. True to his character, Thomas continued in a subordinate role until his promotion to command to the Army of the Cumberland.
It is the subsequent campaigns that provide Bobrick with his evidence of Thomas’ greatness. Also blatantly exposed are Sherman’s inadequacies and Grant’s vindictiveness. Beginning with the Battle of Chattanooga, a battle Bobrick says Thomas won behind Grant’s back, through the Atlanta campaign and concluding with General James Wilsons’ cavalry raid through Alabama, evidence of Thomas’ brilliance as a master of war on the same level as the Prussian Von Moltke, is adequately presented, along with some interesting perspectives. Foremost among these is Sherman’s March to the Sea, a campaign designed solely to promote Sherman’s reputation. Bobrick contends the campaign was wholly unnecessary, begun because Sherman could not defeat Confederate General John B. Hood in and around Atlanta. It was left to Thomas, who became the only Union commander to destroy two Confederate armies in the field. This is a must book to read and own.
David Lee Poremba
I have never understood why Thomas partisans feel the need to attack others so bitterly. I have to snort when I read statements such as that made on an Army of the Cumberland website where the author said something like “Grant, Sherman and Halleck were devious and underhanded, and anyone who admires them is no better.” Give me a break!
“It was left to Thomas, who became the only Union commander to destroy two Confederate armies in the field.” So Grant didn’t capture 70,000 Confederate troops at Ft. Donelson, Vicksburg and Appomattox?
Bobrick’s book may be admirable to some, but to those not emotionally invested in his hero, it’s just another laughable exercise in hagiography and character assasination.
I first learned about General Thomas From my father who was an avid Civil War student. Prior to his death 2 years ago, he was doing research for a biography of the General. I know he would be very happy to know that Mr. Bobrick has produced a work that does justice to this great soldier.
Bobrick’s work is far from an attack on Grant and Sherman. The Official Reports show these two individuals for what they really were. Thomas’ untimely death allowed them to manipulate history to reflect favorably on themselves while pushing Thomas under the carpet.
Bobrick sets the record straight on General Thomas’ behalf. He lets history speak for itself, while, like Thomas himself, does so quietly and conservatively.
The history of the Civil War needs to be updated to reflect the Official Records. History books need to be re-written and the name George Thomas needs to become a household word. In a world that needs true heroes, George H. Thomas is the definition of the word.
Those who think they know history but discount evidence that disputes that history remain ignorant to the truth.
Mr. Bobrick, I thank you on behalf of my father and all who seek truth and justice.
I found the book enjoyable, especially where it gives one pause to consider the “shortcommings” of Grant and Sherman. Those of Hallack and Stanton are well known.
Other than the obvious error of Jefferson Davis being captured in women’s clothing, 2 others stuck out to my eye. One where he referes to General Boynton receiving the “Congressional Medal of Honor”. I wish writers would get the name of the medal correct, the Medal of Honor – there is NO Congressional in it, The other where the same General Boynton was awarded a Bronze Star in 1893. This would be impossible as the Bronze Star Medal was not even instituted until 1944. None of these errors detract from the main subject, however. Would have been interesting to see Thomas up against Lee