Talk:George Henry Thomas

Shiloh/Corinth

There was never any primary source indication that Grant felt resentment towards Thomas. As second-in-command of the Corinth effort underneath Halleck, Grant's authority over the original Army of the Tennessee superseded Thomas'. Grant considered resigning, but indications are that the pace of the movement and attacks from the press drove him to exasperation.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.97.118.4 (talk) 18:46, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Thomas' Legacy

Grant wasn't responsible for rending Thomas' troops from him after Atlanta, Sherman was.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.97.118.4 (talk) 18:55, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Nashville

The odds in Nashville were no more lopsided than what Grant faced in Virginia, or, what Sherman faced in Georgia. After Nashville, the Army of Tennessee was completely routed & was no longer an effective force. Perhaps I should have specified 'Union victory' when I said only battle studied. von Moltke was famous for his contempt of US Civil War battles, with the exception of Nashville. I knew a man who studied at St Cyr in the 1930s, &, Nashville & Brice's Crossroads were the only battles explored in detail. He studied more on his own, & could not understand why all the incompetents were installed over Thomas, until I mentioned the power of the Ohio Congressional delegation. Sherman for example. The man's performance at Chattanooga was disgraceful, yet he was promoted over Thomas. Grant/Sherman constantly denigrated him as "slow", as when he waited until he was certain that Hooker was engaged on the Conf left before ordering the assault on Missionary Ridge. The Union would have benefitted had Grant been "slow" at Cold Harbor. Thomas' accomplishments have never been adequately appreciated by the most prominent historians. -- Achilles 19:21 18 June 2005

Interesting, thanks for the data. I am amazed by the Brice's Crossroads reference because it is such an obscure battle in the US. Anyway, the reason I said lopsided is that Thomas had a 5-3 advantage over Hood, but the latter's men were completely demoralized and enervated by Franklin and they had no clothing or supplies for a winter battle. It may have been McPherson who wrote that Hood mortally wounded his army at Franklin, but killed it at Nashville. I actually admire Thomas and think Grant treated him poorly, so we shouldn't argue too much. However, I would suggest that there are few historians who would rank him above either Sherman or Sheridan. Hal Jespersen 02:27, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Thomas should be rated higher than, at least, Sherman. Sheridan was Thomas' subordinate throughout the Western war until he through in his lot with Grant after Chattanooga. I don't see how he could be considered superior. Thomas twice saved the Army from annihilation-- at Murfreesboro & Chickamauga, &, possibly, during the Atlanta campaign at Peachtree Creek. Had Sherman followed Thomas' suggestion at Snake Creek Gap, the Georgia campaign might well have ended in May 1864. I suppose it's like Spruance & Halsey-- the quiet professional is overlooked while the self-promoter is idealized. Although, historians aren't afraid to point out Halsey's mistakes. -- Achilles 07:41 19 June 2005

I agree Thomas was a superb battlefield commander, however he never had a chance to show if he had any strategic gift. The Civil War was full of generals who performed well in the subordinate role but fell apart when they had to conduct a large campaign by themselves. Sherman's fans have the Atlanta campaign to point to and Grant's have the Vicksburg campaign. Sheridan's can at least point to his actions in the Shenandoah Valley. In contrast, Thomas never took the initiative against Hood so it's difficult to say what he would have been capable of had he needed to take the initiative. That's probably why he's not placed in the same league as Sherman, Grant or even Sheridan. To do otherwise is to play "what if" games. Toiyabe 00:46, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I am unaware of any battle that was postponed until sides were evened. Greater odds are normally what Generals seek when attacking. Continuing the line of Hoods lower manpower, also should be noted that about 20,000 of Thomas's force were untrained recruits and many unarmed. In fact several thousand were sent back because of an inability to arm them.

Regarding Thomas's initiative against Hood, what do you call "Nashville'? Earlier in the Atlanta Campaign he fought off a Hood attack at the Peachtree Creek while Sherman passed the time away idling with McPherson unaware a battle was taking place.

As to Thomas's strategic abilities, I submit his version of the "Atlanta Campaign" found in the O. R.s

CHATTANOOGA, February 28, 1864.

Major-General GRANT, 

Nashville : General Butterfield, by my direction, has recently examined the line between here and Nashville, and reports that he thinks 6,000 men will be sufficient to guard that line, two regiments of which force should be cavalry. From what I know of the road between Nashville and Decatur, 2,000 infantry and 2,000 cavalry will be sufficient to protect that line. One thousand infantry will be sufficient to protect the line from Athens to Stevenson. Probably both lines of communication can be guarded by 6,000 infantry and 2,000 cavalry, a great portion of which should be made up from the local militia of Tennessee, or troops organized especially for the preservation of order in the State. I believe, if I can commence the campaign with the Fourteenth and Fourth Corps in front, with Howard's corps in reserve, that I can move along the line of the railroad and overcome all opposition as far, at least, as Atlanta. I should want a strong division of cavalry in advance. As soon as Captain Merrill returns from his reconnaissance along the railroad lines, I can give you a definite estimate of the number of troops required to guard the bridges along the road.

GEO. H. THOMAS, 

Major-General, U. S. Volunteers

oneplez — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.40.48.171 (talk) 22:00, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Rock

I removed that reference to hiding behind a rock (which was a dead link in any event) because, while it may have been true that he hid behind a rock at one point, this is certainly not the derivation of his nickname, as the edit implied strongly. I know of no substantial biography of Thomas (beyond that campaign description from 1882) that make such a claim and I do not know if the context of that statement was appropriate. If you have a more recent reference that makes such a direct connection, bring it forward, but provide enough context to avoid misleading readers. Hal Jespersen 02:49, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

ʛ I have re-read the Chickamauga chapter in Cist's "The Army of the Cumberland" and found no reference to hiding behind rocks as the source of the 'Rock of Chickamauga' sobriquet. You were correct to remove the wording. Here is a link to the Cist book: [1] Dmercado 20:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Photo of General Thomas in the Atlanta and Franklin/Nashville paragraph

The posted photo of Gen. George Thomas and a group of officers at a council of war near Ringgold, Georgia, May 5, 1864 is a great Civil War photo, but one thing to note is that it is not actually General Thomas at the table. It is General Richard W. Johnson.

Here is some info from the following web page: http://home.att.net/~dmercado/johnson_photo.htm

This photo is captioned as Gen. George Thomas and a group of officers at a council of war near Ringgold, Georgia, May 5, 1864 in several books. It purports to show General Thomas at a table during the Atlanta campaign. I never thought it was Thomas, as Thomas did not have a receding hairline and a close look at the uniform reveals the button pattern of a brigadier not a major general, but I had no idea of who the officer was. There were many generals in the picture that served under Thomas including Generals Jeff C. Davis, John Brannan, John H. King and William D. Whipple. Eventually I found the correct caption (referencing General R. W. Johnson at the table) in the book, Mapping the Civil War, featuring rare maps from the Library of Congress by Christopher Nelson with captions by Brian Pohanka, Fulcrum Publishing, Golden, CO ISBN 1-56373-001-4.

Apparently this mistake was made by someone at the Library of Congress years ago and never questioned until the research by Mr. Pohanka. –Dave Mercado Dmercado 04:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Mercado is correct! If you look at the buttons on the tunic of the alleged Gen. Thomas, you see he wears the buttons on his tunic in groups of TWO. Thomas was promoted to Major General in April of 1862. Major Generals wore tunics with groups of three!

Don —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.40.103.231 (talk) 18:54, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Grant and Thomas

According to the article:

Grant and Thomas also had a cool relationship, for reasons that are not entirely clear, but are well-attested by contemporaries.

I find it hard to believe that no historian has ever eloborated on the supposed "bad blood" between Grant and Thomas. Does anyone know if any historian has ever commented on it? As a side note, is it my imagination or do Grant and Thomas look alike, as if they were related? Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 18:29, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

The recent biography Master of War by Benson Bobrick ISBN-13:978-0-7432-9025-8 Simon & Schuster 2009 goes into this aspect of Thomas' career in detail. Essentially he was passed over because- first he was a Southerner and second because he had no political support (unlike Grant and Sherman) and third because Grant and Sherman disliked and belittled him. During his lifetime his appearance was most often compared to George Washington. Nitpyck (talk) 23:30, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Einolf quotation

I have reverted the removal of the quotation from Christopher Einolf. Einolf, one of the two modern biographers of Thomas, is a reliable secondary source, a professor at the University of Richmond, published through the academic press. Attempting to discredit his opinion by citing supposed deficiencies in his underlying arguments and cited evidence is original research. Hal Jespersen (talk) 17:54, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

To present an alternate opinion is not to discredit Einolf but to present an alternate opinion. When Bobrick's statements re: Thomas teaching slaves to read is backed up by more than one other citation then it lends weight to that statement... at least it should in a proper examination of the facts. But unfortunately one person has lent extraordinary weight to Einolf's opinion. The "professor at the University of Richmond" reaction is an appeal to incredulity, as if one cannot question his opinion because he's a professor. Other historians disagree with him.

Why Einolf believes certain things is unlikely. It would be great to know why. How can he say both that there's no written evidence of Thomas' opinion of slavery, but that Thomas believed slavery was "necessary for controlling blacks"? Where does he derive that knowledge of Thomas' opinion?

Montalban (talk) 22:25, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Revealing Einolf's academic credentials and the source through which he published is a legitimate means of establishing he is a reliable source. That is not to say that there are not some wacko college professors running around, so this is not a bulletproof method, but unless you or someone else provides information to the contrary based on published evidence, it is good enough. Hal Jespersen (talk) 22:51, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

It's an appeal to incredulity when one is in effect saying "Why would a Professor make things up?" I am still yet to understand why his say so makes everything any number of other historians say 'doubtful' especially as there's no reason given for him believing what he does Montalban (talk) 23:44, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Speculations on history

Einolf seems to be a icon in biography – at least with some.

Several historians attest that Thomas had, as a youth, formed an opinion against slavery. Einolf differs.

Einolf states that Thomas supported slavery. This is based on little evidence and much speculation. Einolf says that Thomas' opinion on slavery was never recorded but that Thomas supported the institution as a necessary one. Where he derives that opinion is itself from further speculation. a) that Thomas' family owned slaves – therefore we have guilt by association – and thus Einolf states that Thomas himself owned slaves for much of his life b) that Thomas had himself personally bought a slave. This itself is contradicted by citation of someone who knew him directly quoting Thomas saying that he could never buy or sell another human being (Einolf, page 74 – quoting Van Horne) c) that if Thomas himself bought one slave – and sent her to his family – that he supported the institution – one can just as easily speculate that he saw a woman in trouble and bought her in order to protect her.

Therefore if Einolf can say that he bought a single slave (and there's no agreement even internally) he had slaves for 'much of his life' and that he supported slavery as an institution for controlling blacks, though he sided with the north.

Montalban (talk) 22:59, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

There are only two modern biographies of Thomas: Bobrick and Einolf. Cleaves and O'Connor wrote 63 years ago, making them almost Stone Age in Civil War historiography terms. (I am unfamiliar with McKinney in Further reading, which is 20 years old, but I've never heard anyone mention his work.) And Furgurson's casual magazine article is not in the same class of academic scholarship as the book-length biographies. So I think that fully balancing the opinion of Bobrick against Einolf 50-50 is completely justified (despite my personal judgment that Bobrick's error-filled and poorly researched polemic does not meet the same standards of academic rigor as Einolf's work). Your attempts to denigrate his work by using verbs such as "speculate" are inappropriate.

Part of the prohibition of original research in Wikipedia is to keep us from diving down into a secondary source and questioning all of the analysis of primary sources that result in a judgment. We simply report the judgment of reliable secondary sources. So your personal evaluation of Einolf's supposed inconsistencies is irrelevant. However, for completeness, let me address your three points:

(a) I think that if your mother and father owned slaves, you and your wife own a slave, and you are recorded as having used a family slave as a personal valet during some of your military service, it is no logical leap to say that you have owned slaves for most of your life. Einolf provide citations for these assertions and as a reliable source he is entitled to make such leaps.

(b) There is no contradiction because you did not read the text correctly. Van Horne did not say "buy or sell", he said "sell" and the context was clearly stated as being Thomas would not dispose of his slave Ellen, he would support her for the rest of his life.

(c) Your speculation is irrelevant. If you can find a secondary source who questions Einolf's work using that justification, provide a citation.

Although we are spending time quibbling about minor assertions, Bobrick and Einolf have two diametrically opposed opinions about a key issue. The former believes that Thomas was influenced early in his life to be sympathetic to African-Americans. The latter believes that Thomas led a pretty typical life and retained typical attitudes as a Virginian of the era, and that his big turnaround was witnessing the performance of the USCT in the Battle of Nashville. Both of those are interesting viewpoints and I do not believe that the verdict is in about which is more persuasive. Yes, some of the older biographies tilt in Bobrick's direction, but that may simply indicate he has not done as thorough a job in primary source research as Einolf. Until further modern secondary sources emerge in this space, keeping these two opinions in balance in the Wikipedia article is necessary for WP:NPOV. Hal Jespersen (talk) 22:51, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Why is something unreliable because it was written 50 years ago? Why is something unreliable because it's written in a magazine - a scholarly magazine at that? Why is Einolf's novel ideas to be accepted over the others? Why (?) - because he's a professor, and professors don't make stuff up (!)

He didn't own slaves for much of his life - that's bourne out by Einolf's own text. It's also still unknown why he speculates that slavery was a needed institution for "controlling blacks". Montalban (talk) 23:43, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

To assume that he is speculating may be less than neutral. Rather than derive these things yourself, do you happen to have a reliable source that draws these conclusions about Einolf? Hlj is correct to revert to the more neutrally-worded version. We shouldn't be performing synthesis or original research by drawing over-reaching conclusions.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 00:51, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I say that he is speculating because he offers no evidence for his beliefs. On Thomas teaching the slaves to read he simply says that this is "highly unliekly". Why is it so? Several historians attest to the story that he taught his slaves to read. I just added another one... Coppée, Henry. General Thomas, The Great Commanders Series. New York: D. Appleton and Co., 1893. OCLC 2146008, page 4.

The only reasons I've seen by one editor for discounting these are a) that they're old sources, and b) that Einolf is a professor who wouldn't be one to make stuff up.

It's been called "original research" - well if that is so, great, but what's it based upon? Coppee for instance bases his notion that Thomas did teach the slaves to read on the word of one of the family's slavess Artise remembering it happened (see page 4 Ibid.) He therefore offers a reason for his belief. He may still be wrong, but at least he's stated a reason.

Montalban (talk) 01:51, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Although, as I have already stated, a Wikipedia editor's evaluation of the individual primary sources in a reliable secondary source is original research, let me set the record straight once again. You continue to make the charge that Einolf offers speculation and "no evidence" to back up his judgment. In the case of Artise, you are wrong. On pp. 12-13 (noted in the book's index), he discusses the fact that Artise was interviewed at the age of 80 by someone sent by Oliver Otis Howard. Artise made the ambiguous statement that Thomas "taught him the Word of God," which is hardly definitive proof that the skill of reading was taught. Some of the earlier historians obviously made that leap, but Einolf balances it against other sociological factors. You may disagree with Einolf's judgment based on that evidence and other pieces of evidence he uses in the book, but please do not claim that he offers "no evidence." Hal Jespersen (talk) 15:03, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I had already noted by e-mail to you that he speculated that Howard was making things up to make Thomas' early life look better... and his way of accounting for Thomas staying with the union. He's welcome to make that conclusion - based on 'other sociological factors' - which I take to mean that people in the south generally supported slavery - although it's been noted that its not uncommon to hear of slaves being taught to read.

What he's in fact doing is taking evidence - say of Artise, and then evaluating that based on his belief of how southerners probably acted. To me that's speculation. His reason for discounting the evidence is because it doesn't fit into his over-all opinion of 'sociological factors'. He of course is welcome to make that judgment call. Others believe the evidence as presented because it makes for a more consistent person - one who didn't suddenly have a 'road to Damascus' revelation about the worth of black people.

Einolf does the same with another piece of evidence - though he states that in his book. That of Thomas' attitude to slavery. He notes someone stating what Thomas said on the matter - that Thomas could never buy another human being. What is odd is then Einolf both dismisses that evidence and says that Thomas supported slavery but he then both says that there's NO evidence of what Thomas thought on the matter AND also he claims that Thomas therefore supported slavery as an institution necessary for control.

It well could be that in fact Einolf is correct. It could be that a bolt of lightning hit Thomas and he changed his ways. I make no charge that Einolf is wrong, or that he is right. I simply believe it's important to note that as far as the number of historians/biographers are concerned his seems to be a minority opinion.

I also don't understand how some other sources can be summarily dismissed simply because they're 'old'. It seems to be an opinion that simply because someone has come up with a new conclusion it trumps all others! Montalban (talk) 00:02, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Sure looks like edit warring going on here

Please, both editors need to consider stopping the mainspace back & forth and resolve this issue here on talkspace. It looks bad for pedians to be reverting each other on a live page. It's edit warring, no matter who's right and no matter what version we're on. Really Hal, you know better than get into a slow-motion revert war with a relative newbie. I can see that both sides of the debate have a case to make and some sources to back them up. Can I suggest we create a sandbox or a section here on talk and develop a way of wording which satisfies the need for minority views to have some but not inappropriate coverage? BusterD (talk) 01:57, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

G'day, I'm all in favour of the article noting Einolf's opinion. So far however it's his opinion against five other sources. And it's not written to show that. It looked like it was just Bobrick with one opinion and Einolf with another.

I've only just added yet another source, who bases his statement on the witness testimony of one of those slaves.

Einolf's opinion is based on his own opinion - that it 'seems unlikely' that Thomas taught slaves to read. I'm happy to leave his opinion in. But the support for Bobrcik's position was moved to what was a footnote of a footnote

Is it possible for another editor, unattached to this issue to re-write it to present both sides?

Montalban (talk)

It's reasonable to ask someone other than those involved to re-write this material. For my part Coppee certainly knew Thomas in Mexico and kept in touch with many of his former classmates when he took up teaching. On other other hand, Coppee wasn't going to say much controversial about his old friends, and Coppee didn't have the perspective of Jim Crow, the second rise of the KKK, and the Civil Rights movement from which to frame the case. Thomas's memoirs might also fail these tests of independence and modern scholarship. Didn't Grant own slaves for a time (albeit his wife's)? User:Montalban, would you do me a kindness and restate your position fully? It's unusual for us to dispute and evaluate sources ourselves in pagespace unless we have a source who has made that assessment. Actually we shouldn't normally be discussing sources at all on pagespace unless another source does this for us. Just like in many wikipedia processes, one strong case might prevail against five weaker cases. Do you have a source which reports Einolf as a "minority position"? We're just looking at six sources if I read your assertion correctly. Are these the only six sources which exist? Are we just counting heads? BusterD (talk) 02:40, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Firstly it's not just about counting heads but an examination of what Einolf says. For instance on Thomas teaching his family's slaves to read a biographer Bobrick says so - and that's whom I cited when I first stated it. Against this is Einolf who says that this seems unlikely (because it is, because it is?). Why Einolf believes what he believes is unknown. True one can say he believes it.

However I cited several others, including someone citing a slave who was so taught. One can speculate as to their motives as to why this is not so, but I don't think that is called for here. They've stated something, and why they believe it. Einolf doesn't do that.

I also noted that Thomas reacted against slavery following Tuner's rising. Bobrick says this as well. Einolf though states that although there's no written record of Thomas' thoughts on slavery he thought that slavery was necessary for controlling blacks (which to me is speculation). One might say that (if he owned a single slave) that he was not opposed to slavery, but why he was not opposed is speculation.

I am not saying that Einolf has a minority opinion per se, but simply that I have found several historians who back up the same stance. I have asked another editor to provide reasons for why Einolf believes that something is "unlikely". The response has been that a professor of history wouldn't make stuff up.

If Thomas owned a slave, this doesn't mean that he wouldn't be against teaching them. Einolf's thinking is a non-sequitur.

That he owned a single slave (which Einolf then quotes someone saying that Thomas would never have bought or sold another human being) is a balanced approach - to say that he may have done this, but he may not have. However Einolf then accepts one point (that he did own a slave), and then speculates from this that Thomas supported a system of oppression - though he also says that there's no written evidence of what Thomas thought. So then where does he get this idea about Thomas? Again there's no evidence. One can of course state that an eminent historian believes this to be the case. But I thought it would balance the article to note that he offered no evidence... From one point owning a single slave to another - supporting slavery as a means of control is another non-sequitur.

I could easily speculate that Thomas found that woman in a poor state and thought that the only way to save her was to buy her for himself and therefore have assurance on how she was treated.

I believe the article itself was biased insofar as it overly relied upon Einolf. One only needs see how many times his work is cited. Montalban (talk) 03:38, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I've added an article under Further Reading by John Cimprich. Cimprich is a professor of history at Thomas More University in Ohio, and regarded as an expert on slavery. The reason I bring this up is that Einolf thanks Cimprich first in his introduction for helping understand Thomas's early life and reconstruction career. Einolf also thanks Daniel Crufts for reviewing the early life section (chairs history at College of New Jersey) and wrote Old Southampton: Politics and Society in a Virginia County, 1834-1869 (University Press of Virginia, 1992). Both the authors I've listed are pretty impressive figures, and both the article and the book deal directly with the subject at hand, the article specifically with the subject we're discussing. I'll see if I can get a copy of the article. BusterD (talk) 04:19, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Forgive me, but are you saying that Cimprich approved what he wrote? Did Cimprich have a final edit? Montalban (talk) 05:59, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

There's still no evidence provided re: Einolf's beleif. There's at best that he derived the idea from reading Cimprich and it was approved of by Crufts. But what that 'evidence' was is still unknown.

Montalban (talk) 11:10, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure yet. I've been pretty busy today in RL. I did find the Cimprich article at the library and copied it. Haven't read it, but it has plentiful citation/evidence for evaluation. I scanned it and sent a copy to Hal, since I had his email address from a previous interaction. I'm not yet certain it support's Hal's position. He told me he got your email recently so he offered to forward the info on to you. Hope you got the pdf. Only took 30 minutes to get. Might not make a difference in your opinion, but it's new to me. As I said above, Einolf thanked Crufts for reviewing his first chapter and Cimprich for helping him understand the material. So those two scholars bear investigation if we're reviewing Einolf's work critically. As to final edit, that would be up to University of Oklahoma Press, an important imprint for this sort of stuff (full disclosure, I got my BS from OU, but didn't study much history outside of my field, exactly one ACW class). BTW, I read a review of the entire volume by John d'Entremont in Journal of American History. d'Entremont was somewhat critical of the volume as a whole (not for the scholarship, but for the somewhat stilted use of individual contributions to create an entire work), but didn't make more than passing mention of the article itself. What do the scholarly reviews (other than Hal's, his opinion is plain) say about Bobrick? What do scholars say about Einolf? If we're evaluating works as sources, we need to know what scholars are saying about them. Our personal opinions are meaningless in comparison (reporting our personal opinions is the very definition of original synthesis). This is a somewhat obscure subject, but Cimprich's article purports to be writing about the exact issue you two seem to be disagreeing about. (for the record, I hadn't read much of any of these guys until last night after commenting about the edit warring; Thomas hasn't been a focus of my interest) BusterD (talk) 01:58, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a link to it? (for others to read). I myself purchased the book yesterday on-line, and am awaiting it's arrival in the post... if you're talking about The Moment of Decision: Biographical Essays on American Character and Regional Identity (Contributions in American History) John Mckivigan, Randall M. Miller

The only disagreement I have is that I don't accept Einolf as right and everyone else wrong... simply because Einolf's is novel. Montalban (talk) 02:17, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes that's the work I had in my hand today. I was scanning the article exactly so that nobody had to buy the book, but the JAH is on Jstor, not otherwise online. Here's the citation for the review BusterD (talk) 02:41, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

It's nice of you to have gone to so much trouble. Montalban (talk) 04:07, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

It was a small effort to help us understand the subject matter better. I'm not sure I've developed an opinion yet. BusterD (talk) 16:38, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

It'll take a while for the book to get to me on the other side of the world. I think Thomas was a 'rock' and didn't change (probably a bit stubborn) - and the evidence of his teaching slaves would be consistent with his over-all character. Montalban (talk) 22:40, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

"Other side of the world" Not asking to out identity, but are you in military service? BusterD (talk) 22:50, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

No. I take it you assume I'm American. I'm Australian. So when I get your messages I have a computer program to turn the text upside down so I can read it ;-) Montalban (talk) 03:42, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Ha! That's groovy. Some of the best players in my D&D games hailed from downunda. As an American jingo, I have a special place in my heart for active duty service-folks, many of who are on the far side of the planet from me. I'm a New Yawka, but come from a state where you needed a computer program just to understand the good ol' boys' talking. Sorry for the assumption. I was taught that assumption is the mother of all f%#kups. BusterD (talk) 04:01, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Perplexed by Einolf,

I have finally got Einolf's biography in the post. I am perplexed by it.

He states that there's no known reaction of Thomas towards slavery from his youth, but then offers as evidence that of a former slave. He dismisses this, but doesn't say why.

He also says that we can't know what Thomas' reaction to Turner's rebellion is, but then gives an account by a 'local historian' which also just must be dismissed because it is.

I had hoped finally getting the book would shed some light on these things but alas no.

He just supposes that there are ulterior motives for people offering witness to events Einolf says we can't know about.

He states that Thomas just must have had the same upbringing that other southerners had. Because he has external evidence that some slave-owners taught their slaves Christianity he says it's possible that Thomas may have. But he dismisses accounts of Thomas teaching slaves to read not because he has direct evidence of this but because it may not have been generally practiced.

It seems to me he has a general sterotype of a southern gent and that Thomas just must have conformed to that - any evidence to the contrary must be as a result of some other motive. Montalban (talk) 05:09, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

First, as I have stated before, attempting to deconstruct the internal logic or thoroughness of primary source evaluation by a historian in a reliable secondary source is original research. If you are unsatisfied with Einolf's scholarship or writing style, you should consider asking your bookseller for a refund. However, in previous postings above, I have demonstrated that you are missing information you claim he is not providing. In some cases these are examples of general judgments in the introduction to the book that are expanded upon and documented in more detail later in the book (which are easy enough to find in his excellent index). You could possibly fault this writing style from an editorial standpoint, but Wikipedia editors' judgment about editorial issues in secondary sources is irrelevant. In Wikipedia, when an editor disagrees with the judgment from a secondary source, unless the source is known to be unreliable (crank authors, fringe websites, etc.), the remedy is to balance it with the judgments from other secondary sources. In the case of this article, that balance has been achieved by presenting the opposing viewpoints of Bobrick (whose own scholarship is considerably less expert than Einolf's, in my humble opinion). Hal Jespersen (talk) 16:35, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Ironically, you just did that very thing yourself here above! That is what I would like to discuss. Why are all these people, including some Einolf presents of less weight? Einolf himself discusses the evidence (as I noted just above your comments) by presenting it and then summarily dismissing it. What 'other secondary sources'? What other information? How can an article be 'balanced' like that? Are readers meant to just have faith that somewhere out there the evidence exists? I got in the post a few weeks ago The Moment of Decision: Biographical Essays on American Character and Regional Identity who offers the EXACT same judgment for the same lack of reasons. I understand the 'sacred cow' idea that some may have for certain professors that cannot be questioned. But the amount of authors who disagree with Einolf and his friend and the way Einolf and his friend just dismiss the information leads me (in my humble opinion) to believe Einolf simply presents information based on some pre-conceived notion that rests on information not give to his public - which you seem also to know about - but won't say what. Montalban (talk) 21:45, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Einolf is being treated here as a reliable source, sort of like a black box from which judgments come. Bobrick is being treated in exactly the same way, even though his scholarship is manifestly sloppier. Opening up the black box to determine how those judgments were derived--how they discovered and weighed inputs from primary and secondary sources--is original research, which we are not allowed to do. However, if you look at the discussions above and review some of our previous e-mail conversations, you will find that every example you have raised was refuted in replies by me. All of the instances of "Einolf doesn't address this point" or "Einolf contradicts himself on this point" or "Einolf offers no proof for this point" have resulted from a less than thorough reading of the entire book or of a misunderstanding of the meaning of clearly worded sentences. I invite you to go back and reread those explanations, but as I said, digging into the style or organization of a reliable secondary source is outside the bounds of what we do. As to your concern about preconceived notions, I find that interesting from someone who espouses the work of Bobrick, who has clearly produced a book polemical in nature, aimed at glorifying Thomas at the expense of his peers and based on a rather unimpressive collection of primary and secondary sources. Bobrick starts with his preconceived notion that Thomas was the greatest general of the war and does not favor evidence to the contrary. If you will recall, the only reason Einolf was introduced to the article was to balance the recent introduction of Bobrick. I find that treating the two historians as equals to be distasteful, but that's the way we do it to promote a neutral point of view. Hal Jespersen (talk) 22:25, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't follow either the 'appeal to evidence somewhere else' or the 'it's already been addressed somewhere else' modes.

Einolf was already massively relied upon prior to my producing Bobrick's evidence

Why Bobrick is a polemicist and Einolf isn't is I guess also reliant upon evidence somewhere else discussed some other time.

Apparently judging him as a polemicist is not original research???

What we seem to have here is a pedestal in which Einolf has been placed and all his assumptions are correct, and questioning this is 'original research', but questioning Bobrick is not... which is the case-study classic of bias.

I am not seeking less than the expression of both points of view in the article. But I would like an un-biased account as to why certain rules are allowed with one, but not the other, such as questioning one, and not the other. The 'original research' also doesn't come into this (as far as I'm aware) because this is a discussion of the article, not the article itself. I am still perplexed as to what this cult of Einolf is and I apologise if I have upset any of his disciples. Montalban (talk) 04:57, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I believe I have explained in previous communications that this article started off with very few citations, which was common in Wikipedia at the time, but as citations were added over the years, I relied upon a book I had handy. (Of course, as you know, I have studiously avoided citing Bobrick, because I personally consider his work to be biased and unreliable.) Although numerous citations from a single source may seem troubling to some, it is really a problem only when those citations are for matters of judgments and opinions. For example, if 10 battles are mentioned in an article and basic data about dates and results are included, it is really no NPOV problem for all of those citations to come from a single source. Having multiple footnotes about the dates of the Battle of Nashville add no value. This is just a matter of making it easier for the Wikipedia editor.

Believe me, there is no cult of Einolf involved here. I do not know him from Adam. His Thomas biography is well regarded by most reviewers (although some have had complaints about the depth of the military aspects), which is the reason I own a copy. My only preferences in the references for this article are (1) avoid Bobrick wherever possible, and; (2) favor the more recent biographers over the older ones. The latter is my general preference for all Civil War scholarship. Although some people venerate the older works (particularly those that are available for free on Google Books), my opinion is that the standards of Civil War scholarship have improved dramatically over the last 10-20 years and many more primary sources are available to the modern authors. Plus, the modern authors have the advantage of having read all of the older authors and can reevaluate them as needed. Hal Jespersen (talk) 19:29, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Still, if Einolf wishes to suppose somthing that's up to him - he has a degree Montalban (talk) 22:45, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

reverting edits of July 12

I have reverted some edits that make no sense. They insert a number of square brackets in random places and sprinkle "nowiki" tags here and there that screw up the formatting of the article. In doing this reversion, some recent opinion text has been removed. If an editor would like to include opinions about Thomas's legacy, the place to list these opinions and provide citations is in the section entitled Thomas's legacy, from which a short summary can find its way into the introductory paragraphs (which are usually not footnoted). It is important to recognize, however, that statement such as "he made no mistakes" need to be expressed as part of a sentence such as "Historian Joe Blow has written that Thomas made no mistakes" rather than simply asserted as a fact with a footnote. And it would be nice to have a real citation to a published work, rather than a personal website. See WP:SOURCES. Hal Jespersen (talk) 20:54, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on George Henry Thomas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111210082731/http://www.oprhp.state.ny.us/hpimaging/hp_view.asp?GroupView=7627 to http://www.oprhp.state.ny.us/hpimaging/hp_view.asp?GroupView=7627

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:01, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on George Henry Thomas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111119044440/http://militaryhistory.about.com/od/americancivilwar/p/ghthomas.htm to http://militaryhistory.about.com/od/americancivilwar/p/ghthomas.htm/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100821105415/http://www.thomascountyks.com/Home.php to http://www.thomascountyks.com/Home.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:38, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Fall 2024 HIST 401

This article is currently the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 August 2024 and 19 December 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): YankeeVol1862 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by YankeeVol1862 (talk) 19:05, 12 September 2024 (UTC)