<< 1 >>
Rating: 
Summary: Inside the book flap
Review: "For too long one of the Civil War's decisive campaigns has been ignored by historians. In Where the South Lost the War, Kendall Gott tells the story of the Fort Henry-Fort Donelson campaign, the operation that shattered the initial Confederate defense line in the west and enabled Union amphibious forces to thrust deep into the Southern heartland. Gott blends his experiences as a combat veteran with those of a military historian to provide a gripping narration of day-to-day operations. Particulalry relevant are his penetrating analyses of the leaders, their command decisions, and their strengths and weakensses. These elements combine to give the readers a masterful account of the campaign that served as a major milepost on "Unconditional Surrender" Grant's road to Appomattox Court House and the White House" Edwin C. Bearss, Historian Emertius, National Park Service.
Rating:
Summary: Inside the book flap
Review: This is a fine piece of old-school history: rich, objective, and thorough. Mr. Gott's writing is excellent and the story is fresh. The book is heavy on content, which I found satisfying, and the absence of leftist mythology and psychobabble is a reminder that there are still good historians out there. (Read McPherson if you want a discussion of Southern "paternalism" or Stonewall Jackon's psychological profile.)As with most Civil War narratives, the story offers entertainment value in its own right. The collection of personalities includes inept Confederate generals, smarmy politicians and rugged country boys doing the soldiering. The unusual genesis of the Union army's river fleet is explored. Further, the battles followed a fascinating course unforeseen by either side. Fort Henry, for instance, was being abandoned by Confederate forces when it was attacked by Grant and his supporting gunboats. The resulting "defeat" at Henry was caused as much by floodwaters as by Union tactics. Yet as the title suggests, the real story here is how the battles for Henry and Donelson shaped the events that followed. Gott never releases this theme; indeed, it is woven into his exploration of the battle from the very first page to the last. Gott's perspective as a professional battle historian is reflected in his emphasis on thorough analysis. Again, satisfying. He doesn't miss much. This book is a compelling drama for a reader interested in something deeper than the standard casual treatment of our country's bloodiest war.
Rating:
Summary: Analytical History Done Right
Review: This is a fine piece of old-school history: rich, objective, and thorough. Mr. Gott's writing is excellent and the story is fresh. The book is heavy on content, which I found satisfying, and the absence of leftist mythology and psychobabble is a reminder that there are still good historians out there. (Read McPherson if you want a discussion of Southern "paternalism" or Stonewall Jackon's psychological profile.) As with most Civil War narratives, the story offers entertainment value in its own right. The collection of personalities includes inept Confederate generals, smarmy politicians and rugged country boys doing the soldiering. The unusual genesis of the Union army's river fleet is explored. Further, the battles followed a fascinating course unforeseen by either side. Fort Henry, for instance, was being abandoned by Confederate forces when it was attacked by Grant and his supporting gunboats. The resulting "defeat" at Henry was caused as much by floodwaters as by Union tactics. Yet as the title suggests, the real story here is how the battles for Henry and Donelson shaped the events that followed. Gott never releases this theme; indeed, it is woven into his exploration of the battle from the very first page to the last. Gott's perspective as a professional battle historian is reflected in his emphasis on thorough analysis. Again, satisfying. He doesn't miss much. This book is a compelling drama for a reader interested in something deeper than the standard casual treatment of our country's bloodiest war.
Rating: 
Summary: Starting to fight the war
Review: This is an excellent campaign study, well written and informitive. The maps while not really good, do allow you to follow the action and provide the position information needed. They seem to be the only weak point in the book and this seems common to current ACW history books. The first thing you find is how bad leadership was in 1862! Only Grant seems to be willing to fight and take chances. Halleck and Buell worry and find reasons why things can not happen while Grant is doing them. Of intrest is Halleck's actions against Grant and how he is pulled up short by Lincoln. This books continues to show Halleck as the fool that he was. It shows that Lincoln getting him out of the field was one of the best things he did. Pillow seems to be the only fighter the CSA had in the area and his performance has ups and downs. For the balance, infighting, stupidity and indifference are the nicest things you can say about them. AS Johnston comes in for the usual blame in this are, all of it well deserved. He is unable to command and unwilling to take real postive action when attacked. If you have an intrest in the early days of the war and or U.S. Grant this is a "must read" and well worth the money.
Rating:
Summary: Starting to fight the war
Review: This is an excellent campaign study, well written and informitive. The maps while not really good, do allow you to follow the action and provide the position information needed. They seem to be the only weak point in the book and this seems common to current ACW history books. The first thing you find is how bad leadership was in 1862! Only Grant seems to be willing to fight and take chances. Halleck and Buell worry and find reasons why things can not happen while Grant is doing them. Of intrest is Halleck's actions against Grant and how he is pulled up short by Lincoln. This books continues to show Halleck as the fool that he was. It shows that Lincoln getting him out of the field was one of the best things he did. Pillow seems to be the only fighter the CSA had in the area and his performance has ups and downs. For the balance, infighting, stupidity and indifference are the nicest things you can say about them. AS Johnston comes in for the usual blame in this are, all of it well deserved. He is unable to command and unwilling to take real postive action when attacked. If you have an intrest in the early days of the war and or U.S. Grant this is a "must read" and well worth the money.
<< 1 >>
| 
