Talk:George Henry Thomas

message: 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second-in-command of the Corinth effort underneath Halleck, Grant's authority over the original Army of the Tennessee superseded Thomas'.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)
thread_title:  Shiloh/Corinth 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Thomas' Legacy 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Rock 

message: 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 .
 
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)
thread_title:  Photo of General Thomas in the Atlanta and Franklin/Nashville paragraph 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Grant and Thomas 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  Sure looks like edit warring going on here 

message: 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)
thread_title:  reverting edits of July 12 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:01, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:38, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified