Re: Thomas at Louisville
- --- In civilwarwest@y..., josepharose@y... wrote:
> Dave,In my Webster's Seventh (Brown University edition) the only synonyms
> I didn't write that you said that Thomas "refused to follow an
> order." I did used the word "refusing" to characterize the word
> you first used "declined." In my dictionary, "refuse" is the first
> synonym given for "decline." I'm sorry if you think that the
> meaning of "decline" isn't close enough to that of "refuse."
listed are renounce, reject, and deny.
All are a lot more positive than "decline."
> I'm pretty surprised by your opinion.What follows would, I assume, be your interpretation of what I'd
This was Joe:
> I think that the difference between refusing to follow an order andNow, I think, and may be wrong, but the only difference between the
> requesting that an order--which would redound to one's own benefit--
> be dismissed is big enough to drive a truck through.
two is "refusing to follow an order," a (which is it?) present tense
expression, and "refused to follow an order," which reflects a past
tense. Now, I think, in your expression, you were speaking of Thomas
(a pretty reasonable assumption in these here parts), and I was, so
aren't the two the same?
You said that I said Thomas refused an order. I did not.
Unlike some other posters, who see Thomas's declination as some form
of disobedience, I don't see it that way. Washington, for whatever
reason, saw fit to accept it (which will have its various
interpretations, pro-Thomas and con-Thomas), and not try to enforce
it on him again.
ObCivilWarWest: I can only conclude that given the obvious
dissatisfaction on the part of Halleck with Buell's performance (he
even told H.G. Wright in Cincinnati that the whole command would go
to the first major general to do something positive), this refusal,
declination, hesitation, or whatever you want to call it on the part
of George Thomas did not help further his career.
We shan't discuss semantics any more, but if you want to discuss the
effect that Thomas's turning down of the command had on his further
career, I'll be glad to discuss it further.
Villa Hills, KY
- The first chapter ("article") of the Civil War Army Regulations:
1. All inferiors are required to obey strictly, and to execute with
alacrity and good faith, the lawful orders of the superiors appointed
There is nothing wrong about raising some questions about an order --
which Thomas did. But when the order is given, an officer (whether in
1862 or 2001) is to obey the order. When CW generals turned down orders
to take command, the War Department respected and accepted those
refusals: an unwilling commander is likely to be worse than an
In Thomas' case(s), when offered army or independent command, he
consistently turned the offer down (until Chattanooga). To me -- and I
imagine to Mr. Lincoln, Mr. Stanton and Gen. Halleck -- that is the same
as telling your superior that you have no desire for such a position.
Judy and Bob Huddleston
10643 Sperry Street
Northglenn, CO 80234-3612
You stated, "a soldier has the responsibility to obey an order. Was
it customary or allowable for a general to question his superiors
about an order?
You stated, "Thomas refused." No, he didn't.
You stated, "Since Thomas had told them that he had no desire to be
an Army commander ...." I'm sorry, but I must have missed something;
when did Thomas say that?