What do you think?
Rate this book
Vicksburg Campaign #1
Early Struggles for Vicksburg: The Mississippi Central Campaign and Chickasaw Bayou, October 25-December 31, 1862
In Early Struggles for Vicksburg, Tim Smith covers the first phase of the Vicksburg campaign (October 1862-July 1863), involving perhaps the most wide-ranging and complex series of efforts seen in the entire campaign. The operations that took place from late October to the end of December 1862 covered six states, consisted of four intertwined minicampaigns, and saw the involvement of everything from cavalry raids to naval operations in addition to pitched land battles in Ulysses S. Grant's first attempts to reach Vicksburg.
This fall-winter campaign that marked the first of the major efforts to reach Vicksburg was the epitome of the by-the-book concepts of military theory of the day. But the first major Union attempts to capture Vicksburg late in 1862 were also disjointed, unorganized, and spread out across a wide spectrum. The Confederates were thus able to parry each threat, although Grant, in his newly assumed position as commander of the Department of the Tennessee, learned from his mistakes and revised his methods in later operations, leading eventually to the fall of Vicksburg. It was war done the way academics would want it done, but Grant figured out quickly that the books did not always have the answers, and he adapted his approach thereafter.
Smith comprehensively weaves the Mississippi Central, Chickasaw Bayou, Van Dorn Raid, and Forrest Raid operations into a chronological narrative while illustrating the combination of various branches and services such as army movements, naval operations, and cavalry raids. Early Struggles for Vicksburg is accordingly the first comprehensive academic book ever to examine the Mississippi Central/Chickasaw Bayou campaign and is built upon hundreds of soldier-level sources. Massive in research and scope, this book covers everything from the top politicians and generals down to the individual soldiers, as well as civilians and slaves making their way to freedom, while providing analysis of contemporary military theory to explain why the operations took the form they did.
This fall-winter campaign that marked the first of the major efforts to reach Vicksburg was the epitome of the by-the-book concepts of military theory of the day. But the first major Union attempts to capture Vicksburg late in 1862 were also disjointed, unorganized, and spread out across a wide spectrum. The Confederates were thus able to parry each threat, although Grant, in his newly assumed position as commander of the Department of the Tennessee, learned from his mistakes and revised his methods in later operations, leading eventually to the fall of Vicksburg. It was war done the way academics would want it done, but Grant figured out quickly that the books did not always have the answers, and he adapted his approach thereafter.
Smith comprehensively weaves the Mississippi Central, Chickasaw Bayou, Van Dorn Raid, and Forrest Raid operations into a chronological narrative while illustrating the combination of various branches and services such as army movements, naval operations, and cavalry raids. Early Struggles for Vicksburg is accordingly the first comprehensive academic book ever to examine the Mississippi Central/Chickasaw Bayou campaign and is built upon hundreds of soldier-level sources. Massive in research and scope, this book covers everything from the top politicians and generals down to the individual soldiers, as well as civilians and slaves making their way to freedom, while providing analysis of contemporary military theory to explain why the operations took the form they did.
- GenresCivil War
632 pages, Hardcover
First published June 28, 2022
6 people are currently reading
47 people want to read
About the author
Timothy B. Smith
38 books22 followersA former NPS ranger at Shiloh, Timothy B. Smith teaches history at the University of Tennessee at Martin.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews
January 10, 2023
In the last twenty years Timothy B. Smith has been among the most prolific Civil War military historians. Most of his work concerns the western theater, in particular the battles of Ulysses S. Grant. Smith has proven in this time to be pro-Grant and has along with men such as Brooks D. Simpson, led to positive reappraisal of Grant. It is not that Grant was ever truly considered a bad commander. His praises have been sung ever since Fort Donelson fell and a man held in low regard would not be rewarded with a gargantuan tomb. Yet, the general has had vocal critics ever since Shiloh, and the debate between these men has defined how Grant is viewed. Currently, he is at one of his high points despite a few well argued books to the contrary. Those who dislike Grant are very interested in his failed first Vicksburg campaign and his defenders have always tried minimize it. This puts Smith in an interesting position in Early Struggles for Vicksburg: The Mississippi Central Campaign and Chickasaw Bayou, October 25-December 31, 1862.
Smith has never shied away from long books and Early Struggles for Vicksburg is particularly lengthy. The text itself is a bit longer than his work on Shiloh and Fort Donelson. In some ways its warranted. Smith describes this as the most complicated campaign of the war up to that point given the forces and distances involved (George McClellan might beg to differ) and it was crucial to delaying the war and in nearly ending Grant’s command (a point I hope Smith discusses in his follow up work). It also saw only one battle and it was all things considered a small one. Otherwise there are the cavalry raids by Nathan Bedford Forrest and Earl Van Dorn, but precious little action. As such much of the first half is a slog. It is not that what Smith is discussing is not interesting, but it gets bogged down in details and particularly anecdotes and asides, some of which had me scratching my head. Why do we get a page about the song “Ode to Billy Joe” and the death of Emmett Till?
The books shines when the action starts with the cavalry raids and the battle of Chickasaw Bayou. Smith has always been good at describing action and incorporating first-hand accounts and analysis with a good narrative. His chapter on the destruction of Holly Springs might be among his very best. I was captivated by it from start to finish.
Smith’s analysis of commanders has usually been good and fair, and Early Struggles for Vicksburg mostly lives up this. John C. Pemberton comes across well here, even if he did not conceive of Van Dorn’s raid and he seemed to hop around from position to position. Yet, he stayed calmed, moved troops around quickly, made sure Van Dorn led the raid, and he was well informed of Grant’s maneuvers. Smith is harsh towards William Tecumseh Sherman for bungling at Chickasaw Bayou, although Sherman’s duplicity in regards to John McClernand is not adequately addressed. Indeed, the conspiracy to rob McClernand of his command and ignore orders from Abraham Lincoln and Edwin Stanton might be treated too kindly and Smith does not seem to pick up that perhaps Henry Halleck’s supposed animosity towards Grant has been overstated. Halleck at least could tolerate Grant but not McClernand. Grant himself is criticized but here in curious fashion. I am not wholly satisfied with Smith’s take on the Jewish order, as it is clear from what I have read that Grant was very much antisemitic (as was Sherman). The treatment of blacks in Grant’s department is also not explained in as much detail or nuance as I would have preferred. Grant’s failure to adequately defend Holly Springs or send out his cavalry to find Van Dorn is mentioned but the point could be made more heavily.
Smith tries to pass off Grant’s failure to Halleck, in that Grant was trying to follow the precepts of Antoine-Henri Jomini via Halleck, an argument Grant made after the war when by that time he and Halleck had a true falling out. This devotion to Jomini is set in opposition to the ideas of Carl von Clausewitz, who Smith believes Grant inadvertently embraced even if he likely never heard of him. It is an interesting idea that goes back to the ongoing Jomini vs. Clausewitz debate which has generally favored the later. I found this idea unconvincing. First, Smith does not lay out in any definitive way how Grant embraced Clausewitz’s supposedly superior ideas beyond the quest for a battle of annihilation. I do not think Grant ever really embraced that. Even his thinking in Virginia in 1864 emphasized maneuver and strategic points. The times he did go for annihilation he failed. Second, Jomini’s ideas never fell out of favor and were well used by a variety of commanders, whether they knew of his work or not, throughout the war. I do not see in Grant any tacit rejection of Jomini; in Virginia Grant made his best strides when he used maneuver and he made sure his logistics were in order. While I too prefer Clausewitz, I think most contemporary critiques of Jomini are simplistic and I think Smith fell for the trap here.
Early Struggles for Vicksburg is a good book despite some flaws. The description of campaign maneuvers and battle is excellent. The analysis of commanders is good, even if Grant is treated with a lighter touch than he deserves. In particular, Smith’s analysis of Pemberton shows his strengths and weaknesses as a commander, a welcome reprieve from decades of scapegoating. However, the book is perhaps too long and meandering and its conceit of Jomini vs. Clausewitz does not work once one considers the campaigns before and after Chickasaw Bayou. Yet, this is the best book on the campaign all around. It fills a vital hole, as most histories of the struggle for Vicksburg always seem anxious to get to the part where David Porter runs the guns. Yet, in Smith’s great body of work it does not equal his superb books on Fort Donelson, Shiloh, Champion Hill, and to a lesser degree Corinth. In that regard perhaps I am spoiled. Early Struggles for Vicksburg is not bad the same way Led Zeppelin’s Presence is not a bad album. However, when the proceeding work is of the caliber of Houses of the Holy and Led Zeppelin II ones expects too much perfection from people as good as Timothy B. Smith and Jimmy Page. And I would still strong recommend Early Struggles for Vicksburg and Presence.
Smith has never shied away from long books and Early Struggles for Vicksburg is particularly lengthy. The text itself is a bit longer than his work on Shiloh and Fort Donelson. In some ways its warranted. Smith describes this as the most complicated campaign of the war up to that point given the forces and distances involved (George McClellan might beg to differ) and it was crucial to delaying the war and in nearly ending Grant’s command (a point I hope Smith discusses in his follow up work). It also saw only one battle and it was all things considered a small one. Otherwise there are the cavalry raids by Nathan Bedford Forrest and Earl Van Dorn, but precious little action. As such much of the first half is a slog. It is not that what Smith is discussing is not interesting, but it gets bogged down in details and particularly anecdotes and asides, some of which had me scratching my head. Why do we get a page about the song “Ode to Billy Joe” and the death of Emmett Till?
The books shines when the action starts with the cavalry raids and the battle of Chickasaw Bayou. Smith has always been good at describing action and incorporating first-hand accounts and analysis with a good narrative. His chapter on the destruction of Holly Springs might be among his very best. I was captivated by it from start to finish.
Smith’s analysis of commanders has usually been good and fair, and Early Struggles for Vicksburg mostly lives up this. John C. Pemberton comes across well here, even if he did not conceive of Van Dorn’s raid and he seemed to hop around from position to position. Yet, he stayed calmed, moved troops around quickly, made sure Van Dorn led the raid, and he was well informed of Grant’s maneuvers. Smith is harsh towards William Tecumseh Sherman for bungling at Chickasaw Bayou, although Sherman’s duplicity in regards to John McClernand is not adequately addressed. Indeed, the conspiracy to rob McClernand of his command and ignore orders from Abraham Lincoln and Edwin Stanton might be treated too kindly and Smith does not seem to pick up that perhaps Henry Halleck’s supposed animosity towards Grant has been overstated. Halleck at least could tolerate Grant but not McClernand. Grant himself is criticized but here in curious fashion. I am not wholly satisfied with Smith’s take on the Jewish order, as it is clear from what I have read that Grant was very much antisemitic (as was Sherman). The treatment of blacks in Grant’s department is also not explained in as much detail or nuance as I would have preferred. Grant’s failure to adequately defend Holly Springs or send out his cavalry to find Van Dorn is mentioned but the point could be made more heavily.
Smith tries to pass off Grant’s failure to Halleck, in that Grant was trying to follow the precepts of Antoine-Henri Jomini via Halleck, an argument Grant made after the war when by that time he and Halleck had a true falling out. This devotion to Jomini is set in opposition to the ideas of Carl von Clausewitz, who Smith believes Grant inadvertently embraced even if he likely never heard of him. It is an interesting idea that goes back to the ongoing Jomini vs. Clausewitz debate which has generally favored the later. I found this idea unconvincing. First, Smith does not lay out in any definitive way how Grant embraced Clausewitz’s supposedly superior ideas beyond the quest for a battle of annihilation. I do not think Grant ever really embraced that. Even his thinking in Virginia in 1864 emphasized maneuver and strategic points. The times he did go for annihilation he failed. Second, Jomini’s ideas never fell out of favor and were well used by a variety of commanders, whether they knew of his work or not, throughout the war. I do not see in Grant any tacit rejection of Jomini; in Virginia Grant made his best strides when he used maneuver and he made sure his logistics were in order. While I too prefer Clausewitz, I think most contemporary critiques of Jomini are simplistic and I think Smith fell for the trap here.
Early Struggles for Vicksburg is a good book despite some flaws. The description of campaign maneuvers and battle is excellent. The analysis of commanders is good, even if Grant is treated with a lighter touch than he deserves. In particular, Smith’s analysis of Pemberton shows his strengths and weaknesses as a commander, a welcome reprieve from decades of scapegoating. However, the book is perhaps too long and meandering and its conceit of Jomini vs. Clausewitz does not work once one considers the campaigns before and after Chickasaw Bayou. Yet, this is the best book on the campaign all around. It fills a vital hole, as most histories of the struggle for Vicksburg always seem anxious to get to the part where David Porter runs the guns. Yet, in Smith’s great body of work it does not equal his superb books on Fort Donelson, Shiloh, Champion Hill, and to a lesser degree Corinth. In that regard perhaps I am spoiled. Early Struggles for Vicksburg is not bad the same way Led Zeppelin’s Presence is not a bad album. However, when the proceeding work is of the caliber of Houses of the Holy and Led Zeppelin II ones expects too much perfection from people as good as Timothy B. Smith and Jimmy Page. And I would still strong recommend Early Struggles for Vicksburg and Presence.
May 9, 2024
This was a fantastic book, the first of five covering the Vicksburg Campaign of 1862-63.
What was good? The clear explanations of the strategy employed by both combatants, and the effects on the political as well as social aspects that occurred. This was a long campaign, and there were many mistakes by both sides, especially by the Union side in this early phase covered by the book. But both sides learned from their mistakes, and future volumes will continue the drama as the campaign approaches its climax.
But this volumes covers the initial buildup and advance by Grants army as it went down the railroad from Tennessee to keep his communications and lines of supply open. He made good progress, and outflanked the defending Confederates at several critical river crossings. But, Earl Van Dorn and Nathan Bedford Forrest conducted some of the most devastating cavalry raids of the war against those vulnerable supply lines and that fact alone amounted to a defeat of Grant and his campaign to take Vicksburg by the overland route.
Meanwhile, W.T. Sherman was unleashed to take Vicksburg from the river by landing on the Yazoo River (a tributary of the Mississippi) and gaining the Walnut Hills to dominate the nearby town. But, this also ended in failure in and around the swamps of the Chickasaw Bayou. So, at the end of the book the Federals were stopped and a whole new strategy had to be developed. And I’m sure the rest of the four volumes will complete this story.
Smiths writing is clear, with good maps, and many first person accounts to get the voice of the participants into the story. No negatives from me!
What was good? The clear explanations of the strategy employed by both combatants, and the effects on the political as well as social aspects that occurred. This was a long campaign, and there were many mistakes by both sides, especially by the Union side in this early phase covered by the book. But both sides learned from their mistakes, and future volumes will continue the drama as the campaign approaches its climax.
But this volumes covers the initial buildup and advance by Grants army as it went down the railroad from Tennessee to keep his communications and lines of supply open. He made good progress, and outflanked the defending Confederates at several critical river crossings. But, Earl Van Dorn and Nathan Bedford Forrest conducted some of the most devastating cavalry raids of the war against those vulnerable supply lines and that fact alone amounted to a defeat of Grant and his campaign to take Vicksburg by the overland route.
Meanwhile, W.T. Sherman was unleashed to take Vicksburg from the river by landing on the Yazoo River (a tributary of the Mississippi) and gaining the Walnut Hills to dominate the nearby town. But, this also ended in failure in and around the swamps of the Chickasaw Bayou. So, at the end of the book the Federals were stopped and a whole new strategy had to be developed. And I’m sure the rest of the four volumes will complete this story.
Smiths writing is clear, with good maps, and many first person accounts to get the voice of the participants into the story. No negatives from me!
May 22, 2024
Do you want it fast or do you want it good?
Timothy B. Smith's five-volume history of the Vicksburg campaign, judging by Early Struggles for Vicksburg, the first volume chronologically in the completed series (more on that later), manages to pull off both — but perhaps just barely.
Let's start with that timing. Smith somehow got these five volumes written/published (by University Press of Kansas; very pricey) in a little more than four years. History takes time (!); that prolific output is suspiciously fast, even if Smith is considered among the greatest living experts of the Vicksburg Campaign and the Civil War in the Mississippi Valley. That's 2,117 pages of narrative, 2,976 pages in total. Oh, and during that time period, his biography of Albert Sidney Johnston was published. Not that long ago, he wrote histories of the battles of Fort Henry and Fort Donelson, Shiloh, and Corinth. And he seems to have written more than a dozen other books. And he's not particularly old. Holy crap! We're not exactly dealing with George R.R. Martin, are we?
So this book — full title Early Struggles for Vicksburg: The Mississippi Central Campaign and Chickasaw Bayou, October 25–December 31, 1862 — is good, often very good; Smith pulled it off. But are there signs of haste?
Well, yes. This book, at least, gives indications of being quickly (or not scrupulously) edited. Smith sometimes repeats himself in slightly different form even in the same paragraph; a good editing job would have trimmed the unnecessary info. Smith's writing is good, but a few sentences go clunk, using odd phrasing that Smith should have gone back to the drawing board to improve. Like this from Chapter 14: "But more than just the freezing temperatures or lack of adequate rations made individual soldiers gasp; the movement of armies composed of those miserable soldiers caused the collective nation to shudder." Break that groaner down and its two parts don't make a lick of sense together. Smith also has a repetitive stylistic tick — you'll notice it very early on — that has nothing whatsoever wrong with it in itself but that gets slightly annoying when the author falls back on it again and again (I'll let you figure that one out yourself). Also, there are a few typos but not on a disastrous scale.
So, yes, this feels rushed. One wonders whether the publication order had anything to do with it. Oddly, though the first book in chronological history, Early Struggles was the third book published. Union Assaults at Vicksburg, fourth in order by date covered, was the first to appear. I strongly suspect this tack was taken because Earl J. Hess was about to publish his own book on the Union assaults at Vicksburg, and Smith and his publisher wanted to beat Hess to the punch (they did). Smith followed with his book on the climax of the campaign — the Vicksburg siege — and then circled back to the start of the campaign for the other three books.
But, again, this book itself is good. It's never boring; pointless digressions are almost nonexistent. This opening volume, covering a little more than two months, could be divided into three main parts: Ulysses Grant's Mississippi Central campaign; Confederate raids on supply lines that caused that approach to grind to a halt; and William Sherman's disastrous attempts to take Vicksburg along Chickasaw Bayou a few miles from that river citadel. Smith does a good job of tying these threads together, particularly in explaining clearly how Nathan Bedford Forrest and Earl Van Dorn's cavalry raids threw a wrench in Grant's plans.
Smith's writing is clear and snappy, for the most part, though his style of covering a part of the campaign from one army's point of view, then going over it again from the other's, can be a little confusing until you get used to it. He walks that tightrope of being very thorough without disappearing down the rabbit hole of minutiae. Smith also presents an amazing number of soldier sources, something that was lacking in Edwin Bearss' gigantic three-volume history of the Vicksburg campaign. Bearss, though he probably knew more about Vicksburg than anyone, didn't always pinpoint where that knowledge was coming from; judging by his books' notes alone, he relied overwhelmingly on the Official Records. Smith's scholarship is far more wide-ranging, quite welcome because a multivolume Vicksburg Campaign history with wider and more up-to-date scholarship than Bearss' (though his books are good) was sorely needed.
Sometimes in moving things along, Smith neglects to properly reintroduce minor figures who haven't been mentioned for 120 pages (wait ... who was [Robert C.] Murphy, again?). Also, don't look for biographical information about anyone. Not Smith's approach, and I appreciate that. But occasionally a paragraph or two of the characters' history would have deepened the story. Likewise, a short history of the city of Vicksburg? No time for that; Smith is just off and running.
I'm nitpicking some here, though. I want to stress that I was impressed and absorbed by Early Struggles for Vicksburg even if the occasional lack of editing tightness (and Smith's repeatedly pounding into our heads that Grant's strategic moves were based on Swiss theorist Antoine-Henri Jomini's principles; enough already!) forced me to reluctantly knock its rating down a star. It's a fairly strong first volume (there's no reason to read these in published order) in a much-needed, huge history of the campaign. It's just not — so far — the masterpiece I was kind of hoping for.
Timothy B. Smith's five-volume history of the Vicksburg campaign, judging by Early Struggles for Vicksburg, the first volume chronologically in the completed series (more on that later), manages to pull off both — but perhaps just barely.
Let's start with that timing. Smith somehow got these five volumes written/published (by University Press of Kansas; very pricey) in a little more than four years. History takes time (!); that prolific output is suspiciously fast, even if Smith is considered among the greatest living experts of the Vicksburg Campaign and the Civil War in the Mississippi Valley. That's 2,117 pages of narrative, 2,976 pages in total. Oh, and during that time period, his biography of Albert Sidney Johnston was published. Not that long ago, he wrote histories of the battles of Fort Henry and Fort Donelson, Shiloh, and Corinth. And he seems to have written more than a dozen other books. And he's not particularly old. Holy crap! We're not exactly dealing with George R.R. Martin, are we?
So this book — full title Early Struggles for Vicksburg: The Mississippi Central Campaign and Chickasaw Bayou, October 25–December 31, 1862 — is good, often very good; Smith pulled it off. But are there signs of haste?
Well, yes. This book, at least, gives indications of being quickly (or not scrupulously) edited. Smith sometimes repeats himself in slightly different form even in the same paragraph; a good editing job would have trimmed the unnecessary info. Smith's writing is good, but a few sentences go clunk, using odd phrasing that Smith should have gone back to the drawing board to improve. Like this from Chapter 14: "But more than just the freezing temperatures or lack of adequate rations made individual soldiers gasp; the movement of armies composed of those miserable soldiers caused the collective nation to shudder." Break that groaner down and its two parts don't make a lick of sense together. Smith also has a repetitive stylistic tick — you'll notice it very early on — that has nothing whatsoever wrong with it in itself but that gets slightly annoying when the author falls back on it again and again (I'll let you figure that one out yourself). Also, there are a few typos but not on a disastrous scale.
So, yes, this feels rushed. One wonders whether the publication order had anything to do with it. Oddly, though the first book in chronological history, Early Struggles was the third book published. Union Assaults at Vicksburg, fourth in order by date covered, was the first to appear. I strongly suspect this tack was taken because Earl J. Hess was about to publish his own book on the Union assaults at Vicksburg, and Smith and his publisher wanted to beat Hess to the punch (they did). Smith followed with his book on the climax of the campaign — the Vicksburg siege — and then circled back to the start of the campaign for the other three books.
But, again, this book itself is good. It's never boring; pointless digressions are almost nonexistent. This opening volume, covering a little more than two months, could be divided into three main parts: Ulysses Grant's Mississippi Central campaign; Confederate raids on supply lines that caused that approach to grind to a halt; and William Sherman's disastrous attempts to take Vicksburg along Chickasaw Bayou a few miles from that river citadel. Smith does a good job of tying these threads together, particularly in explaining clearly how Nathan Bedford Forrest and Earl Van Dorn's cavalry raids threw a wrench in Grant's plans.
Smith's writing is clear and snappy, for the most part, though his style of covering a part of the campaign from one army's point of view, then going over it again from the other's, can be a little confusing until you get used to it. He walks that tightrope of being very thorough without disappearing down the rabbit hole of minutiae. Smith also presents an amazing number of soldier sources, something that was lacking in Edwin Bearss' gigantic three-volume history of the Vicksburg campaign. Bearss, though he probably knew more about Vicksburg than anyone, didn't always pinpoint where that knowledge was coming from; judging by his books' notes alone, he relied overwhelmingly on the Official Records. Smith's scholarship is far more wide-ranging, quite welcome because a multivolume Vicksburg Campaign history with wider and more up-to-date scholarship than Bearss' (though his books are good) was sorely needed.
Sometimes in moving things along, Smith neglects to properly reintroduce minor figures who haven't been mentioned for 120 pages (wait ... who was [Robert C.] Murphy, again?). Also, don't look for biographical information about anyone. Not Smith's approach, and I appreciate that. But occasionally a paragraph or two of the characters' history would have deepened the story. Likewise, a short history of the city of Vicksburg? No time for that; Smith is just off and running.
I'm nitpicking some here, though. I want to stress that I was impressed and absorbed by Early Struggles for Vicksburg even if the occasional lack of editing tightness (and Smith's repeatedly pounding into our heads that Grant's strategic moves were based on Swiss theorist Antoine-Henri Jomini's principles; enough already!) forced me to reluctantly knock its rating down a star. It's a fairly strong first volume (there's no reason to read these in published order) in a much-needed, huge history of the campaign. It's just not — so far — the masterpiece I was kind of hoping for.
July 18, 2022
Another classic work from Tim Smith. I dropped one star for the first 150 pages or so that describe the interminably slow advance of Grant down the Mississippi Central RR. Smith is repetitious here and I felt could have covered this part of the campaign in 1/2 or 2/3 as many pages. But once the Forrest and Van Dorn raids get started, we’re back to the normal excellence of Smith’s volumes.
Smith describes in the forward this book as the first volume of a five volume study of the Vicksburg Campaign. His earlier books on the Assaults and the Siege would be volumes four and five. I presume he will write a volume Two on the various unsuccessful efforts of Grant to bypass the fortress and volume three would cover the crossing of the river, Port Gibson/Raymond/Jackson/Champion Hill/ Big Black River Bridge. His earlier book on Champion Hill is not part of the five volume series he envisions.
Smith describes in the forward this book as the first volume of a five volume study of the Vicksburg Campaign. His earlier books on the Assaults and the Siege would be volumes four and five. I presume he will write a volume Two on the various unsuccessful efforts of Grant to bypass the fortress and volume three would cover the crossing of the river, Port Gibson/Raymond/Jackson/Champion Hill/ Big Black River Bridge. His earlier book on Champion Hill is not part of the five volume series he envisions.
May 10, 2023
An excellent examination of Grant’s first attempt to take Vicksburg. Smith takes the reader through a well written, well researched account of Grant’s overland attempt in Mississippi. He thoroughly describes how and why the campaign failed. If you have read his Fort Donelson, Shiloh, Corinth trilogy, this book picks up where you left off. This is the first of five volumes on the Vicksburg Campaign.
March 14, 2025
I am reluctant to rate this so low considering the good information provided within this book, but I simply cannot get over the sloppy editing and prose. There are sentences that end paragraphs that are nearly repeated word for word in the next. At the end of the day, I do not like how Smith writes. Judging by other reviews, this is something that I am fairly alone in, so take that with a grain of salt. I might not have enjoyed this books, but others have and will continue to do so.
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews