ACW idea: Thomas goes South

67th Tigers

Banned
The Confederate law which used an officer's previous rank in the U.S. Army to determine seniority applied only to Full Generals, not Major Generals or Brigadier Generals. So whether he or Longstreet ranked one another would have depended on their date of commission within the Confederate Army alone.

These dates were set depending on perceived seniority at all levels.

Thomas ranks just under Holmes and Magruder, but well clear of Ewell and Longstreet. He's a shoe-in to be a senior Brigadier, then senior Major-General and probably Lt-Gen (which again, were appointed by seniority in the CS Army, which derived from US Army seniority) and maybe higher.
 
If you are going to use these ideas to develop a timeline perhaps the friendship between Thomas and Lee could be the POD. Have Lee convince his friend that it would be wrong to take up arms against the state of Virginia, which is why Lee refused Lincoln's offer of Command in the North. I agree that having Thomas would be a major asset for the South, but I disagree with the defensive mindset. No war was ever won on the defense. I believe that Jackson should have been reinforced and allowed to invade the North as he pleaded to be allowed to do. Support to bring the wayward states back into a Union that they did not want will fade out real quick when your homes are in danger. Just my thoughts.

Ummm ok.... What about Nappy's invasion of Russia, The Two invasions of Constantinople by Arabs, Hitler's Barbarossa, And many many more....:):);)
 
All I can I can think of is Thomas instead of Johnston at Lookout Mountain or anywhere else on Sherman's Atlanta campaign. I think it is universally agreed that Johnston was an excellent offensive general and poor defensive one. One would think Thomas commanding the CSA West would do much better fighting the defensive war out there.

What histories have YOU been reading? Joe Johnston was probably the best defensive general the Confederacy had. The problem with the Atlanta Campaign was not lack of skill on Johnston's part. Johnston's Atlanta Campaign was a masterpiece of defensive warfare. The problem was he was outnumbered by better than two to one. Johnston was commmanding an army of about 40,000. Sherman commanded an ARMY GROUP of over 100,000. When Sherman came up against Johnston's defenses, he would take one or 2 armies and hold Johnston in place while he took the third army and went around Johnston's flank. Johnston would have no choice but to retreat or be taken in the flank or rear and destroyed. There is no reason to think that Thomas could have done any better in that situation.

And really, Thomas's reputation is greatly exaggerated. His reputation as a great defensive fighter comes from one battle...Chickamauga...and is an example of skill on the TACTICAL defensive. Defending one hill on a battlefield is a great deal different than conducting an entire battle...or a campaign. To do the latter, you have to have skill in STRATEGIC planning, and Thomas never demonstrated much accumen in that area.

Now, Thomas instead of Bragg during the earlier parts of the war would probably have been a major improvement. But then, almost anybody would have been better than Braxton Bragg.
 
Ummm ok.... What about Nappy's invasion of Russia, The Two invasions of Constantinople by Arabs, Hitler's Barbarossa, And many many more....:):);)

Neither of the two Russian campaigns were won on the defense. They were won when the Russians successfully took the offensive, drove the invader out of their homeland, followed him back to his own and kicked his ass for him.

And it could be argued that the sieges of Constantinople by the Arabs were simply battles in an 800-year-long war between Byzantium and Islam...which Islam won in 1453. :D
 
Last edited:
And really, Thomas's reputation is greatly exaggerated. His reputation as a great defensive fighter comes from one battle...Chickamauga...and is an example of skill on the TACTICAL defensive. Defending one hill on a battlefield is a great deal different than conducting an entire battle...or a campaign. To do the latter, you have to have skill in STRATEGIC planning, and Thomas never demonstrated much accumen in that area.

?????

Huh? Thomas was a superb strategic planner. The problem was that his superiors hardly ever listened to him, but on those occasions that his plans were allowed to proceed, they went very well. Case in point, the Atlanta campaign plan, which he was in large part responsible for -- not that he got any credit for it. Not to mention the entire Nashville campaign, in which despite the lack of support from his superiors, he achieved the destruction of Hood's entire opposing army.

I admit that I may be biased. In my opinion, George Thomas was the greatest general on either side of the ACW.

The reasons that he was not given his due are threefold. First of all, he was a Virginian who fought for the Union. This meant that he was a pariah in the South, and distrusted in the North. Second, he never published his memoirs, due both personal reticence and lack of egotism, and the fact that he died not long after the end of the war. Third, he was not a member of the Grant-Sherman-Sheridan clique, and they spent the several decades after his death continually degrading his effort and acheivements while promoting their own.
 
Last edited:
?????

Huh? Thomas was a superb strategic planner. The problem was that his superiors hardly ever listened to him, but on those occasions that his plans were allowed to proceed, they went very well. Case in point, the Atlanta campaign plan, which he was in large part responsible for -- not that he got any credit for it.

Hmmm, interesting that Thomas being responsible for the Atlanta campaign never seems to make it into the history books. It must be a conspiracy by the Grant-Sherman-Sheridan Cabal among historians! :D

Not to mention the entire Nashville campaign, in which despite the lack of support from his superiors, he achieved the destruction of Hood's entire opposing army.

Thomas's role in the Nashville Campaign was to spread out his forces way too far apart, forcing General Schofield to have to make a very hazardous march from northern Alabama to Nashville. Then Thomas proceeded to hole up in Nashville and gather forces while his subordinate, Schofield, was almost getting surrounded and captured at Spring Hill. Really, he didn't demonstrate any great brilliance there.
 
Last edited:

Anaxagoras

Banned
Hmmm, interesting that Thomas being responsible for the Atlanta campaign never seems to make it into the history books. It must be a conspiracy by the Grant-Sherman-Sheridan Cabal among historians!

I recommend Albert Castel's "Decision in the West", which is regarded by most historians as the standard history of the Atlanta Campaign. Castel points out many instances, from Snake Creek Gap onwards, where Thomas put forward plans to Sherman that, had they been followed, would almost certainly have lead to the destruction of the Confederate army. Sherman screwed up big time at many points along the way to Atlanta, and he was very lucky to have had Thomas on hand to save his ass.
 
I recommend Albert Castel's "Decision in the West", which is regarded by most historians as the standard history of the Atlanta Campaign. Castel points out many instances, from Snake Creek Gap onwards, where Thomas put forward plans to Sherman that, had they been followed, would almost certainly have lead to the destruction of the Confederate army. Sherman screwed up big time at many points along the way to Atlanta, and he was very lucky to have had Thomas on hand to save his ass.

I've read it. Not convinced by the arguments Castel makes.
 
Top