The Pendulum Swings Again: Benson Bobrick’s Master of War
I’ve noted in the past the rather predictable pattern that dominates most biographies of George H. Thomas. With the exception of Christopher Einorf’s recent biography, Thomas’s biographers (including Freeman Cleaves, Francis McKinney, and Thomas Buell) have not only given their subject high marks, but also have accused Ulysses S. Grant and William T. Sherman (and their biographers) of conspiring to deprive Thomas of his due.
Well, here we go again. The New York Civil War Round Table recently was treated to a presentation by Benson Bobrick, the author of a new biography of the Rock of Chickamauga. Form your own opinion as to whether Bobrick’s said anything not already argued by Cleaves, McKinney, Buell, or, to a lesser extent, by Al Castel in his study of the Atlanta campaign.
By the way, judging from his bibliography, Mr. Bobrick did not consult my biography of Grant, so clearly he does not include me among the Grant/Sherman conspirators who were out to get Thomas.
It would have been nice had he used footnotes. Indeed, it would have been very helpful, given Mr. Bobrick’s case, had he pointed other historians and biographers to the sources that might help them change what he deems to be the unfair prevailing take on Thomas. However, I do think it’s a mistake to compose a biography of Thomas by taking shots at Grant and Sherman. It’s as if some people believe that Thomas can’t stand on his own merits.
So click on the link, let Mr. Bobrick advance his own case, and then react to it.
Carl Schenker wrote:
Sherman’s part in the conspiracy to run down Thomas included publishing an article (in North American Review) identifying Grant and Thomas, not Robert E. Lee, as the admirable figures of the Civil War.
The article can be found on Google Books by searching “sherman grant thomas lee.”
Carl Schenker
Posted on 19-Apr-09 at 1:55 pm | Permalink
James F. Epperson wrote:
I’d like to thank Mr. Schenker and Cornell University for telling me about the article and making it possible to print it easily.
Posted on 19-Apr-09 at 8:51 pm | Permalink
Carl Schenker wrote:
Thanks to Brooks Simpson for calling attention to the Benson Bobrick presentation about Thomas. It is a thought provoking talk, and the more I learn about Thomas the more impressed I am. Still, I don’t think admirers of Grant and Sherman need wave a white flag.
(1) Most of Bobrick’s hour-long presentation is devoted not just to promoting Thomas, but simultaneously to seeking to diminish Grant and Sherman. Grant is said to have had an “implacable resentment” of Thomas (due to their respective roles in the Siege of Corinth) and Sherman to have “joined in [Grant's] machinations” against Thomas. (None are really specified other than Grant’s nearly replacing Thomas before Nashville.) This causes Bobrick to be “outrage[d]” and to have “impassioned my pages.” Thomas is lauded for Mill Springs, Stones River, Chickamauga, Chattanooga, Peachtree Creek, and Nashville. Grant, by contrast, is said to have won plaudits for the accomplishments of others (except in the “vexed” case of Vicksburg), to have engaged in “reckless carnage” in the East, not to have learned from his mistakes, and too often to have attacked entrenched positions. Grant also supposedly blundered in letting Sherman march away from Hood. Sherman never won a battle and stumbled at Vicksburg, Chattanooga, and during the Atlanta campaign, where Thomas was forced to do the “heavy lifting.” Thomas was known by his contemporaries to have the best record in the war and to be the true successor of George Washington. But today, historians are writing off Thomas’s accomplishments, except Chickamauga. (Lincoln is also criticized for failing to make Thomas the general-in-chief, supposedly because he was grateful that Grant did not run for president.)
(2) I feel that Thomas gets plenty of recognition these days, and his achievement at Nashville is much appreciated. I don’t feel well positioned to comment on Bobrick’s attacks on Grant, especially the allegation of an “implacable resentment” against Thomas. However, the Sherman attacks ring rather hollow to me. Sherman (according to his statements, anyway) sought to promote Virginian Thomas early in the war, recommending him to Lincoln and Robert Anderson (and Senator John Sherman). There is warm war-time correspondence from Sherman to Thomas, including after Nashville. As I posted earlier, Sherman himself said Grant and Thomas were worthy successors to Washington and were the admirable figures of the war. Sherman’s post-Atlanta strategy (supposedly a blunder) worked — Thomas did succeed in handling Hood and Sherman moved swiftly into the Eastern theater, menacing Lee’s rear (and greatly discouraging the South). Moreover, Sherman fought a war of maneuver thru Atlanta and his marches, avoiding battle and sparing casualties (the very things which Bobrick wanted Grant to do).
(3) Bobrick takes pains to say that Thomas was not “slow.” But I find it impossible to believe that Thomas could have filled all the roles that the ever-rushing Sherman did. If Thomas had been given Sherman’s command in 1864, I doubt he would ever have accomplished as much as Sherman did (taking into account Thomas’s contribution at Nashville as part of Sherman’s plan).
(4) There may be a case to build Thomas up as “the noblest figure of the war” (along with Lincoln) and “incomparably the best” soldier. But he cannot be made into a figure as pivotal as Grant or Sherman, because he remained subordinate. Even Albert Castel has said in his writings that it was best for Grant to make Sherman his number 2, because of their easy and fruitful relationship.
Carl Schenker
Posted on 20-Apr-09 at 2:53 pm | Permalink
Donald W. Plezia wrote:
Benson Bobrick discusses his brilliant new book “Master of War” on the URL given below.
Rather than reading Simpson’s anti-Thomas drivel, you can see the whole video at:
http://www.booktv.org/watch.aspx?ProgramId=FV-10295
Slowtrot
Posted on 21-Apr-09 at 1:37 pm | Permalink
James F. Epperson wrote:
Don: I watched about half of it, and if what he said to the NYCWRT is any indication of the book’s value, it is not worth buying. An honest reader would be much better off with Einolf’s book.
Posted on 21-Apr-09 at 3:55 pm | Permalink
Brooks Simpson wrote:
Ah, Don, you are just giving a different link to the same program. But it’s nice to see that you are in fine form.
Posted on 21-Apr-09 at 4:32 pm | Permalink
Brooks Simpson wrote:
BTW, Don, thanks for illustrating the pendulum once more. I have nothing against Thomas. I do have something against poor biography. Apparently your idolization of the former leads you to be blind toward the latter.
Posted on 21-Apr-09 at 4:37 pm | Permalink
Carl Schenker wrote:
As indicated above, Bobrick accuses Grant and Sherman of “machinations” against Thomas.
(1) Though Bobrick’s talk does not mention this, when Grant became general-in-chief, he slotted Sherman into his former command of the Military Division of the Mississippi, even though Thomas was slightly senior to Sherman as a major general (a month or so) and had a record superior in various respects. Albert Castel (no Sherman fan) has written that Grant’s choice was justified by his working relationship with Sherman. So, machination justified.
(2) During the Atlanta campaign, Thomas’s army was lopsidedly larger than those headed by McPherson and Schofield. The Grant/Sherman cabal could have justified shifting some divisions away from Thomas to the others, so as to enhance flexibility, but Thomas was allowed to keep his over-large army. So, no machination on that occasion.
Carl Schenker
Posted on 22-Apr-09 at 1:10 pm | Permalink
Will Keene wrote:
Carl wrote “machination justified.”
Explain how it is even machination?
I see no evidence for machination at all.
Posted on 25-Apr-09 at 10:57 pm | Permalink
Carl Schenker wrote:
Will,
Basically, I agree that there was no “machination”; my sentence was somewhat sarcastic.
However, at the time and since, many have asserted that Thomas had the seniority and track record to succeed Grant as commander of the Military Division of the Mississippi. Yet Grant chose Sherman. Some (including Bobrick)also believe that Thomas would have done a better job, at least in the Atlanta campaign. Bobrick also thinks that Sherman’s march-to-the-sea strategy was a “blunder.”
If, as Bobrick contends, Grant had an “implacable resentment” against Thomas and bypassed a deserving commander for that reason, that would cast Grant in an unfavorable light and could be considered a “machination” against Thomas.
In any event, it seems to me that Grant acted appropriately in choosing Sherman for the slot because he and Sherman worked well together. And the results were fruitful, so it’s hard to fault Grant on this score even if Thomas would also have been successful in that role.
Carl Schenker
Posted on 26-Apr-09 at 9:17 am | Permalink