--- In email@example.com
, DORR64OVI@a... wrote:
> I think you have to look at Thomas's command opportunities
> Federal officer's) within the context of Army protocol as well as
> civilian/military politics. Army officers in that day really
> political sponsors in order to gain commands. This was a horrid
> we all can name poloitical generals in any theater who did far more
> than good for the war effort.
Exactly true. This is very definitely a problem with how the army
was run early on. But by the same token some political generals
became very competent leaders.
> Unlike most of his Federal comtemporaries, Thomas came from a
> state and thus had no "hometown" backers with clout who could go to
I agree with this assessment. He very definitely lacked political
clout. But as a point of discussion, prior to Perryville, had he
really performed anything notable, even if he had had such backing,
to justify placing him in command of the army? IIRC, outside of Mill
Springs, he had not seen much combat; he missed the biggest show in
the west to that point, Shiloh.
>Secondly, despite his being loyal to the Union, many politicians
> distrusted him especially at the beginning of the war.
But he did have strong allies, including his ex-roommate, WT Sherman,
who strongly recommended him to his brother early on in the war. In
fact, it could be argued that without Sherman, Thomas might never
have gotten a commission in the Union army. Perhaps Thomas should
have made more of that connection.
> Having said that, it makes me feel that GHT made a costly
mistake when he
> turned down command of the Army of the Ohio. We have gone over the
> for this on this forum recently and given the situation, it is
> why GHT refused the offer. The AotO was a mess at this point and
> might've said no. Unfortunately not being a military man attuned
> politics of the system he was in, I think GHT cost himself dearly.
It was certainly unfortunate that the decision to remove Buell was so
untimely. Had it been done several weeks earlier Thomas would have
had time to do something with the AotO and may have won a big
victory. But given the timing of the actual attempt to replace
Buell, Thomas made the correct decision. But do you think if his
performance at Perryville had been better that he might have been the
choice later on?
> When Buell was replaced after Perryville, Thomas was bypassed
in favor of
> Rosecrans. GHT's objection was not to Rosecrans personally but to
> manipulation of the seniority system, especially when the dates of
> rank were changed. GHT made his beef, then shut his mouth and took
> to help Rosy.
Which does him a great deal of credit. GHT was an extremely loyal
officer, just being a Southerner in the Union army shows that. But
again for the sake of argument, what had Thomas accomplished of note
to that point? Mill Springs and good, not outstanding service with
the AotO. But Rosecrans, in addition to some political clout, also
had Iuka/Corinth behind him. ISTM, that political clout is one
thing, but a general also had to show some battlefield successes to
get noticed. Thomas simply did not have those at the time.
> I dont recall a sense that GHT didnt want command of the AotC
> Rosecrans was sacked . IIRC, he felt loyalty to Rosecrans and I
> hesitancy he may have displayed was due to disappointment that Rosy
> removed. I think he felt it unfair that Rosy had lost his job and
> show support. By this time GHT was more than ready to assume
command of the
I agree with this point. Rosy had unfortunately fallen afoul of US
Grant, who was rapidly on the rise and that meant he was gone. Of
course the debacle at Chickamauga didn't help Rosy, but it did bring
GHT to the fore. He had finally accomplished something which made
him stand out from the pack.
> Kent Dorr