Master of war: the life of General George H. Thomas

Bobrick's admirable biography of Union General George Thomas is the first full-scale treatment in too many years. The scion of a slaveholding Virginia family, Thomas had a distinguished prewar career, including service in the Mexican War and continuously after it until the outbreak of civil war. Alienating his family, he remained in Union service and quickly proved his mettle. His record during the last two years of the war was stellar: an epic stand at Chickamauga, victory at Missionary Ridge, solid work in the Atlanta campaign, and a final decisive victory at Nashville. Possibly the ablest tactician of the war not to mention one of its most attractive personalities Thomas failed to receive his due, Bobrick argues, because he failed to write his memoirs (he died on active duty in 1870) and because of the envy of men like Sherman and Grant, both of whom did. Bobrick may not prove his case against Thomas' superiors, but he certainly persuades us that Thomas deserved the honorific with which the book is titled. Civil War collections, rejoice.--Green, Roland Copyright 2009 Booklist

George Thomas remains one of the less studied and less appreciated Union generals in the Civil War. In the first full-scale biography for decades, historian Bobrick (Testament: A Soldier's Story of the Civil War) presents a Virginian who stood by his oath to the United States; a commander who saved Kentucky for the Union; brought the Army of the Cumberland out of disaster at Chickamaugua to glory at Missionary Ridge; and destroyed an entire Confederate army at Nashville. Bobrick describes Thomas as consistently victimized by generals Sherman and Grant, who created from whole cloth an enduring image of Thomas as slow to act and think. Bobrick makes a convincing case that the only time Thomas was "slow" was in retreating under fire. Above all, Thomas understood that the modern high-tech battlefield required not heroic inspiration but deliberate preparation. When the time was right, he acted with a decisiveness comparable among his contemporaries only to Prussia's Helmuth von Moltke. Bobrick considers Thomas the greatest Union general. That remains open to argument, but he incontrovertibly stands in the 19th century's first rank as a master of war. 16 pages of illus.; maps. (Feb.) (c) Copyright PWxyz, LLC. All rights reserved

Revisionist biography of the Union general who overcame long odds to win the war in the West. Bobrick (The Fated Sky: Astrology in History, 2005, etc.) makes his views clear from the outset, arguing that Grant and Sherman, both of whom outlived George Thomas (181670), promoted their own reputations at his expense. A Virginian by birth, Thomas excelled at West Point, where Sherman was his roommate. His career after graduation was typical of his generation of officers: the Seminole War, the Mexican War and a stint as instructor at West Point, where he befriended Lee. In 1855, he was appointed to the 2nd Cavalry, an elite regiment created by Secretary of War Jefferson Davis that included among its officers 16 future generals, 11 for the Confederacy. When the Civil War came, Thomas remained with the Union despite his Southern origin and connections. Sent to Kentucky to train recruits, he won a significant battle at Mill Springs in early 1862 and was a key figure in the Union victory at Stones River later that year. His real fame came toward the war's end, when he was instrumental in the battles of Chattanooga, Chickamaugua, Atlanta and his greatest triumph, Nashville, where he essentially destroyed the Confederate army in the West. While giving a clear account of all these events, Bobrick piles up evidence that Grant, Sherman and even Lincoln not only failed to recognize Thomas's brilliance, but consistently acted to prevent his rise. He also argues that Sherman and Grant were bunglers, the one a megalomaniac, the other an alcoholic butcher who battered his opponents into surrender at the cost of his own men's lives. After the war, Thomas's natural modesty kept him from aggrandizing or profiting from his reputation. He served honorably in Reconstruction duty and showed no political ambition, though some urged him to run against Grant for president. Bobrick attributes his death from a stroke to anger provoked by a letter denigrating his generalship, possibly written at Grant's instigation. The author's unrestrained advocacy can be annoying, but he provides a strong portrait of an undervalued general. Copyright Kirkus Reviews, used with permission.