Education in Violence: The Life of George H. Thomas and the History of the Army of the Cumberland (review)

94Cl VIL WAR HISTORY into printed sources. Dr. Lamers, an assistant superintendent of schools in Milwaukee, spent the better part of a decade in the preparation of his study. Dr. Bridges, a member of the history staff at the University of Colorado, labored for several years on his biography. Both works are extensively documented . Though Bridges' footnoting is more precise, Lamers has written a more inclusive account. Neither work is illustrated, which is strange, yet both have full bibliographies and indexes. And needless to say, both authors show a definite prejudice toward their subjects. Napoleon once stated: "Unfortunate is the man whose history is written by his enemies." Such has been the century-old fate of "Old Rosey" Rosecrans and "Old Rawhide" Hill. It is heartening that two thoroughly researched studies now place two misunderstood commanders closer to the lights of truth and objectivity. James I. Robertson, Jr. State University of Iowa Education in Violence: The Life of George H. Thomas and the History of the Army of the Cumberland. By Francis F. McKinney. (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1961. Pp. xvi, 530. $9.50. ) biographies of George H. Thomas have appeared roughly every decade but this is a crescendo. The Old Warrior is between these covers. That is not to say there will be no room for another Thomas biography in the next ten years, for "the Virginian" is an ever emerging and expanding figure, and Mr. McKinney's competent work will scarcely prove conclusive. Thomas has gradually established himself with many careful students as the ablest of the Northern generals, just as he did with a few discriminating judges in his own day. As with Lee, Jackson, Grant, the flamboyant Stuart, hard-riding Forrest and perhaps others, there will be room repeatedly for fresh appraisals. But Mr. McKinney has written with unusual insight and sympathy and has brought together most of the ascertainable facts. The downgrading of Thomas, as the author suggests, was the work of Grant, who harped on his slowness, thoroughness would have been a better word, until that characteristic, misconceived and unmerited, became an historical fixture. Grant may have confused Thomas' physical size with mental heaviness. The two men were never compatible. The author, who respects Grant's abilities for what they were, is willing to scratch beneath the luster of victory and find in the commander-in-chief traits that can be regarded only as petty. Still, he deals far more gently with Grant than did Thomas' facile earlier biographer, journalist-Colonel Don Piatt. Refreshingly free of inhibitions and prejudgments about the Civil War great, he is informed and candid and can haul up not only Grant, Sherman and Halleck, but also the sublime —though at times bewildered and meddlesome—Lincoln. AU biographers of Thomas face limitations imposed by the general's reticence , which caused him to withhold his personal papers, and his widow Book Reviews95 to destroy them. A curtain of silence covers his innermost thoughts at the time he broke home ties and sided with the Union. But there is ample in the early printed sources (usually more enlightening than the more sought-after manuscripts), to permit a fairly adequate portrayal of Thomas' boyhood. After West Point, Mr. McKinney depicts an enterprising, devoted and none so bashful young officer, splendid in the Mexican War, pushed ahead by the Virginia dynasty which dominated the old army, but rising mainly by ability. Care about details is shown to be an early salient characteristic. This explained the later remarkable battle successes, from Mill Springs to the resounding final triumph at Nashville. While Thomas prepared for this critical battle, Grant, lacking sympathy or familiarity with conditions in Tennessee, threatened to deprive him of his command and award it to the less qualified Schofield, who was trying to undercut Thomas. Here the author gives one of the dramatic incidents of the war. The telegrapher's deliberate fumbling was all that prevented the dispatch from going through, and Thomas would have been ousted. Impulsiveness to satisfy public and governmental clamor for some sort of action surely could have accomplished nothing like what Thomas achieved by hard organization and thorough planning. Sherman, warmer by temperament, was more cordial to...