Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [civilwarwest] Daniel's new book "Days of Glory: The Army of the Cumberla...

Expand Messages
  • DORR64OVI@aol.com
    In a message dated 4/2/2004 9:15:48 PM Eastern Standard Time, ... That is a curious statement and unfortunately words like flawed and not mature can be
    Message 1 of 38 , Apr 2, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      In a message dated 4/2/2004 9:15:48 PM Eastern Standard Time, thecoys@... writes:


      I am anxiously awaiting the release of Larry J. Daniel's new book, "Days
      of Glory: The Army of the Cumberland, 1861-1865". While looking at the
      synopsis at Amazon I noticed this line, "He offers a fresh
      interpretation of General George H. Thomas as a flawed character who did
      not mature until late 1863...."  What do you all think is meant by this?

      Kevin S. Coy


      That is a curious statement and unfortunately words like "flawed" and "not mature" can be subject to pretty broad interpretation.  Larry Daniels is a good author and I will be most interested to see what he has to say about the AotC and "Old Pap". 
         If by "not mature until late 1863", he means Thomas found himself after Chickamauga, I would agree.  The point being that after faithfully serving Buell and Rosecrans, Thomas's time had come and he had earned the right to command. The "flaw" Im guessing Daniels brings forth is that unlike many of his fellow senior officers, Thomas was not a political player or promoter of his own career.   Rather, he deeply believed that the Army system would reward its officers based on performance and duty (and seniority).  As he would learn, being a miltary "company man" would not always bring forth the results he would wish for or expect.
         I await the book's publication.

      Kent Dorr
    • GnrlJEJohnston@aol.com
      In a message dated 4/5/2004 1:16:08 PM Eastern Standard Time, tmix@insightbb.com writes: However, having refused to take command when directed to do so
      Message 38 of 38 , Apr 5, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        In a message dated 4/5/2004 1:16:08 PM Eastern Standard Time, tmix@... writes:
        However, having refused to take command when directed to do so justified a degree of mistrust from Washington and that is what the question here is all about. An action creates a reaction and his action caused D.C to react in a manner of questioning Thomas’ motives. I think that is a justified response considering the political, social and military climate of the time.
        Rather than thinking about himself, Thomas' responses to Halleck, his statements about the situation years later, etc. etc. may not have been in his best interests politically, but that he was more concerned what was in the best interest for the Army and the country. (I know - I know -  only politicians decide what is best for the Army)  As it turned out, things did turn out good until Chicamaugua, but then Rosie fell down.  In the end, he ended up number 5 or 6 and was slated to take over Sherman's position according to Grant (during his world travels) but Thomas died first in California..
         
        JEJ
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.