Wonder Club world wonders pyramid logo
×

Reviews for Lee's Bold Plan for Point Lookout: The Rescue of Confederate Prisoners That Never Happened

 Lee's Bold Plan for Point Lookout magazine reviews

The average rating for Lee's Bold Plan for Point Lookout: The Rescue of Confederate Prisoners That Never Happened based on 2 reviews is 3.5 stars.has a rating of 3.5 stars

Review # 1 was written on 2018-07-06 00:00:00
2008was given a rating of 4 stars Eva Karlsson
Powerful as Bruce Catton's "A Stillness at Appomattox" remains more than 60 years after publication, its focus is narrowly on the Army of the Potomac -- life in the trenches and on the march in its victorious last year in the field. (John Keegan before there was a Keegan.) Catton cryptically notes that, as part of the South's desperate effort to take Washington, "it was just possible that [Jubal] Early could ... capture the prison camp at Point Lookout" and free thousands of Confederate prisoners. Catton makes no further mention of that possibility, given his thrust. But Jack Schairer does, and in an impressively researched book-length study, shows that the plan to take Point Lookout was a viable one. Had Early not hesitated -- Washington was left wide-open to invasion through Gen. David Hunter's blundering retreat into West Virginia -- he might have waltzed into D.C., wreaked havoc, and overrun Point Lookout. Instead, Early dawdled, and in the span of a day the door swung shut. Early reached the outskirts but could get no farther. Jack persuasively argues that if the invasion plan was bold, Early's execution was timid and cost the South its last chance at victory. Not that military victory was ever on offer, but as a propagandistic feat, a temporary takeover of D.C. coupled with the freeing of 10,000 prisoners likely would have made an overwhelming impression on a war-weary North. (In terms of a modern referent, think Tet offensive, though the analogy shouldn't be pressed too far.) That said, Jack's study of a missed opportunity reinforces the near-impossibility of a Confederate victory. They had few pieces to move on the board. Perhaps Stonewall Jackson might have succeeded where Early couldn't, but that goes to show that after Jackson went down, there was simply no comparable replacement. The North could run through a succession of generals until finding just the right combination: Grant and Sherman of course, but also Sheridan and even Custer. The South didn't have that luxury. Everything had to go exactly right for the South; as Jack shows, with a margin of error of zero, the South had no real chance for success even in the hands of a capable general such as Early.
Review # 2 was written on 2009-09-24 00:00:00
2008was given a rating of 3 stars Bob Smith
The best of the Bevin Alexander works that I have read, his analysis of Lee's actions as commander of The Army of Virginia call into doubt the sterling reputation he has as a battlefield commander. One of Alexander's main points is that Lee's desire to attack in all situations, along with his style of direct frontal assault, bled the confederate army of soldiers it could ill afford to lose. Alexander is also critical of Lee for his lack of progressive use of military engineering to better the position of his army and develop knowledge of the terrain where his army could end up fighting. Alexander finds this aspect of Lee especially confusing because Lee was an engineer by trade and had shown great skill as a military engineer during the Mexican War. Finally, Alexander questions Lee's pattern of delegating responsibility for the most critical elements of a battle to his subordinates while providing them with, at times, vague direction (i.e. the 2nd and 3rd days at Gettysburg). Certainly there are many people who would think this book is pure revisionist trash as Lee is beyond any criticism. Alexander goes at great to support Lee as the most important figure in the confederacy, praises him for his character and for how he handled the end of the war. But as a battlefield commander, Alexander makes the case that Lee benefited more from the superior abilities of other CSA generals (Jackson, Longstreet) and from the ineptitude of some of his opponents (McClellan, Burnside, Pope, Hooker) than he did from his own battlefield skill.


Click here to write your own review.


Login

  |  

Complaints

  |  

Blog

  |  

Games

  |  

Digital Media

  |  

Souls

  |  

Obituary

  |  

Contact Us

  |  

FAQ

CAN'T FIND WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING FOR? CLICK HERE!!!