While studies of the American Civil War generally credit Robert E Lee with military expertise, this account argues that Stonewall Jackson was superior strategist who could have won the war for the South: Had Lee accepted Jackson's plan for an invasion of the North, the South might have surprised and dismayed the Union forces into defeat. Using primary sources, the author reconstructs the battles that demonstrate Jackson's brilliance as a commander.
"Sinopsis" puede pertenecer a otra edición de este libro.
David Rees is an expert on Korea and has published a number of books on the Korean War and continuing conflicts in the area. He resides in England.From Publishers Weekly:
Alexander ( Korea: The First War We Lost ) debuts as a Civil War historian by asserting that Stonewall Jackson, rather than Robert E. Lee, possessed the strategic insight that might have won Confederate independence. Jackson initially advocated striking at the Union's will by invading the North; when neither Lee nor Jefferson Davis accepted this concept, Jackson concentrated on plans to destroy the Union army. Here too he was repeatedly frustrated, according to Alexander, by Lee's limited strategic insight and tendency to accept pitched battles whose losses the Confederacy could not afford. Only at Chancellorsville in 1863 did Lee accede to Jackson's bold plan, which might have annihilated the Army of the Potomac had Jackson not been mortally wounded. Alexander's critique of Lee, and his belief that decisive battles were possible under Civil War conditions, are debatable. Nevertheless this revisionist analysis merits the attention of Civil War students.
Copyright 1992 Reed Business Information, Inc.
"Sobre este título" puede pertenecer a otra edición de este libro.
Descripción Hippocrene Books, 2004. Paperback. Estado de conservación: New. book. Nº de ref. de la librería M0781810361
Descripción Hippocrene Books, 2004. Paperback. Estado de conservación: New. Never used!. Nº de ref. de la librería P110781810361