Customer Reviews

Rock of Chickamauga: The Life of General George H. Thomas

5 star:		(4)
4 star:		(5)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

When I first started studying the civil war nearly 30 years ago, one of my first thoughts was: "Why haven't I heard of George Thomas?'' There are those who argue, including Cleaves in several sections, that he was the most important Union general _ one list, in fact, makes him one of the five men (and the only military figure) most important in the North's victory. In the prewar Army, he served with Lee, another Virginian who wavered, and was close to being considered Lee's equal.

The reasons for Thomas' relative obscurity have been well stated in other reviews _ his southern heritage; his self-effacing disposition except (as Cleaves points out) when he felt he had been done an injustice. It didn't help that Sherman, one of his sponsors and Grant, his classmate at West Point, shut him out of the post-war glory and that he died in 1870, too early to establish a reputation.

Is the subtitle ("The Man who Save the Union?'') justified? Look at it this way: There's no question that Thomas' stand at Chickamauga made Sherman's campaign through Georgia possible. And if that hadn't happened, Lincoln might not have been re-elected in 1864, perhaps leading to a truce that would have left the nation split. That in itself is reason enough to celebrate Thomas.

But as Cleaves emphasizes, Thomas was more than that. Military historieans consider him one of the best defensive generals ever, a man who would have stood out in any war. And unlike many of our heroes, he was a decent man.

We could use more like him.

This 55-year-old book could use more readers.

Written over 52 years ago, this book is a ground breaking contribution to the Civil War's saga. It really is a must read for understanding the intricacies of the Union high command.

Union loyalists of Southern birth like Thomas, Buford, etc. were just as alone and alienated in their army as Southern loyalists of Northern birth like Pemberton. They suffered an ostracism, a fundamental distrust that really reached its peak in this country when we sent thousands and thousands of Japanese Americans to concentration camps in California in World War II while concurrently having their sons fight and die in Europe. Thomas' story is really no different and every bit as unfair.

This type of unfortunate, `protective tuck' is a natural reaction during a national emergency. Fortunately, leading edge historians like Freeman Cleaves have left us a record of one man's sacrifice for the country of his birth.

George Thomas was not treated properly by anyone, North or South. Lincoln treats him as a political liability and pawn, Stanton fundamentally distrusts everyone of Southern heritage, and the Union troika of Grant, Sherman and Sheridan have much to be ashamed of: Grant for his smallness, Sheridan for the desertion of someone who must have been his mentor and Sherman for betraying a long standing friendship. The South simply refused to acknowledge his existence. When Thomas was down, everyone kicked. Being Southern born, he was an easy competitive target for both sides both during and after the war. He simply had no mentor anywhere.

Yet this courageous fighter survives much political intrigue to not only save a complete Union army from annihilation, an army by the way that he did not personally command but could have, but also completely destroys the South's Army of Tennessee and possibly, just possibly, pulled Sherman and Grant's chestnuts out of the fire with his victories at Nashville and Franklin. Playing a key and fundamentally pivotal role in Grant and Sherman's grand strategy, after his success he is simply thrown aside like an old shoe and not just forgotten but treated miserably, like his very existence, success and support was an embarrassment to the Union military and political High Command.

Read this book! It is about an American patriot who sacrifices everything, his reputation, home, family and pre and post war friendships for the ability of the United States to develop into the world example it is today. It is the kind of story all Americans appreciate: doing the right thing while succeeding against all odds, foreign and domestic.

Cleaves' book is an excellent read for the person who wishes to learn more about one of the best (North or South) and overlooked generals of the Civil War. While many books focus on Lee, Jackson, Grant, and Sherman, Cleaves succeeds in bringing to light the very important accomplishments by General Thomas.

Included in the book are Thomas' many military victories: the complete defeat of a Confederate army at the battles of Mill Springs and Nashville, repulse of Hood's attacks at Atlanta, and of course, perhaps his most stunning achievement - holding the Confederate Army at bay on Snodgrass Hill while the rest of the Union Army retreated from Chickamauga.

Throughout the book Cleaves describes Thomas as a man who willingly subordinated his desires for the best of the nation, something lacking in most "leaders" today. Several times Cleaves describes Thomas as a calm, confident, and not easily shaken man in whom soldiers took great comfort in knowing he was in charge.

I only wish there would have been more maps used when describing the many battles Thomas participated in. Doing so would have made it easier for me to follow the troop movements, whether in an individual battle or a campaign.

All in all, an excellent read of an excellent general and gentleman. Thomas was a refreshing change from the self-promoting methods other "leaders" in the 1860's practiced - he would still be a rare gem if he were alive in today's world!!!

This book elaborates somewhat more on the information I could find about Thomas on the internet, but overall it just left me with more questions. The wheres, whats, and whens of his life were covered well, but a lot of the whys were just hinted at, and it's the whys that are driving me crazy. Two new Thomas biographies are due out for '09 (I've ordered Bobrick's), so maybe they'll shed more light in discussing the wide disparity of views concerning Thomas.

Those who say he was a good but not great general are firm about it. Some say he just didn't have the right stuff to be truly great. Those who think he was THE BEST general, bar none, are even more adamant, and they can tell you a thousand reasons why. I know lack of primary sources hinder the true picture, but I'm looking for something that will explore in greater depth, even if it's an educated guess, why Thomas missed out on his "rightful" place in history, or even if it was deserved at all.

My best guess is that Thomas had the ability; he was just "too nice". When the opportunity came to replace Buell, he was so overly concerned with protocol, modesty, appearances, cold feet (some or all the above) that he declined the command. That sense of "integrity" to his admirers translates as "not taking the initiative when the time was ripe", i.e, a weakness. I read on someone's site that the offer came about because, without Thomas knowing, 20 of his officers pleaded with the powers in Washington to have Buell replaced with Thomas. This episode wasn't mentioned in the book (if it indeed happened), but it makes me wonder why the officers didn't just tell Thomas their feelings to try and sway his decision to take over.

Everything I read says Thomas was diligent in EVERY aspect of his duties -

preparing, mapping, training, strategizing, etc., and was one of the finest heat of the battle generals around. How does that equate to those (Sherman, Halleck, Grant)detractors who say he was "slow?" When you also see how much his men adored him as a man and a commander, the slurs don't add up. There has to be some truth to the jealousy/resentment angle.

To me it seems they wouldn't/couldn't allow a Southerner to get the glory for saving the Union, and Thomas wasn't of the mind to force the issue.

With all his plans that were nixed for ones that didn't work out (Snake Creek Gap vs. Kennesaw Mountain), Thomas certainly indicates he had the ability to mount campaigns above and beyond what was accomplished at Nashville, which Grant flat out said he was incapable of doing. Again, many questions open to debate left unanswered.

I would recommend the book, but I hope the new '09 entries will surpass it.

When I first started studying the civil war nearly 30 years ago, one of my first thoughts was: "Why haven't I heard of George Thomas?'' There are those who argue, including Cleaves in several sections, that he was the most important Union general _ one list, in fact, makes him one of the five men (and the only military figure) most important in the North's victory. In the prewar Army, he served with Lee, another Virginian who wavered, and was close to being considered Lee's equal.

The reasons for Thomas' relative obscurity have been well stated in other reviews _ his southern heritage; his self-effacing disposition except (as Cleaves points out) when he felt he had been done an injustice. It didn't help that Sherman, one of his sponsors and Grant, his classmate at West Point, shut him out of the post-war glory and that he died in 1870, too early to establish a reputation.

Is the subtitle ("The Man who Save the Union?'') justified? Look at it this way: There's no question that Thomas' stand at Chickamauga made Sherman's campaign through Georgia possible. And if that hadn't happened, Lincoln might not have been re-elected in 1864, perhaps leading to a truce that would have left the nation split. That in itself is reason enough to celebrate Thomas.

But as Cleaves emphasizes, Thomas was more than that. Military historieans consider him one of the best defensive generals ever, a man who would have stood out in any war. And unlike many of our heroes, he was a decent man.

We could use more like him.

This 55-year-old book could use more readers.

Mistrusted by many in Washington, D.C., George Thomas proved to be deserving of his rank. Shortly after the union defeat at Bull Run, Gen. Thomas rekindled Northern hopes with his victory at Mill Springs. The "Rock of Chickamauga" held his ground at the battle by the same name enabling a beaten union army to retreat without being shattered. His forces at Chattanooga were responsible for the charge up Missionary Ridge that broke the confederate line and won the day.

Wishing desparately for the opportunity to mold an army into an efficient fighting body, Gen. Thomas relinquished command as senior officer in charge of union forces (having replaced Grant after Shiloh) in order to hone the largely volunteer-infested Army of the Cumberland. His heart served him and his country well, as he became the only union general to destroy a confederate army on the field of battle (Nashville), rendering it useless for the war's duration.

A brilliant leader of men, a brilliant tactician. Grant & Sherman had this mutual admiration relationship which did not allow them to give Thomas the credit he most justly deserves. This book sets the record straight, that's what history is all about..

This book was copyrighted in 1948, so it is over sixty years old. Many biographies of that vintage lose value as new information comes to light. However, this volume, authored by Freeman Cleaves, holds up pretty well. I prefer the more contemporary work by Einolf, "George Thomas: Virginian for the Union." For instance, the coverage of the battle at Nashville is much more detailed in the latter. Also, while Cleaves notes Thomas' concern for African-Americans during Reconstruction, consideration of that is, again, more detailed in Einolf's work. Nonetheless, Cleaves' book stands well on its own after the many years since its appearance.

Like standard biographies, the book begins with Thomas' childhood, including his family's avoiding Nat Turner and his associates during their short-lived rebellion. We see his career develop from West Point until the Civil War's end and beyond. Of special moment are the following: his remaining loyal to the Union even though he was a southerner; his first substantial victory at Mill Springs (his decision-making was solid, but still had room for further development), post-Shiloh combat (Corinth and Perryville and Stone's River [or Murfreesboro]). He became a solid commander under William Rosecrans--culminating with his gallant stand as "The Rock of Chickamauga" during that desperate battle.

He finally assumed command of an army after Rosecrans' dismissal at Chattanooga, taking over the Army of the Cumberland. Then, the attack on Missionary Ridge; his role in Sherman's march to Atlanta, and--the culminating battle of his career at Nashville. At Nashville, Sherman had sent Thomas some troops; Thomas had to gather together a force from all over the region. Meanwhile John Bell Hood's Army of the Tennessee was marching north into Tennessee. Thomas pulled his various pieces of an army together for one of the most total victories in the Civil War. Then, his post-Civil War career. . . .

Again, the book still stands on its own, after so many years. It is surely not the best book on Thomas, but it makes its own contribution.

An American hero, General George Thomas (1816 - 1870) remains unfamiliar to most Americans who do not have more than a casual interest in the Civil War. But Thomas deserves to be remembered as a soldier and as a man. Educated at West Point, Thomas served for the entire duration of the Civil War, primarily in the middle theater in Tennessee. Thomas planned carefully and methodically and endeavored to limit losses of his men. He was also resolute. His greatest military accomplishments came at the Battle of Chickamauga in 1863 where he courageously defended the retreating Union Army from what would have been a total defeat. He played an important role in the subsequent Union victory at Chattanooga. Late in the conflict, in 1864, Thomas won a near-total offensive victory against the Confederate Army of the Tennessee led by General John Bell Hood at Nashville.

Thomas deserves to be remembered even more for his character than for his military achievement. Born to a slaveholding family in Virginia, Thomas made his choice for the Union at the outset of the Civil War. From that point forward, most of his family had little to do with him. Thomas was unstintingly loyal to the Union cause. Although a military leader with the necessary ambition and self-regard for one in this position, Thomas was remarkably self-effacing. On several occasions he declined promotions which were offered to him due to his accomplishments. On other occasions, Thomas was passed over. Deeply disappointed at what he considered shabby treatment, Thomas persevered for the good of the Union cause. In other words, he was able to put his ego behind him. As the war progressed, Thomas became increasingly committed to civil rights for African Americans. African American troops played a key part in the victory at Nashville. Following the Civil War, Thomas served in the Reconstruction South where he tried to protect the rights of the Freedmen and to combat the growth of the mythology of the Lost Cause.

Highly reticent about his personal life, Thomas destroyed most of his personal letters because he wished only to be remembered for his accomplishments to the Union. In spite of this difficulty and of his relative obscurity, Thomas has been on the whole well-served by biographers especially of late. Biographies by Einolf, George Thomas: Virginian for the Union (Campaigns and Commanders) Bobrick, Master of War: The Life of General George H. Thomas and Broadwater General George H. Thomas: A Biography of the Union's "Rock of Chickamauga" have been published in the past three years. By reading authors with varying points of view, a consensus picture of Thomas gradually emerges.

In 1948, Freeman Cleaves wrote "Rock of Chickamauga", a biography of Thomas for an earlier generation of readers. The book is still in print. Cleaves also wrote books about Union general George Meade Meade of Gettysburg and about William Henry Harrison Old Tippecanoe: William Henry Harrison and His Time (Signature Series). While not as detailed as the latter biographies of Thomas, Cleaves offers a good basic overview of Thomas' life and accomplishments. The book does not dig into letters and other sources used by later writers. But it covers adequately Thomas'youth, his education at West Point and service in the Mexican War and elsewhere prior to his decision to remain loyal to the Union. The major campaigns and battles in which Thomas participated, including Mill Springs, Perryville, Stones River, Chickamauga, Chattanooga, the Atlanta Campaign, and Nashville and its aftermath are described adequately and to the purpose. Cleaves shows something of Thomas's relationships with Grant and Sherman and offers a highly laudatory account of Thomas' accomplishments. As do many subsequent biographers, Cleaves believes that Thomas' accomplishments were unjustly belittled by Grant, Sherman and others.

Unlike most other great Civil War leaders, Thomas had his own military command only rarely. Grant and Sherman praised Thomas as a defensive commander, but they wrote that Thomas tended to be overly cautious and slow. Modern supporters of Thomas tend to disagree and they argue that Grant and Sherman rewrote the history of the Civil War and their Memoirs and elsewhere to elevate their own accomplishments at the expense of Thomas. Cleaves seems on the whole to take this position, but not to the extent of, for example, Bobrick in his book.

I think the disputes about Thomas' military role as compared to Grant or Sherman are of secondary importance. As suggested above, the portrait of Thomas that emerges from multiple sources focuses upon his loyalty, his commitment to the Union, his careful judgment and his willingness to put aside grudges and slights when necessary to advance the public good. And Thomas became a progressive for his day in the matter of civil rights. These considerations, together with his significant military achievement, make Thomas an unquestioned hero who deserves to be remembered by Americans.

Cleaves book will be valuable to readers who want a single biography of Thomas without a welter of detail. It will also appeal to readers of more recent studies who want to get varied perspectives on a leader who is a proper subject of study and admiration.

Robin Friedman

I have always been a big fan of George Thomas. His great stand at Chickamauga obviously established his reputation as a great defense general, but what his troops did at Chattanooga and his obliteration of Hood's army at Nashville on the offensive are equally impressive.

Cleaves does a great job of describing Thomas' early years. He also makes a good case for Thomas' progressive views about slavery and African-American soldiers. Cleaves describes Thomas as a humble, diligent, modest soldier.

My one criticism of the book is how Cleaves portrays the relationship between Thomas and Sherman as slightly strained. I have not seen this documented in other places.