Customer Reviews

Vicksburg: The Campaign That Opened the Mississippi (Civil War America)

5 star:		(5)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Ballard has written an informative account of the Vicksburg campaign and believes that the Union won through superior generalship and naval power. According to Ballard Grant and his subordinates acted as a team while the Confederate side was hindered by constant infighting between Johnston and Pemberton. Moreover,Pemberton was unable to react to Grant's moves, but Grant was looking for new innovative moves to distract and outflank the Confederates. Naval power also played a key role in helping Grant transport troops and block reinforcements from entering Vicksburg. The only drawback to this book is that Ballard doesn't mention new research by Terrence Winschel,Timothy Smith, and others in his book. Otherwise this book is destined to be a classic account of the Vicksburg campaign.

This is a good book for anyone interested in studying on the Civil War. As the author mentions, this campaign to capture Vicksburg is a rather unknown period of the war and this is a good book on this campaign. It has its plusses and its minuses. On the positive side, it covers the campaign in detail with a number of human interest stories. The experiences of the citizens and soldiers who lived in Vicksburg, e.g. living in caves, the casualties, the experiences of soldiers in the hospitals (for example, he goes through the procedure that a doctor used to remove a leg - interesting although somewhat gruesome but it highlights the suffering). He is an apparent fan of Pemberton (although he recognizes his mistakes well) and not a fan of Joe Johnston (but I haven't found a Civil War writer who is...). He covers them well and also the top Union generals: Grant, Sherman and McClernand, including Grant's supposed bouts with alcohol and the feud between McClernand and Grant. This is a balanced coverage. On the minuses side, I found myself getting confused at times about what was really happening. For example, the coverage of the battles including the maps which are very confusing, which ramble about this unit and that unit going this way and that. The early book with this Confederate general and that Confederate general doing this and that is also confusing and may cause you to get you to get frustrated with the book, but stick with it. At one point, he has Pemberton in Vicksburg and needing to go to Vicksburg in the same paragraph. So, I read it again, and... huh. But then the story picks up when Grant tries one approach versus another to reach Vicksburg and decides on approaching it from the South. This is very interesting showing the chess moves between Grant, Pemberton and Johnston which Grant ultimately won. This is a good book, on a period that should be covered more. It may be confusing because unlike Gettysburg, where each writer can read the other books and build on them, there are few sources. So, I recommend it.

The Vicksburg seige campaign of 1862-1863 has had a few good books written on it, one for instance being Edwin Bearss 3 volumes. But for the general reader desiring only one volume, this latest one from Civil War America, Gary Gallagher editor, from Chapel Hill should be a welcome issue.

The author certainly has credentials. The campaign has been of interest to him since his first trip to the battlefield from his childhood home in north-central Mississippi. He still looks forward to each visit yet today to the "Gibraltar of the Confederacy." And when one marries his wife on Fort Hill, it is safe to say Vicksburg runs through this man's entire being.

Battles and campaigns of the Western Theater of Operations can yet today receive little notice from even the most serious reader of the civil war. It sometimes seems the only army in the field was the Army of the Potomac. And with a new book by Jeffry D. Wert soon to arrive on "Lincoln's Sword," the books keep rolling out. And when thinks of the attention Gettysburg has received, one must think in the 1000s where Gettysburg books are concerned.

Yet most readers know that the area of the Army of the Potomac was not the sole area of combat involved. And recently we have been given some very good works on the Western Theater. Such books as the recent "Days of Glory" by Larry J. Daniel, "That Body of Brave Men" by Mark W. Johnson, and the earlier two volume work, "Army of the Heartland" by Thomas Lawrence Connelly, are only three that grace my civil war bookshelf. And it is to be remembered that U.S. Grant too came from this very area. Though some may have questions of General Grant, it does seem a fact that under his generalship the Army of the Potomac began to win battles.

A prevailing feeling today is that neither North nor South may have seen Gettysburg to have the importance we now place on it. Southern newspapers of the time did not view it necessarily as the end of the war. Neither did the North. Yet each area realized immediately just what value Vicksburg held, and what an extreme cost it was for the South to have lost control of the Mississippi. And Ben Butler is still reviled in that area today!

Being from Ohio, I have great interest in movement of the OVI and Ohio cavalry units, and that places my reading quite often in this Western Theatre. There are many things of interest in this book. Even the seasoned reader will find enjoyment here.

And though the Vicksburg campaign ended, many of the southern men fought on. Though they were paroled after surrender at Vicksburg, many were later at Chattanooga to face General Grant once again!

Semper Fi.

Mr.Ballard's book is another popular history,it contains little if any new information excepting a defense/excuse of the CS commander Gen. Pemberton.

US Gen.Grant is given considerable credit and deservedly so. The various Union naval commanders; Farragut, Porter etc get much attention also. Mr. Ballard does do a fair job of placing credit on both side's better commanders and lambasts CS Gen. Joe Johnston constantly. He lists the manuevering and prior failures of Union forces throughout the Mississippi region but successfully does so without losing the reader.

However, detail is lacking and the writing style itself is tepid and uninspiring. Contrary to some of the other reviewers, I found the maps poorly drawn and overly cluttered. Done in one color, roads and streams litter the maps; competing with arrows listing advances and retreats and unit markers do not differ between CS/US, infantry or cavalry...an attempt to clarify this on this small maps lists various brigade/division unit commanders but without listing what side is what. Numerous misspellings imply either poor editors or poor research. He consistently describes units as "crack" outfits to the point of the reader wondering, were there any "normal" units present? Any force smaller than a battalion or regiment is listed as a patrol or roadblock. His handling of first person history, the best aspect of recent military writings, is slipshod and often generalised. Few regiments are listed and in general, brigades get the most mention in combat descriptions.

A bright spot was the emphasis on the various naval movements in and about the Vicksburg area. Union naval ability and the Confederate lack of, gets serious and well deserved attention.

Mr. Ballard's theme of the Western Theater being the war winner is well supported by many other current works. Overall, this book is no masterpiece nor is Ballard a Pfanz as a writer. Well read students of this theater will not be well served by purchase of the book but it is a fair one for general or new readers to the subject.

After going to the battleground several times I wanted a book that would give me a better perspective of what happened. This book accomplished this and more. You get a great understanding of the strategic significance of Vickburg to both the Confederacy and the Union. Also, you get clear pictures of the horrors of war and how battles are often won or lost by pure luck.

Dr, Michael Ballard has written an excellent book on the Vicksburg Campaign. Ballard has had good mentors in his study of the Mississippi River City which fell to US Grant in July, 1863
He is has been guided by Terry Wenschel the National Park Chief Historian; read the massive three volume work by Mr. Civil
War Ed Bearss on the campaign and is a lifelong native of Mississipi who has visited Vicksburg since his youth.
Vicksburg was a complex campaign pitting the inept Northern Born Confederate General John Pemberton against the aggressive and brilliant US Grant. Grant's Union Army worked well as a team.
Even though Grant did not like McClernand he used him well in launching the blue horde against the city on the bluffs. Grant
worked well with Sherman and McPherson, Logan and others as they tried many ideas to conquer Vicksburg. Grant and David Dixon Porter worked well on coordinating army-navy operations.
Grant succeeded when his forces crossed the Mississippi to
Bruinsburg, Ms. Union victories at Port Gibson, Jackson and
most importantly Champion Hill (May 16, 1863) led to a 47 day
siege of Vicksburg which fell to Federal forces on July 4, 1863
Vicksburge the key to victory in the Western Theatre was then
put into Mr. Lincoln's pocket. The fate of the Western Confederacy was sealed.
I am surprised how little many Civil War buffs seem to know little about the Western Theatre of the War. Those whose approach has been "Virginia-centric" will find much to explore as they gaze at the Western Theatre.
Grant emerges as a tough, imaginative, never say never commander while the Confederates Pemberton and Joe Johnston wee weak and indecisive leaders. Grant's star rose in the West as Lincoln discovered the man who could beat Lee and win the war!
Ballard's book is well illustrated; the maps are clear and
easy to follow. Ballard has done his homework as the many pages of bibliography attest to his acumen. While dealing with the battles he also quotes the thoughts of civilians of Vicksburg and Misssippi who saw their society rent asunder by the blue
hordes from the north.
Ed Bearss is still the dean of Vicksburg scholars but Michael Ballard has also contributed greatly to our understanding of this vital, complex, too often overlooked campaign. This book
can be read by the buff or the neophyte with equal pleasure. Thank you Dr. Ballard for your work!

Look, we all love reading about the Civil War, but after finishing this book, I felt vaguely ill. This isn't a bad book, but the author is a Mississippian and shares an unconscious bias common to authors on the war: He sees grandeur and pathos in what was, at heart, nothing but mass treason by a nasty lot of bullies.
There is nothing tragic about the fate of slaveowning Mississippi. When Ballard calmly describes a slaveowner's son shooting black women because they were so overjoyed at the arrival of federal troops that they refused to do their mistress's laundry, I find myself wishing that the North had prosecuted the war according to European norms (as foreign officers like Turchin very sensibly attempted to do), and taught the smug, ignorant, violent Calvinist vampires of the South the error of their ways at bayonet-point.
The reason we keep getting books like this, which make tragedy out of what was simply an overly mild, belated punishment of utter vileness, is that the Southern elite has never recovered, or learned anything, from its experience, and must go on retelling it to find a sham Walter Scott chivalry (to paraphrase Mark Twain) in what was no more noble than a madman's struggle with the attendants who are trying to restrain him.

The newer research on the Civil War suggests that it was won in the west and that the action in the east is not what caused the end of the war. Vicksburg was the crucial campaign in the west and while this book can get bogged down in details it does a very good job of providing information. The challenge of taking this city on a hill and the importance of the navy are all well explained here. A look at what happened to the south as the war progressed is not readily apparent but if read in between the lines it is easy to see what happened. The analysis about the importance of opening up the Mississippi to union forces is very good and brings new light on a subject that needs a lot more exploring and debate.

I like this book for several reasons.Number one, Mr Ballard is very sincere and called everything by its name.When it comes to describing generals and soldiers on either side of the conflict,he tells it like it is.Number two, the way Mr Ballard describes the military campaign in all its details it's terrific which helped me understand the imporatnce of every battle and the strategies involved.The only flaw in the book is really a minor one which is that sometimes the author gives too many details in things that i dont think are not that important.BUt ,in general, it's a very good book!