Thomas fan here! Lowest casualty rate of any Union CinC. He was born an hour west of Virginia Beach where I grew up. Little known standing statue in Lebanon, Kentucky, on the Bourbon Trail and near my family.
Good program, thank you! While it is difficult to say who was "the best" because each general held different commands and had different assets or challenges, there's certainly a strong argument to be made for Thomas. I look forward to the day when historians stop repeating Grant's and Sherman's nonsense about Thomas being slow. Thanks again!
Thomas was certainly the second best general after grant, I have no doubt the war would have gone on for another year if Thomas was in charge due to his effective but methodical style. Grant respected him but let's keep in mind he was responsible over all the armies and he had pressure from the whole country to end the war sooner.
The main sources that claimed that Thomas was "slow" were Grant and Sherman...two generals with personal interest in downplaying Thomas. I just don't see any evidence that Thomas was slow...can't say the same about Sherman, though. Grant was a tremendous general, but his poor treatment of Thomas is a nasty stain on his record. Giving Sherman charge of the Atlanta campaign lengthened the war by six months and cost tens of thousands of unnecessary casualties.
@aaronfleming9426 I totally disagree on your last point about sherman being given command instead of thomas, overall thomas was better than sherman but in offensive movements grant was right to give sherman the command even with some setbacks. look as great as Thomas was he moved when he was absolutely sure which drove grant crazy, his methodical style was wrongly thought as being slow. Thomas's methodical style on the offensive would have had the administration on his back remember rosecrans before Stonesriver and before chickamauga they nearly removed him for not engaging the enemy. Something thomas fans never appreciate about grant is that because of grant holding lee in Virginia it kept him from helping hood, grant was urging thomas to attack hood because he knew he had more men and he was far superior as a commander, hood had no business commanding an army, of course grant didn't know the weather conditions he let the pressures of war get the better of him. People should be more forgiving of the general in chief because he had the pressure from the country and the administration to end the war quick and being methodical wasn't fast enough.
@@random-J For anyone who thinks Sherman did a good job in the Atlanta campaign, I must recommend Albert Castel's phenomenal book "Decision In the West". Castel concludes with this summary of Sherman's generalship: "Again and again, from Dalton to Lovejoy Station, he overlooked, ignored, and even rejected opportunities to crush or fatally cripple the Confederate forces in Georgia, or at least drive them from the state…and too often he wasted time in operations that either were obviously futile or patently unnecessary...his preference for a war of maneuvering and raiding derived, not from a considered military philosophy, but rather from a deep-seated fear of trusting to what he rightly called 'the fickle fortunes of battle'. He was, in short, a general who did not like to fight. Had Thomas’ personal relationship with Grant permitted him to command in Georgia, almost surely the Union victory would have been easier, quicker, and more complete." I'm afraid that our perception of Sherman has long been tainted by the fact that he was extraordinarily well-connected politically; he cleverly attached himself to Grant early in the war; he was a great writer and his memoirs are full of quotable lines; and his "great accomplishment" of marching through Georgia happened to coincide with other, better, generals actually defeating rebel armies. Sherman was an excellent logistician, but his combat record is simply awful. He ranks above Nathan Banks, but well below a great many others of middling reputation. I have a great deal of admiration for Grant, but he was jealous at times, he did play favorites, and he did play politics. Now, his political acumen was part of what helped him win the war; war is, after all, a political activity. But the pressure of being general in chief is no excuse - he essentially did to Thomas what Halleck had done to him early in the war, and he should have known better. His treatment of Thomas was shameful, cost the nation tens of thousands of lives, and is the biggest stain on his otherwise outstanding record.
As a stratagest Grant and Sherman were the premier generals of the war. Lee was also equal to them but didn't have the resources that they had. At the tactical level Jackson's valley campaign is still being studied. The Federal generals in the valley theater facing Jackson were mediocre at best. Nathan Bedford Forrest taking his controversial background out of the equation was the most tactically astute commander. Super aggressive but not reckless with his men. Like Lee he had to take greater risks because he lacked the resources the Federal armies had. Although the the South would have still lost the war, the Army of Tennessee would have been better served if Forrest had been in overall command of it's calvary formations.
I disagree on Lee. He was a great operational General but his overall strategy was purely a political one tied into Jeff Davis's vision. It was unrealized...
Many of the reputations of Civil War generals are based on the high emotions of the war and its aftermath, the biases of the eastern press, and political considerations; many of those evaluations ought to be reexamined. Sherman, Lee, and Jackson are among the most over-rated; Thomas the most overlooked. Only Thomas' limited opportunities in army command keep us from arguing with complete confidence that he was the best of the war; but there's nothing in the opportunities he did have to make us think he would have faltered under greater responsibility.
@@scottgoens7575 Agreed. JFC Fuller said that Lee behaved "like an obsequious clerk" in his relationship to Davis. Whether Lee didn't have independent ideas of his own, or had them but shrank from pressing his case, I don't know...but the result is the same.
union would have lost Gburg on day one; along with the valley campaign, 2 manassases, sharpsburg, Fburg, and Cville if he hadnt been winged by his own dudes. read gf henderson before you reply to me please
@@ftargr The Rebels did win Day one with Ewell. Jackson would have done the same exact thing that Ewell did. The exposed federal flank was before him and he attacked it. The whole Corp was to far away from any hill to take it. Over 12.000 Federals had just arrived. Wish it all you want. The only thing Jackson would have brought to Gettysburg would have been decomposition.
TJ was no better than Samuel Curtis. Uncle Robert made his reputation against sluggards and fools like McClellan, Pope, and Burnside, but got whipped by mid-tier generals like Porter and Meade. If Lee had faced Grant or Thomas at Antietam, he wouldn't have escaped with more than 10,000 men.
@@ftargr > 1st Bull Run: easy rebel victory. With even numerical odds and the opportunity to fight on the defensive, rebels beat a green, disorganized force. The myth of the superiority of the southern fighting man begins, but the simple fact is: going on the offensive was much more difficult...as Lee and TJ would soon find out. > Romney Campaign: TJ flounders badly, exhausting troops and weakening his position in the Valley; begins a pattern of poor management of subordinates. > Seven Days: Lee's staff work is so abysmal he hasn't even provided his generals with maps of the region surrounding the Confederate capital. TJ falls asleep at several key moments. An enormous numerical advantage at Gaines Mill accomplishes nothing. Malvern Hill is an awful bloodbath that previews Pickett's Charge. > Brawners Farm: TJ falls asleep again, and blows the chance to annihilate a Union division. > Second Bull Run: Brilliant. No two ways about it. This is by far TJ and Lee's finest accomplishment, because it leads to... > Harpers Ferry. They capture a 12,000 man Union garrison, and a mountain of materiel. This would have been an enormous coup, except that... > Lee makes the idiotic decision to stand and fight at Antietam. What on earth did he think he would accomplish? This was nothing more than Lee's stubborn pride. Snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. > Fredericksburg: What Civil War general couldn't have won that battle? Bragg, perhaps? N.P. Banks? > Chancellorsville: Lol. Absolute luck. TJ's "sneaky" flank attack was observed all day. Hooker ordered Howard to prepare for it. Howard's pickets warned him that Jackson was massing in the woods nearby. Howard simply disobeyed orders. Talk about fighting the JV team...
A.S. Johnston? Lol. His cordon defense of Kentucky and Tennessee was crushed, first by Thomas at Mill Springs, then Grant at Forts Henry and Donelson. His one remaining act was the battle of Shiloh, which he botched in every way possible. > His approach to Pittsburgh Landing was confused, sluggish, and overall bumbling > Despite being gifted complete surprise by Sherman's determination to ignore every intelligence report, Johnston's order of battle led to a loss of command control early in the battle, thus throwing away the initiative and giving Grant time to restore an effective defense > Johnston did not even understand his own role as army commander; he was killed while acting like a brigade commander in foolish frontal assaults on the Hornets Nest when he should have been directing the battle from the command level; if he had been directing the movement of divisions instead of a single brigade, he might have enveloped the Union salient hours earlier, and thus won the battle. A.S. Johnston - biggest non-factor of the war.
Thomas is the man.
Thomas fan here! Lowest casualty rate of any Union CinC. He was born an hour west of Virginia Beach where I grew up. Little known standing statue in Lebanon, Kentucky, on the Bourbon Trail and near my family.
Does that statistic account for Mac?
George Thomas is buried in Oakwood Cemetery, Troy NY, next to my hometown. Been to his gravesite several times .
Good program, thank you! While it is difficult to say who was "the best" because each general held different commands and had different assets or challenges, there's certainly a strong argument to be made for Thomas. I look forward to the day when historians stop repeating Grant's and Sherman's nonsense about Thomas being slow. Thanks again!
Thomas was certainly the second best general after grant, I have no doubt the war would have gone on for another year if Thomas was in charge due to his effective but methodical style. Grant respected him but let's keep in mind he was responsible over all the armies and he had pressure from the whole country to end the war sooner.
The main sources that claimed that Thomas was "slow" were Grant and Sherman...two generals with personal interest in downplaying Thomas. I just don't see any evidence that Thomas was slow...can't say the same about Sherman, though.
Grant was a tremendous general, but his poor treatment of Thomas is a nasty stain on his record. Giving Sherman charge of the Atlanta campaign lengthened the war by six months and cost tens of thousands of unnecessary casualties.
@aaronfleming9426 I totally disagree on your last point about sherman being given command instead of thomas, overall thomas was better than sherman but in offensive movements grant was right to give sherman the command even with some setbacks.
look as great as Thomas was he moved when he was absolutely sure which drove grant crazy, his methodical style was wrongly thought as being slow. Thomas's methodical style on the offensive would have had the administration on his back remember rosecrans before Stonesriver and before chickamauga they nearly removed him for not engaging the enemy. Something thomas fans never appreciate about grant is that because of grant holding lee in Virginia it kept him from helping hood, grant was urging thomas to attack hood because he knew he had more men and he was far superior as a commander, hood had no business commanding an army, of course grant didn't know the weather conditions he let the pressures of war get the better of him. People should be more forgiving of the general in chief because he had the pressure from the country and the administration to end the war quick and being methodical wasn't fast enough.
@@random-J For anyone who thinks Sherman did a good job in the Atlanta campaign, I must recommend Albert Castel's phenomenal book "Decision In the West". Castel concludes with this summary of Sherman's generalship:
"Again and again, from Dalton to Lovejoy Station, he overlooked, ignored, and even rejected opportunities to crush or fatally cripple the Confederate forces in Georgia, or at least drive them from the state…and too often he wasted time in operations that either were obviously futile or patently unnecessary...his preference for a war of maneuvering and raiding derived, not from a considered military philosophy, but rather from a deep-seated fear of trusting to what he rightly called 'the fickle fortunes of battle'. He was, in short, a general who did not like to fight. Had Thomas’ personal relationship with Grant permitted him to command in Georgia, almost surely the Union victory would have been easier, quicker, and more complete."
I'm afraid that our perception of Sherman has long been tainted by the fact that he was extraordinarily well-connected politically; he cleverly attached himself to Grant early in the war; he was a great writer and his memoirs are full of quotable lines; and his "great accomplishment" of marching through Georgia happened to coincide with other, better, generals actually defeating rebel armies. Sherman was an excellent logistician, but his combat record is simply awful. He ranks above Nathan Banks, but well below a great many others of middling reputation.
I have a great deal of admiration for Grant, but he was jealous at times, he did play favorites, and he did play politics. Now, his political acumen was part of what helped him win the war; war is, after all, a political activity. But the pressure of being general in chief is no excuse - he essentially did to Thomas what Halleck had done to him early in the war, and he should have known better. His treatment of Thomas was shameful, cost the nation tens of thousands of lives, and is the biggest stain on his otherwise outstanding record.
As a stratagest Grant and Sherman were the premier generals of the war. Lee was also equal to them but didn't have the resources that they had. At the tactical level Jackson's valley campaign is still being studied. The Federal generals in the valley theater facing Jackson were mediocre at best. Nathan Bedford Forrest taking his controversial background out of the equation was the most tactically astute commander. Super aggressive but not reckless with his men. Like Lee he had to take greater risks because he lacked the resources the Federal armies had. Although the the South would have still lost the war, the Army of Tennessee would have been better served if Forrest had been in overall command of it's calvary formations.
I disagree on Lee. He was a great operational General but his overall strategy was purely a political one tied into Jeff Davis's vision. It was unrealized...
Many of the reputations of Civil War generals are based on the high emotions of the war and its aftermath, the biases of the eastern press, and political considerations; many of those evaluations ought to be reexamined. Sherman, Lee, and Jackson are among the most over-rated; Thomas the most overlooked. Only Thomas' limited opportunities in army command keep us from arguing with complete confidence that he was the best of the war; but there's nothing in the opportunities he did have to make us think he would have faltered under greater responsibility.
@@scottgoens7575 Agreed. JFC Fuller said that Lee behaved "like an obsequious clerk" in his relationship to Davis. Whether Lee didn't have independent ideas of his own, or had them but shrank from pressing his case, I don't know...but the result is the same.
*Union, maybe.
Never had to go up against TJ (in overall command) or Uncle Robert
TJ was overrated. His strength of schedule (to borrow an analogy) was very weak. His only test was Kimball and he failed in that endeavor.
union would have lost Gburg on day one; along with the valley campaign, 2 manassases, sharpsburg, Fburg, and Cville if he hadnt been winged by his own dudes. read gf henderson before you reply to me please
@@ftargr The Rebels did win Day one with Ewell. Jackson would have done the same exact thing that Ewell did. The exposed federal flank was before him and he attacked it. The whole Corp was to far away from any hill to take it. Over 12.000 Federals had just arrived. Wish it all you want. The only thing Jackson would have brought to Gettysburg would have been decomposition.
TJ was no better than Samuel Curtis.
Uncle Robert made his reputation against sluggards and fools like McClellan, Pope, and Burnside, but got whipped by mid-tier generals like Porter and Meade. If Lee had faced Grant or Thomas at Antietam, he wouldn't have escaped with more than 10,000 men.
@@ftargr > 1st Bull Run: easy rebel victory. With even numerical odds and the opportunity to fight on the defensive, rebels beat a green, disorganized force. The myth of the superiority of the southern fighting man begins, but the simple fact is: going on the offensive was much more difficult...as Lee and TJ would soon find out.
> Romney Campaign: TJ flounders badly, exhausting troops and weakening his position in the Valley; begins a pattern of poor management of subordinates.
> Seven Days: Lee's staff work is so abysmal he hasn't even provided his generals with maps of the region surrounding the Confederate capital. TJ falls asleep at several key moments. An enormous numerical advantage at Gaines Mill accomplishes nothing. Malvern Hill is an awful bloodbath that previews Pickett's Charge.
> Brawners Farm: TJ falls asleep again, and blows the chance to annihilate a Union division.
> Second Bull Run: Brilliant. No two ways about it. This is by far TJ and Lee's finest accomplishment, because it leads to...
> Harpers Ferry. They capture a 12,000 man Union garrison, and a mountain of materiel. This would have been an enormous coup, except that...
> Lee makes the idiotic decision to stand and fight at Antietam. What on earth did he think he would accomplish? This was nothing more than Lee's stubborn pride. Snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.
> Fredericksburg: What Civil War general couldn't have won that battle? Bragg, perhaps? N.P. Banks?
> Chancellorsville: Lol. Absolute luck. TJ's "sneaky" flank attack was observed all day. Hooker ordered Howard to prepare for it. Howard's pickets warned him that Jackson was massing in the woods nearby. Howard simply disobeyed orders. Talk about fighting the JV team...
Sidney Johnston was better than all of them and taken too soon. Also its not like TJ was considered napoleon when he started the valley campaign
A.S. Johnston? Lol. His cordon defense of Kentucky and Tennessee was crushed, first by Thomas at Mill Springs, then Grant at Forts Henry and Donelson. His one remaining act was the battle of Shiloh, which he botched in every way possible.
> His approach to Pittsburgh Landing was confused, sluggish, and overall bumbling
> Despite being gifted complete surprise by Sherman's determination to ignore every intelligence report, Johnston's order of battle led to a loss of command control early in the battle, thus throwing away the initiative and giving Grant time to restore an effective defense
> Johnston did not even understand his own role as army commander; he was killed while acting like a brigade commander in foolish frontal assaults on the Hornets Nest when he should have been directing the battle from the command level; if he had been directing the movement of divisions instead of a single brigade, he might have enveloped the Union salient hours earlier, and thus won the battle.
A.S. Johnston - biggest non-factor of the war.
People at the time seemed to manifest that reputation into being, but based on performance, I'm not sure how anyone makes that call.