The reasons for Thomas' relative obscurity have been well stated in other reviews _ his southern heritage; his self-effacing disposition except (as Cleaves points out) when he felt he had been done an injustice. It didn't help that Sherman, one of his sponsors and Grant, his classmate at West Point, shut him out of the post-war glory and that he died in 1870, too early to establish a reputation.

Is the subtitle ("The Man who Save the Union?'') justified? Look at it this way: There's no question that Thomas' stand at Chickamauga made Sherman's campaign through Georgia possible. And if that hadn't happened, Lincoln might not have been re-elected in 1864, perhaps leading to a truce that would have left the nation split. That in itself is reason enough to celebrate Thomas.

But as Cleaves emphasizes, Thomas was more than that. Military historieans consider him one of the best defensive generals ever, a man who would have stood out in any war. And unlike many of our heroes, he was a decent man.

We could use more like him.

This 55-year-old book could use more readers.

The reasons for Thomas' relative obscurity have been well stated in other reviews _ his southern heritage; his self-effacing disposition except (as Cleaves points out) when he felt he had been done an injustice. It didn't help that Sherman, one of his sponsors and Grant, his classmate at West Point, shut him out of the post-war glory and that he died in 1870, too early to establish a reputation.

Is the subtitle ("The Man who Save the Union?'') justified? Look at it this way: There's no question that Thomas' stand at Chickamauga made Sherman's campaign through Georgia possible. And if that hadn't happened, Lincoln might not have been re-elected in 1864, perhaps leading to a truce that would have left the nation split. That in itself is reason enough to celebrate Thomas.

But as Cleaves emphasizes, Thomas was more than that. Military historieans consider him one of the best defensive generals ever, a man who would have stood out in any war. And unlike many of our heroes, he was a decent man.

We could use more like him.

This 55-year-old book could use more readers.

Included in the book are Thomas' many military victories: the complete defeat of a Confederate army at the battles of Mill Springs and Nashville, repulse of Hood's attacks at Atlanta, and of course, perhaps his most stunning achievement - holding the Confederate Army at bay on Snodgrass Hill while the rest of the Union Army retreated from Chickamauga.

Throughout the book Cleaves describes Thomas as a man who willingly subordinated his desires for the best of the nation, something lacking in most "leaders" today. Several times Cleaves describes Thomas as a calm, confident, and not easily shaken man in whom soldiers took great comfort in knowing he was in charge.

I only wish there would have been more maps used when describing the many battles Thomas participated in. Doing so would have made it easier for me to follow the troop movements, whether in an individual battle or a campaign.

All in all, an excellent read of an excellent general and gentleman. Thomas was a refreshing change from the self-promoting methods other "leaders" in the 1860's practiced - he would still be a rare gem if he were alive in today's world!!!

Union loyalists of Southern birth like Thomas, Buford, etc. were just as alone and alienated in their army as Southern loyalists of Northern birth like Pemberton. They suffered an ostracism, a fundamental distrust that really reached its peak in this country when we sent thousands and thousands of Japanese Americans to concentration camps in California in World War II while concurrently having their sons fight and die in Europe. Thomas' story is really no different and every bit as unfair.

This type of unfortunate, `protective tuck' is a natural reaction during a national emergency. Fortunately, leading edge historians like Freeman Cleaves have left us a record of one man's sacrifice for the country of his birth.

George Thomas was not treated properly by anyone, North or South. Lincoln treats him as a political liability and pawn, Stanton fundamentally distrusts everyone of Southern heritage, and the Union troika of Grant, Sherman and Sheridan have much to be ashamed of: Grant for his smallness, Sheridan for the desertion of someone who must have been his mentor and Sherman for betraying a long standing friendship. The South simply refused to acknowledge his existence. When Thomas was down, everyone kicked. Being Southern born, he was an easy competitive target for both sides both during and after the war. He simply had no mentor anywhere.

Yet this courageous fighter survives much political intrigue to not only save a complete Union army from annihilation, an army by the way that he did not personally command but could have, but also completely destroys the South's Army of Tennessee and possibly, just possibly, pulled Sherman and Grant's chestnuts out of the fire with his victories at Nashville and Franklin. Playing a key and fundamentally pivotal role in Grant and Sherman's grand strategy, after his success he is simply thrown aside like an old shoe and not just forgotten but treated miserably, like his very existence, success and support was an embarrassment to the Union military and political High Command.

Read this book! It is about an American patriot who sacrifices everything, his reputation, home, family and pre and post war friendships for the ability of the United States to develop into the world example it is today. It is the kind of story all Americans appreciate: doing the right thing while succeeding against all odds, foreign and domestic.