|
|
|
|
|
|
Where the South Lost the War: An Analysis of the Fort Henry-Fort Donelson Campaign, February 1862 (The American Civil War)
written by Kendall D. Gott
Studio : Stackpole Books
by Stackpole Books
Publisher : Stackpole Books
Released : 2003-07
Availability : Usually ships in 1-2 business days
Number of Items : 1
EAN : 9780811700498
Avg. Customer Rating: (based on 8 reviews)
List Price : $29.95
Our Price : $19.63
|
|
| |
|
It Is Where The South Lost The War |
|
If you want a comprehensive, informative and easy to read account of Fort Donelson, Fort Henry and the tactical genius and errors of both sides, this is the book to read. The author does a fantastic job of providing accurate details of how the south did, in fact, lose the war by losing Kentucky and Tennessee. The war probably could have been over in 1862 had Lieutenant Phelps destroyed the bridge at Florence. Not doing so provided a retreat for A. S. Johnston to move his men to Corinth and then to Shiloh and allowed the railroad in the western confederacy to remain in tact. This is a GREAT book. |
| |
|
Fine description--but "Where the South Lost the War"? |
This book presents one of the best detailed descriptions of the Fort Henry and Fort Donelson campaign. The volume lays out the preparation, the logistics, and the actual campaign. The book details the futile (and brief) defense of the poorly designed Fort Henry. It demonstrates the willingness of General Ulysses Grant, unlike many of his general officer brethren in the Union Army at that time, to take action with his immediate move against Fort Donelson, even though he was not sure of what awaited him.
It shows some of his sloppiness in combat situations (as at Shiloh, where he did not bother preparing a stout defense or at Belmont when he lost control of his troops), for instance, when he left Fort Donelson to meet with the naval commander--leaving his army leaderless at the time when the Confederates attempted a breakout. But the book also well describes his tenacity. After the near breakout, Grant takes initiative once again.
The description of the dysfunctional Confederate command structure (from Albert Sydney Johnston on down to the commanders on the ground at Fort Donelson) is done well, although--perhaps--Simon Bolivar Buckner may not have been quite as ineffective as depicted.
All of that said, though, it is hard to see that this campaign was "Where the south lost the war." It certainly destroyed Johnston's defensive line and forced him to retreat all along his line. But with a bit of luck, Shiloh could have recouped some of the loss, had the South prevailed on that bloody battlefield. And many other campaigns and battles--east and west--were critical in their own way.
Nonetheless, a valuable book that probably warrants being in the library of Civil War history buffs.
|
| |
|
Great balance of strategy and tactics |
|
I thought this book was terrific, one of the best Civil War books in my collection. Gott writes lucidly and in an easy-to-read style. He covers the personalities and the strategies of the campaign in a manner well-balanced with the tactical details of the battles. Although the maps are rather crudely drawn, they are rich in useful detail. (As an instructor at Ft Leavenworth, he knows what to put into Army battle maps. But he also covers the naval aspects well, too.) He is unafraid to inject his candid opinions about the strengths and weaknesses of the key players and he backs these opinions well. Highly recommended. |
| |
|
Good History of two Important Battles |
Sub-Title: An Analysis of the Fort Henry-Fort Donelson Campaign, February 1862
There are a lot of battles where it might be said that the South lost the war. In this book, Kendall Gott says it was lost in 1862 at these two battles. He certainly presents a good case. This early in the war both armies had their share of "peacetime" generals who weren't very good on the battlefield.
I've never understood for instance why Nathan Bedford Forrest found it so easy to escape Fort Donelson while the other generals were so determined to surrender the fort and their men.
The biggest outcome of these two battles was the rise of Grant. After this came Shiloh, Vicksberg, and the march to Appomattox. The North had found a fighting general.
All in all, I don't think you can say that this is where the South lost the war. I believe that the war was lost before it started. The North had the population, the manufacturing capacity, and the moral high ground (because of slavery) that prevented England and France from coming in on the Southern side.
This is a splendid history of these two battles which have been so often neglected in the general histories of the war. |
| |
|
Rebuttal of Errors In Book Concerning General S.B. Buckner |
|
80% of this book is an excellent account of the Battle of Fort Donelson and objectively done. I have been studying this battle in detail for 9 years. The author deviates from objective writing in the 20% which reflects flagrant fact errors and a bias against the conduct of General S.B. Buckner. Without enumerating the scores of flawed reporting about General Buckner let it suffice to say if his performance was as poor as Mr. Gott portrays, Buckner would have been permanently relieved of command not only as a general, but as any officer. Intead President Jefferson Davis, his Secretary of War, and Adjutant General Sam Cooper promoted him to higher command immediately from release from prison. In addition General Longstreet wanted him for a division commander in his corps and Robert E. Lee requested President Davis to have him serve in his army. This in itself is a testament to Buckner's superior performance at Fort Donelson |
| |
|
|
|
