What do you think?
Rate this book
Campaigns and Commanders #13
George Thomas: Virginian for the Union
Remembered as the "Rock of Chickamauga," Thomas was so effective he became one of the most prominent Union generals and at one point was considered for overall command of the Union Army. Yet he has been eclipsed in fame by such names as Grant, Sherman, or Sheridan.
Offering vivid accounts of combat, Einolf depicts the fighting from Thomas's perspective to allow a unique look at the real experience of decision making on the battlefield. He examines the general's recurring confrontations with the Union high command to make a strong case for Thomas's integrity and competence, even as he exposes Thomas's shortcomings and poor decisions. The result is a more balanced, nuanced picture than has previously been available. Einolf also explores Thomas's schooling at West Point, early military service in the Seminole and Mexican wars, and his postwar life--notably his service as a military commander in Tennessee protecting freed slaves from the terror of the Ku Klux Klan.
Offering vivid accounts of combat, Einolf depicts the fighting from Thomas's perspective to allow a unique look at the real experience of decision making on the battlefield. He examines the general's recurring confrontations with the Union high command to make a strong case for Thomas's integrity and competence, even as he exposes Thomas's shortcomings and poor decisions. The result is a more balanced, nuanced picture than has previously been available. Einolf also explores Thomas's schooling at West Point, early military service in the Seminole and Mexican wars, and his postwar life--notably his service as a military commander in Tennessee protecting freed slaves from the terror of the Ku Klux Klan.
413 pages, Hardcover
First published November 1, 2007
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews
November 16, 2022
A Biography Worthy Of Its Subject
I turned to this recent (2007) biography of Civil War Union General George Thomas by Christopher Einolf after reading and being dissatisfied with an even more recent Thomas biography: Benson Bobrick's "Master of War" (2009). Bobrick's biography points out that Thomas's accomplishments during the Civil War have long suffered from neglect and obscurity. Bobrick tries to restore Thomas to the place his accomplishments deserve. This is a worthy goal indeed. But Bobrick's book suffers from many factual errors, a tendency to hero-worship and exaggeration, and an overly-polemical and critical style especially where U.S. Grant or William T. Sherman are concerned. Thus, I read Einolf's biography with the hope that it would provide a more reliable and balanced view of Thomas, a figure I greatly admire. I found that Einolf's book did so.
Bobrick's study has received a great deal of publicity and many reader reviews here on Amazon, perhaps on the strength of its writing style. Einolf's book, "George Thomas: Virginian for the Union" has, like its subject, received less attention. Yet it is a thoughtful, informed book about "The Rock of Chickamauga" that shares Bobrick's admiration for Thomas and supports a good number of his conclusions. But Einolf writes in a balanced, measured tone that Thomas himself would have respected. Einolf teaches at the University of Richmond.
Thomas (1816 -- 1870) was a Virignian born to a slave-holding family. Educated at West Point he served with distinction in the Old Army up to the time of the Civil War. With secession, Thomas stood with the Union, He became one of the best of the Union Generals for his activities mostly in the Western theatre. He played pivotal roles in the battles of Mill Springs, Perryville, Stones River, Chickamauga, Chatanooga, the Atlanta Campaign,and Nashville. He is best remembered for saving the Union Army with his defense at Chickamauga and for his great victory over Hood's Army at Nashville late in the War. At the conclusion of the War, Thomas served for four years in the post-War Reconstruction South where he distinguished himself by his courageous efforts to protect the rights of the Freedmen.
Einolf finds Thomas worthy of recognition for three reasons: his role as a military commander, his status as a Southern Unionist, and his ability, late in life, to change his attitude and ingrained prejudices towards African Americans. He ties these themes together admirably in his study of Thomas. Thus most of the book describes Thomas's military accomplishments. Einolf is judicious in his choice of sources to discuss the major campaigns in which Thomas was involved, and he describes battles and movements clearly. Einolf examines the basis of Thomas's decision to stand with the Union and with his conscience, and explores the pain this decision caused in his personal life. Einolf also discusses the increasing role students of the Civil War give to Southern Unionism in the eventual result of the contest. Finally, Einolf shows how Thomas's attitudes about race slowly evolved. When he decided to remain with the Union, Thomas did not oppose slavery, and even owned a slave himself. Throughout most of the conflict, Thomas honored Union policy by accepting African American troops. However, he had deep-set racial biases and considered African Americans poor soldiers. He would not allow them in combat positions. Then, at the Battle of Nashville, Thomas witnessed for himself the heroism of his African American troops in sacrificing their lives for the Union cause. This, Einolf argues, was a decisive moment in which Thomas moved away from his prejudices based on race and saw the evil of slavery. Thomas fought for the rights of African Americans during Reconstruction and spoke against the "Lost Cause" understanding of the Civil War that began in the South soon after Appomatox.
Einolf offers a carefully balanced approach to Thomas's generalship which points out his great strengths as a commander but also his weaknesses. He is critical of Thomas for declining two large independent commands in 1862. Following these declinations, and perhaps in part as a result of them, Thomas was passed over for independent command until 1864. In common with most students, Einolf rates Thomas as one of the three great Union commanders of the war, in the company of Grant and Sherman. Einolf points out that it is difficult and probably senseless to try to rate these three leaders more precisely, as each general exhibited different skills in different circumstances. But he seems to suggest that Thomas would be second in the trilogy, behind only Grant as a military commander. Einolf points out that both Grant and Sherman tended to slight Thomas's military accomplishments. Grant, in particular, did not get along well with Thomas while forming a strong friendship with Sherman. Einolf, however, rejects the types of claims that Bobrick makes in his book, in which Bobrick deprecates the leadership of both Grant and Sherman and argues that both generals, among others, were part of a clique with the aim of belittling and discrediting Thomas.
Einolf's book makes a persuasive case for Thomas's importance as a general and as a person and for his claim to be remembered with reverence by Americans. His book shows sound judgment and serious scholarship. It deserves reading together with or independently of Bobrick's study.
Robin Friedman
I turned to this recent (2007) biography of Civil War Union General George Thomas by Christopher Einolf after reading and being dissatisfied with an even more recent Thomas biography: Benson Bobrick's "Master of War" (2009). Bobrick's biography points out that Thomas's accomplishments during the Civil War have long suffered from neglect and obscurity. Bobrick tries to restore Thomas to the place his accomplishments deserve. This is a worthy goal indeed. But Bobrick's book suffers from many factual errors, a tendency to hero-worship and exaggeration, and an overly-polemical and critical style especially where U.S. Grant or William T. Sherman are concerned. Thus, I read Einolf's biography with the hope that it would provide a more reliable and balanced view of Thomas, a figure I greatly admire. I found that Einolf's book did so.
Bobrick's study has received a great deal of publicity and many reader reviews here on Amazon, perhaps on the strength of its writing style. Einolf's book, "George Thomas: Virginian for the Union" has, like its subject, received less attention. Yet it is a thoughtful, informed book about "The Rock of Chickamauga" that shares Bobrick's admiration for Thomas and supports a good number of his conclusions. But Einolf writes in a balanced, measured tone that Thomas himself would have respected. Einolf teaches at the University of Richmond.
Thomas (1816 -- 1870) was a Virignian born to a slave-holding family. Educated at West Point he served with distinction in the Old Army up to the time of the Civil War. With secession, Thomas stood with the Union, He became one of the best of the Union Generals for his activities mostly in the Western theatre. He played pivotal roles in the battles of Mill Springs, Perryville, Stones River, Chickamauga, Chatanooga, the Atlanta Campaign,and Nashville. He is best remembered for saving the Union Army with his defense at Chickamauga and for his great victory over Hood's Army at Nashville late in the War. At the conclusion of the War, Thomas served for four years in the post-War Reconstruction South where he distinguished himself by his courageous efforts to protect the rights of the Freedmen.
Einolf finds Thomas worthy of recognition for three reasons: his role as a military commander, his status as a Southern Unionist, and his ability, late in life, to change his attitude and ingrained prejudices towards African Americans. He ties these themes together admirably in his study of Thomas. Thus most of the book describes Thomas's military accomplishments. Einolf is judicious in his choice of sources to discuss the major campaigns in which Thomas was involved, and he describes battles and movements clearly. Einolf examines the basis of Thomas's decision to stand with the Union and with his conscience, and explores the pain this decision caused in his personal life. Einolf also discusses the increasing role students of the Civil War give to Southern Unionism in the eventual result of the contest. Finally, Einolf shows how Thomas's attitudes about race slowly evolved. When he decided to remain with the Union, Thomas did not oppose slavery, and even owned a slave himself. Throughout most of the conflict, Thomas honored Union policy by accepting African American troops. However, he had deep-set racial biases and considered African Americans poor soldiers. He would not allow them in combat positions. Then, at the Battle of Nashville, Thomas witnessed for himself the heroism of his African American troops in sacrificing their lives for the Union cause. This, Einolf argues, was a decisive moment in which Thomas moved away from his prejudices based on race and saw the evil of slavery. Thomas fought for the rights of African Americans during Reconstruction and spoke against the "Lost Cause" understanding of the Civil War that began in the South soon after Appomatox.
Einolf offers a carefully balanced approach to Thomas's generalship which points out his great strengths as a commander but also his weaknesses. He is critical of Thomas for declining two large independent commands in 1862. Following these declinations, and perhaps in part as a result of them, Thomas was passed over for independent command until 1864. In common with most students, Einolf rates Thomas as one of the three great Union commanders of the war, in the company of Grant and Sherman. Einolf points out that it is difficult and probably senseless to try to rate these three leaders more precisely, as each general exhibited different skills in different circumstances. But he seems to suggest that Thomas would be second in the trilogy, behind only Grant as a military commander. Einolf points out that both Grant and Sherman tended to slight Thomas's military accomplishments. Grant, in particular, did not get along well with Thomas while forming a strong friendship with Sherman. Einolf, however, rejects the types of claims that Bobrick makes in his book, in which Bobrick deprecates the leadership of both Grant and Sherman and argues that both generals, among others, were part of a clique with the aim of belittling and discrediting Thomas.
Einolf's book makes a persuasive case for Thomas's importance as a general and as a person and for his claim to be remembered with reverence by Americans. His book shows sound judgment and serious scholarship. It deserves reading together with or independently of Bobrick's study.
Robin Friedman
June 15, 2009
"The Rock of Chickamauga" deserves a rock solid biography of his life and times--and this book succeeds nicely. Thomas was viewed as a traitor by some in his family. However, he remained loyal to the Union, even though by birth a Southerner, when the Civil War broke out.
This book is a fair work on his life and especially his Civil War career. Where he sparkled, as at Chickamauga (even though he did make some mistakes) or Nashville, the book accords him ample credit. Where he stumbled, the book recognizes that.
The book begins with his early life, about which not a great deal much is known. His career at West Point is more detailed, and we get more of a sense of the man. The book continues with his pre-Civil War career, from Florida to the Mexican War (where he did well) to the Second Cavalry in Texas (a legendary outfit, for which he was acting commander for some time).
In the Civil War, he was well-liked by volunteers, was a good organizer, and led the Union forces to an early (and welcome) victory at Mill Springs. His role at Perryville, as the author sees it, was not so accomplished. However, Thomas performed coolly and ably at Murfreesboro and had one of the best two days of generalship at Chickamauga (reminds me of Winfield Scott Hancock at Gettysburg). Not every move was the right one, but--in the end--he held the Confederate forces off long enough to allow the shattered Union forces to escape to Chattanooga.
Then, Missionary Ridge, the movement toward Atlanta, and--finally--his stand at Nashville where his plan of action nearly destroyed the Confederate Army of the Tennessee, under the hapless leadership of John Bell Hood (an operational example of the Peter Principle at work).
The book fairly addresses Thomas' issues with Ulysses Grant and--to some extent--William Sherman, but the reality is that there were tensions here. Some idiosyncratic passages: The author judges that Sheridan and Thomas have been "largely forgotten" (page 196). ???? Was the Union Army demoralized after Shiloh (Page 126)? That has not been my impression from other works
Still and all, a nice work, outlining Thomas' life from birth to untimely death. A really well done biographical sketch of one of the Civil War's finer generals.
This book is a fair work on his life and especially his Civil War career. Where he sparkled, as at Chickamauga (even though he did make some mistakes) or Nashville, the book accords him ample credit. Where he stumbled, the book recognizes that.
The book begins with his early life, about which not a great deal much is known. His career at West Point is more detailed, and we get more of a sense of the man. The book continues with his pre-Civil War career, from Florida to the Mexican War (where he did well) to the Second Cavalry in Texas (a legendary outfit, for which he was acting commander for some time).
In the Civil War, he was well-liked by volunteers, was a good organizer, and led the Union forces to an early (and welcome) victory at Mill Springs. His role at Perryville, as the author sees it, was not so accomplished. However, Thomas performed coolly and ably at Murfreesboro and had one of the best two days of generalship at Chickamauga (reminds me of Winfield Scott Hancock at Gettysburg). Not every move was the right one, but--in the end--he held the Confederate forces off long enough to allow the shattered Union forces to escape to Chattanooga.
Then, Missionary Ridge, the movement toward Atlanta, and--finally--his stand at Nashville where his plan of action nearly destroyed the Confederate Army of the Tennessee, under the hapless leadership of John Bell Hood (an operational example of the Peter Principle at work).
The book fairly addresses Thomas' issues with Ulysses Grant and--to some extent--William Sherman, but the reality is that there were tensions here. Some idiosyncratic passages: The author judges that Sheridan and Thomas have been "largely forgotten" (page 196). ???? Was the Union Army demoralized after Shiloh (Page 126)? That has not been my impression from other works
Still and all, a nice work, outlining Thomas' life from birth to untimely death. A really well done biographical sketch of one of the Civil War's finer generals.
September 25, 2021
This is a good balanced biography of Thomas. It gives a fair account of Thomas as General without either exalting or downplaying him at the expense of Grant or Sherman. Thomas was a different kind of general to both, and all three had their good and bad points as generals. Einolf suggests (and proves to my satisfaction) that Sherman made a number of mistakes in the Atlanta campaign where Thomas was perhaps more accurate in his assessments and his strategy would have been better for the overall union strategy and reduced union casualties. He also argues that Sherman and Grant in their memoirs contribute to the fall in Thomas' reputation. Einolf gives more attention than is normal in accounts of Thomas to the change in Thomas' racial views and his attempts during the Reconstruction to defend black people and their civil rights. I wished there had been a bit more on this. Thomas was a very private individual, so it is perhaps understandable that there is not more on his marriage or his relations with his siblings. But overall, this is a very good biography.
May 25, 2025
Excellent biography of the man nobody knows! Einolf shows the significance of Thomas in the Civil War and the "War after the war" to preserve the lives and liberties of the recently freed Black people of the South. He then presents a cogent argument as to why Thomas was forgotten, erased, or misremembered after his death. A must for Civil War scholars, or those interested in historiography.
August 5, 2025
My main problem with this book is the numerous typos. Many spots feel like they weren’t proofread; a better editor was needed. Besides that, this is an excellent account of George Henry Thomas. His writing style is academic but easily digestible. Einolf avoids the pitfalls that many Thomas biographers make of over-glorifying the man while still demonstrating his talented generalship, moral character, and eventual dedication to civil rights. Considering the small amount of extent personal writings and biographies available, I was highly impressed by the detail present and I really found myself understanding Thomas as a man.
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews