GDG- North with Lee and Jackson by James Kegel

John Lawrence jlawrence at kc.rr.com
Thu Jan 26 13:04:36 CST 2012


if Jackson really thought he could bring the north to its knees with a raid my respect for Jackson's military skills just plummeted.
On the other hand, Lee's lack of planning and woefull execution of the Gettysburg campaign pretty much either reduces it to that level (my belief) it was Lee planned all along.
And if this was Jackson's plan it may be more than a coincidence that Lee ended up with the same plan.

Regards,
Jack

Interpretation of history is not perception or inclination. It is not a divine revelation.
 It is not interpretation of pick and choose evidence.
It is simply what really happened.

Tom Ryan <pennmardel at mchsi.com> wrote:

>Esteemed GDG Member Contributes:
>My recollection of this book, read several years ago, is that it laid out
>pretty clearly the thinking of Davis, Lee and Jackson about the timing for
>invading the North, and the effort that should be put forth in that
>endeavor.
>
>Jackson, I believe, was anxious for immediate invasion.  His plan was to
>march an army of some 40,000 men into the North, and cause so much havoc and
>damage that the government in Washington would be brought to its knees --
>forcing it to agree to a peace settlement.
>
>Davis I think was somewhat supportive of Jackson's approach, yet was not
>quite ready to approve such a venture.
>
>Lee, on the other hand, held out for more time to accomplish other military
>objectives.  He was, however, in favor of an invasion, but he felt the
>timing had to be just right.
>
>The first attempt at full-scale invasion was intercepted by McClellan's
>forces, and resulted in the confrontation at Sharpsburg, MD.  The second
>invasion, of course, led to the Battle of Gettysburg.
>
>Tom Ryan
>
>--------------------------------------------------------
>
>>>>Here I would refer members of this list to that quirky but
>>>>thought-provoking book, James A. Kegel's *North with Lee and Jackson*
>>>
>
>  Mentioned that same book in a post this morning. Just was sitting on the
>bookshelf - then when this thread in the group began - out it finally came -
>it's a shame - it is "quirky" - but one of the few revisionist books that
>makes a great case, and he backs it up with quite a bit of primary &
>secondary sources.
>
>Regards,
>Tom B.
>
>
>
>
>
>----------------http://www.arthes.com/mailman/listinfo/gettysburg_arthes.com
> -to unsubscribe
>http://arthes.com/pipermail/gettysburg_arthes.com/ for Archives
>
>
>----------------http://www.arthes.com/mailman/listinfo/gettysburg_arthes.com -to unsubscribe
>http://arthes.com/pipermail/gettysburg_arthes.com/ for Archives


More information about the Gettysburg mailing list