I had a pleasant note from Jim Durney the other day. I’m hopeful we’ll both find it useful at some point to exchange ideas, even if we don’t win each other over to our respective “sides.”

Now, I wanted to address the concern he expressed in his review that I was somehow slamming West Point. I certainly didn’t mean to give that impression. I described the curriculum and training cadets received, and noted that the school had an engineering emphasis, which is accepted. I wasn’t critical of that, though I noted some had been. I also commended the West Point administration under Robert E. Lee, and the contribution Thomas made to the academy by his distinguished instruction in cavalry and artillery tactics during his relatively brief tenure as a teacher there. The one critical point I raised was whether secession had been taught at any time at West Point before the war. Some said it had been. Others said it merely leaned South. True, I quote Benjamin Wade. But for balance, I also quoted J.E.B. Stuart, who said there was “a strong Southern feeling” at the school. In any case, I raised the issue in the context of a brief discussion as to whether Lee or Thomas had the better grasp of the constitutional issues at stake. I think it’s clear that Thomas did, in the way he reasoned the matter out for himself. Lee is said to have been misled by the legal axioms of one of the textbooks with respect to the right of a state to secede. If Lee was not misled–or if William Rawle’s textbook was not, in fact, the culprit, as some have claimed–I’d be happy to correct it. But that would give Lee’s choosing less excuse. In any case, it was the contrast between Lee and Thomas that I was really trying to draw.

Of course, Thomas went on to become completely expert in all matters of military law, and his right reasoning in this instance demonstrated one aspect of his careful thought.

If I may, I just want to add here, as an aside, that one reason Grant & Sherman are treated somewhat harshly in my book is that my book, after all, is about Thomas. And at least in relation to him their behavior was often bad. That being said, I have no quarrel with those who admire qualities (personal and otherwise) that Grant and Sherman both showed in other spheres of their lives. In writing about Thomas, however, I set out to right what I perceived as a grievous wrong. As I saw it, that wrong had been done to him by the two most famous Union soldiers of the war. Again, it’s not that Thomas was a saint, though I believe he possessed a kind of “Washingtonian” greatness. The thing about him was that he was a “man of honor” through and through. And so even when he made a political mistake (for example, not taking over from Buell), you can’t help but admire him for it, because the mistake that he makes is for the most high-minded of reasons (i.e., not to edge out a superior officer, or even to appear to conspire against him). So we are confronted with a difficult paradox: that the very character trait that enables him to shine forth in battle after battle–his fearless determination to do the right thing, and stand firm–is also the trait by which he slowed his own advancement. Can we honestly condemn him for it? I could not find it in myself to do so, though I can follow the reasoning that would find him in some sense at fault.

Well, I have gone on too long, perhaps. Again my thanks. With kind regards, Benson Bobrick

I have passed along your personal email address to Jim as well.

I agree wholeheartedly.

Mr. Bobrick, thank you for taking the time to write to us here at TOCWOC. I’ve forwarded your comments (and your email address in private) to James Durney.