BS: Was Custer a Scumbag?

Subject: RE: BS: Was Custer a Scumbag?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 24 Oct 00 - 12:38 AM

Wow! Great stuff, people. I did not know about George Thomas...a major gap in my civil war knowledge, it seems. Could you maybe start a thread about him and fill me in further? I am so damn busy tonight with a rush order that just came in and has to go out tomorrow AM, that I will not be here for a bit...but how about it? I'll take a look tomorrow.

Thank you.

- LH

Time for a new thread, I think.

Subject: RE: BS: Was Custer a Scumbag?
From: Kim C
Date: 24 Oct 00 - 09:46 AM

I -think- Thomas was also commanding Federal forces in Franklin and Nashville in November/December 1864. (shame on me, I should be able to say that with certainty; I have not had enough coffee yet)

Richard Vernon is a character actor who you've probably seen at least once if you've ever been to the movies. I reckon most of you might remember him as the man who chased after Josey Wales.

I also think it's uncanny how much Don Henley looks like U.S. Grant.

Somebody start another thread. :)

Subject: RE: BS: Was Custer a Scumbag?
From: catspaw49
Date: 24 Oct 00 - 10:08 AM

On what? Actors that look like Civil War generals?

And yes, Thomas did command then, but as has been pointed out, ne was not as effective on the offense as the defense. Now if you paired him on the same side as Longstreet, you'd have a tough combo to beat!

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Was Custer a Scumbag?
From: Kim C
Date: 24 Oct 00 - 11:57 AM

Well, unfortunately, by November 1864, the Army of Tennessee wasn't much to beat anyway; and Hood, in his infinite wisdom, pretty much decimated the forces that were left at Franklin, sending them on a full frontal assault across an open field. (I guess he had been sleeping at Gettysburg.)So by the time they got to Nashville, there warn't much left to fight.

(Jeff Daniels does sorta look like Chamberlain, too, come to think of it... and Ferris Bueller was kinda scary as Robert Gould Shaw, but he was only a Colonel...)

Subject: RE: BS: Was Custer a Scumbag?
From: Troll
Date: 24 Oct 00 - 12:34 PM

Oh, now I'm headin' homeward,
My heart is full of woe.
I'm goin' back to Georgia,
To look for Uncle Joe.
You may talk about your Beauregard,
and sing of Gen'ral Lee<
But the "Gallant" Hood of Texas,
Shore played hell in Tennessee.
To the tune of "The Yeller Rose Of Texas"_ the old version, NOT the Mitch Miller one.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Was Custer a Scumbag?
From: GUEST,Pete Peterson
Date: 24 Oct 00 - 02:50 PM

yes, "the gallant hood of Texas" sure "played Hell in TN", just like the song says. I sometimes tack that verse on when trying to sound like DaCosta Woltz's Southern Broadcasters. . . but I digress
Once again I am quoting Fletcher Pratt; he wrote so well that sometimes I accept his ideas little too uncritically, and it's been years since I read this passage, but Here Goes:
Thomas died in 1870, which was too soon for the great military debates of the 70s and 80s, where the generals fought and refought the war in the pages of the Century magazine (Pete's note; these were the articlesthat were collected as "Battles and Leaders of the Civil War" that four volume set which keep coming into and out of print. I gave them to my father sometime in the 1960s and therefore inherited them back in 1983. . . ) The controling voice in those debates was, of course, Grant's, and he and his lieutenats repeated the theme on Thomas' slowness until it became one of those things that everybody knew. It happens not to be true. Look at the battle of Mumfordville, which never got fought because Thomas had moved so fast that he put Bragg into such a pickle that he retreated rather than fight. Look at his bursuit after Nashville, which destroyed Hood's army and Hood himself, who asked to be relieved after the battle.
so there's one of the greatest military historians in the US reminding us that No Way was Thomas "slow" when it counted. Sometimes Sherman blamed his own lack of speed in the Atlanta campaign on Thomas because "everybody knew" he was so slow. Want another "what if?" Sherman gives the job out outflanking Johnston at Resaca to Thomas instead of Macpherson. I see the Army of TN surrendering in the field in early May 1864, and the veterans marching through Georgia six months early.

Subject: RE: BS: Was Custer a Scumbag?
From: catspaw49
Date: 24 Oct 00 - 03:35 PM

Grant never seemed to have a "feel" for Thomas as he did for others, especially Sherman. I'm not real sure why that is as he consistently proved himself very able. Was there some pre-history between them or perhaps the fact that Thomas was a Virginian? I don't believe it was an outright kind of thing, Grant always seemed cordial enough, but the more you read about them the more clear it becomes that there was some "disdain" (for lack of a better word) on Grant's part. You almost get the feeling he wanted somebody like Thomas......just not Thomas.

Perhaps too, the things that made Thomas a great defensive leader led to a methodical approach on the offense that is often interpreted as slow. Just prior to Chickamauga, his forced 20 mile night march cannot be considered slow at all, although at that point Thomas had already moved to a defensive thinking and had it not been for the complete ineptness of the Army of Tn, the Union would possibly have been chopped up by pieces. Part of the salvation for the Union at that point was the haste with which Thomas moved to close ranks.

Thinking about that though.........Don't you also just "feel" a bit for Braxton Bragg? I mean he was not brilliant or anything, and it can be legitimately argued he was highly neurotic, but has anybody ever had so much trouble getting getting a simple message across to his commanders?????

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Was Custer a Scumbag?
From: GUEST,Pete Peterson
Date: 25 Oct 00 - 08:53 AM

The picture I have is not that Thomas and Grant disliked each other at first, but that their staffs saw them as rivals, and the insults started lower and worked their way up to the top. (Gee, nothing like that could happen NOW) So, by the end of the Chattanooga campaign, Grant disliked Thomas especially after he had just won Grant the battle after Sherman had failed. I think the other problem might have been the mutual resentment felt between two men, one who had been allowed to resign to avoid charges for conduct unbecoming , and the other man well in the old-boy network of 2nd Cavalry. IIRC every officer in that unit went South-- with the exception of Thomas!
and yes, sometimes I feel sorry for Bragg.Of course, his bad moods brought it on himself; I remember one sketch of Bragg that ended with the words "and he died the singularly appropriate death of distemper." I've never been part of a formal hierarchical organization (except in theory) but I can well imagine what kind of Hell a man of Bragg's personality could make for his subordinates.

Subject: RE: BS: Was Custer a Scumbag?
From: GUEST,Colwyn Dane
Date: 25 Oct 00 - 08:19 PM

G'day,

The way I read it is that Sherman's attack on Tunnel Hill during the Chattanooga campaign
was held up by by the Confederates bringing extensive re-enforcements to that part of the battleground.
The most that Sherman could do was to maintain his position until the success of Thomas and Hooker
n the centre and right would give him a chance to attack with advantage.

Thomas couldn't move in the centre until Hooker was in position on his right, and Hooker progress was delayed because of a destroyed river bridge; his assault started about five hours late.

I don't think it was Sherman trying to win the battle single-handed;the topography in his sector didn't give the attacker much advantage.
He done his best - in this case having to hold the nose of the enemy while Thomas & Hooker kicked the rear end.
Bragg's report of the battle blames the troops who "first fled, and brought this great disaster and disgrace upon our arms."
Preident Davis in his message to Congress (7 December 1863) seems to concur in attributing the blame to the troops and talks about "the first defeat that has resulted from misconduct by the troops."

About the Thomas - Grant relationship:
In October 1863 Thomas commanded The Army of The Cumberland and Grant was in charge of the newly formed Division of the Mississippi(which included everything from that river to the Appalachians).
Grant's staff surely were not concerned about Thomas as a candidate for Grant's job - I would have thought that Sherman was the King in waiting.
Grant and Thomas had overlapped at West Point for a year and both had fought in Mexico.

Grant's official report about Nashville reads of his impatience over, to him, was the unnecessary delay of Thomas starting the action.
"This impatience was increased upon learning that the enemy had sent a force of caalry across the Cumberland into Kentucky.
I feared that Hood would cross his whole army and give us great trouble there."

That sounds reasonable and what Grant did next suggests it is how it was.

"After urging upon General Thomas the necessity of immediately resuming the offensive, I started West to superintend matters there in person."

Grant closes his report as follows:

"But his [Thomas's] final defeat of Hood was so complete that it will be accepted as a vindication of that distinguished offer's judgment."

I rest M'lud.

Bcnu.