Vicksburg: The Campaign That Opened The Mississippi

Civil War America

by Michael B. Ballard

Michael Ballard provides a concise yet thorough study of the 1863 battle that cut off a crucial river port and rail depot for the South and split the Confederate nation, providing a turning point in the Civil War. The Union victory at Vicksburg was hailed with as much celebration in the North as the Gettysburg victory and Ballard makes a convincing case that it was equally important to the ultimate resolution of the conflict.

Genres: Civil War, History, American Civil War, Military Fiction, Military History, Nonfiction, American History

512 pages, Hardcover

First published October 25, 2004

About the author

Michael B. Ballard is university archivist and coordinator of the Congressional and Political Research Center at Mississippi State University.

Reviews

[Joseph · Rating 5 out of 5]

The best single volume treatment of the campaign that I've come across. The author does an awesome job of balancing quotations and narrative content. We learn that, although overshadowed by the Gettysburg campaign in the East, Vicksburg might actually be the turning point in the war. While the spotlight tends to focus on Lee and Meade, perhaps it should be readjusted to focus on this important campaign in the Trans-Mississippi department. Overall, a worthy effort and well worth the time spent.

[Derek Weese · Rating 4 out of 5]

Out of the whole plethora of books printed on the Vicksburg Campaign in the War Between the States, few are as detailed in a single volume as this particular work by Michael B. Ballard. Ballard's book is easily the most comprehensive single volume study on the epic Campaign, but is not without it's flaws.
Firstly, the book begins before the war itself, laying the foundations of the history of European settlement in the region and the lead up to secession. One thing that stuck out in Ballard's work was his acknowledgment of the complexity of American feelings over the politics that lead to war in 1861.
Secession was not universally supported even amongst slave owners in the region, who worried that the nascent Confederacy may support emancipation in exchange for European sovereign recognition(explaining why many slave owners supported the Federals throughout the war, and kept their slaves despite the Emancipation Proclamation).
The war itself is finely narrated. This is not a dry history, at all. Ballard is a excellent writer and his narrative was quite enjoyable.
By narrating operations on the Mississippi between the Navies of both sides (some truly exciting ship on ship and ship versus fort actions occurred) really highlighted just how important the River was to Federal grand strategy. By detailing the whole course of operations (to include operations in the Trans Mississippi that impacted the region), Ballard gives a holistic picture of how and why the Federals ultimately achieved success despite hard going and several notable defeats and reversals of fortune.
That said, Ballard is far less capable in detailing and explaining Confederate strategy and in objectively viewing the main Rebel commanders.
Ballard has a clear axe to grind against both William Pemberton and Joseph Johnston, focusing solely on their flaws while never acknowledging their restrictive dilemmas from higher up the chain of command, or their successes (such as Pemberton doing quite well in the game of out engineering the Federals, focusing only on being overmatched as a field commander).
As a consequence, Southern successes such as the Battle of Chickasaw Bluffs are labeled as nearly accidental.
His work does do a good job, however, of rehabilitation for a commander lost to the historical record, and that is John C. McClernand. McClernand, arch nemesis of Ulysses S. Grant, was a more than capable commander (one of the many truly gifted civilian/political appointments both sides raised during hostilities) whose reputation has suffered merely on the words of national icon Grant.
In truth, while McClernand was a royal pain personally, and who ran his mouth far too often for his own good, was treated unfairly by both Grant and Sherman. This despite the fact that McClernand had a better than average tactical record (far better than Sherman, who was no tactically gifted commander), displayed personal bravery numerous times, and earned the respect of his men and subordinate officers.
Ballard also goes to some lengths to showcase the highly complex American attitudes towards Blacks.
Often, Southerners were far kinder to slaves and freedmen than were the Union forces, who often used them as slaves in all but name for themselves, and who sometimes treated them with cruelty. While some Yankees did come to despise slavery via close association and observation, Ballard points out that this was not the universal, nor majority, view.
This despite the approved narrative of the war.
The harshness of the war as visited upon Southern civilians is well documented and poignantly narrated here, and this book does a good job of pushing back against the triumphalist narrative of a glorious moral crusade.
It was an ugly war. Then again, aren't they all?
Overall, while the book is flawed in certain aspects of it's analysis (Ballard's vendetta against Rebel leadership is nearly unprofessional, and negatively impacts the usefulness of his analysis), it is a beautiful narrative of a vastly important campaign in America's most important conflict.
Highly recommended.

[Todd Price · Rating 3 out of 5]

“What happened at Vicksburg and in the surrounding region may not have been as dramatic as three July days in Gettysburg, but the results were more decisive.”(page 413)

“As for the Vicksburg campaign and its place in history, it continues to languish in the shadows of the Eastern Theater in general and of Gettysburg in particular…The campaign is, in a sense, a victim of its length, scope, and complexity. It is much easier for historians and buffs alike to understand a campaign of a few weeks, culminating in a three day battle, than to grasp intricate operations that lasted over a year and included several significant engagements. Besides full-scale battles, the struggle for Vicksburg consisted of cavalry raids, naval encounters, combined army-navy operations, subcampaigns affecting the final outcome, and a siege that included classic applications of military science.”(page 430)

My rating of this book is a testament to my own inadequacies in fully understanding the Vicksburg campaign of the American Civil War. It is in no way an indictment against the writing or scholarship of the author Michael Ballard. In fact, his work receives high praise from me. However, the length and complexity of the campaign as he pointed out, led me to struggle considerably in fully understanding the various phases of this chapter of the Civil War. Personally, I feel this could have possibly been better presented in a 2 or 3 part series of books. Yet, the history of the campaign as related by Ballard is crucial to understanding Union victory in the war.

Vicksburg was a messy affair. It rarely had clearly defined lines and typical battlefield encounters, making it a frustrating sequence of events for the Union and Confederate commanders. Ultimately, Union naval supremacy on the Mississippi River seems to have secured Union triumph more than anything else. Combined with General Ulysses Grant’s methodical, determined, and relentless tactics, those factors ultimately resulted in the surrender of the city on July 4, 1863.

This is a crucial piece of historiography on the Civil War. Yet, as Ballard indicated, for both historians and Civil War history enthusiasts, it is a challenging topic. I do highly recommend this work, but add the warning that the reading is not always enjoyable, and may require a number of subsequent readings to be fully comprehended.

[Josh Liller · Rating 4 out of 5]

The Vicksburg campaign usually refers to Grant's operations against the city beginning in November/December 1862. This book takes a broader scope of the campaign, including operations on the Mississippi (not all of them against Vicksburg) before Grant. It also looks at the city itself, with a brief history including the locals sentiments on secession and the war. Over a hundred pages pass before the traditional start of the campaign with Grant's failed overland push from Tennessee.

The failed operations before Grant's crossing of the Mississippi below Vicksburg are covered in less than a hundred pages. The marches and battles (Port Gibson, Raymond, Jackson, Champion Hill, Big Black River Bridge) get over a hundred pages. The two failed assaults on Vicksburg get about forty pages while the rest of the siege gets about the same. I liked the broad scope of the book in helping to understand the big picture of the Vicksburg campaign and the battles are covered adequately. Ballard seems to hit all the points that he needs to, including the Pemberton-Johnston-Davis and McClernand-Grant squabbles. I also enjoyed the short epilogue covering what became of the principle commanders and touching on how Vicksburg became a National Military Park. Scholarly readers will be happy to find good Endnotes and Bibliography.

The book does have some weaknesses. The maps are insufficient, as is too often the case with military histories. The siege of Vicksburg feels shortchanged so I'm not surprised that Ballard recently expanded on the subject in Grant at Vicksburg: The General and the Siege. I feel like we get inside Pemberton's head better than Grant's. Despite a hundred pages on the events leading up to the main operations against Vicksburg, the simultaneous Port Hudson campaign is mentioned only in passing. While I understand it is outside the main scope of the book, given how many other tangentially related topics are at least briefly touched upon this seems like an oversight. Ballard's writing is also a problem; it is decently interesting, but he jumps around too much which makes some parts of the book confusing and others a little vague about when they occurred.

Another shortcoming which is not Ballard's fault, but which should be pointed out: while this book was written after Ballard's biography of Pemberton, it was published before Compelled to Appear in Print: The Vicksburg Manuscript of General John C. Pemberton.

I have heard Ballard's book on Vicksburg declared as possibly the best single volume on the subject. It tries hard to earn that billing and is definite, although it falls short of being a definitive work on the subject. Still very much worth reading.

[Vince · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is currently the best examination of the campaign, the culmination of which on July 4th, 1863, doomed the Confederacy to final defeat. Unfairly overshadowed by the Battle of Gettysburg in the popular mind, Ballard, through his extensive research and fine writing, forcefully conveys the larger importance of this campaign which lasted over a year and had a much wider range and greater impact than any one battle . Most of northern Mississippi was devastated to the point of recovery taking decades, the Confederacy was effectively cut in half by the loss of any controlling point on the river, drastically reducing much needed supplies from coming from the west, an entire army of 29,000 men was put out of action at a stroke (many of whom would never fight again despite parole and exchanges) and a vast amount of military materiel was lost which would never be replaced. Southern morale was reduced to despondency, while in the North it was buoyed after a year of mostly military failures. Gettysburg, by contrast was seen as a severe defeat in the South, but one in which the great Lee and his Army of Northern Virginia escaped annihilation and would continue to fight for another two years. Ballard covers not only the military operations but also the effect of 'hard war' on the civilian population, both free and slave. The maps are adequate, but a subject of such importance deserves more and better in my view. I found myself frequently referring to a modern state map of Mississippi to get a better overall picture.

[Virginia · Rating 4 out of 5]

Excellent survey.

[Brian Miracle · Rating 4 out of 5]

Considered one of the best single volume accounts of the Vicksburg Campaign. The book covers precursors to the campaign, as well as the campaign itself, which lasted from May, 1862 to July, 1863. The book presents the unsuccessful attempts to force the fortress city’s surrender by naval forces, followed by Grant’s campaign, which lasted from late 1862 until its fall on July 4, 1863.

Grant’s effort began with attempted assaults on the northern approaches to the city at Chickasaw Bayou, Yazoo Pass, and Steele’s Bayou. Grant’s plan to have Union transports pass the batteries of Vicksburg and land south at Grand Gulf allowed him to outflank the city. Grant then moved east instead of north towards Vicksburg. Union victories at Port Gibson, Raymond, Jackson, Champion Hill, and the Big Black River followed. The victories forced the Confederate general Pemberton back into Vicksburg and forced Confederate General Johnston east of Jackson, isolating him from Pemberton. After 2 failed assaults on the city on 5/19 and 5/22/63, Grant settled into a siege, resulting in Vicksburg’s surrender a month and a half later.

The author highlights Grant’s determination to “get at” Vicksburg, even in the aftermath of failed attempts. He also shows how Confederate command division and indecisiveness led to their defeat. With the loss of Vicksburg, much of the Western Theater was out of Confederate control. Except for a few successes, such as at Chickamauga, the South was on the run after Vicksburg.

Although Ed Bearss’ trilogy on Vicksburg is considered the authoritative source on the campaign (perhaps to be eclipsed by Timothy B Smith’s in- process 5 part series), this book is a good single volume history.

[Lloyd Fassett]

7/4/23 - I got interested in this battle by reading Ron Chernow's Grant. When I searched for books on the battle, this this one was at the top of this list Best Books on the Vicksburg Campaign

That list also mentions a compelling collection of books about key Civil War campaigns that that are shorter called "Great Campaigns of the Civil War Series"

Most single volume books on Vicksburg are mammoth. For anyone wanting a shorter, more concise account would do well to read Vicksburg is the Key: The Struggle for the Mississippi River by William Shea and Terrence Winschel. This volume is part of the Great Campaigns of the Civil War Series that seeks to provide solid scholarship and overviews of battles and campaigns in a condensed volume.

[Steve B · Rating 4 out of 5]

I picked this book up at the Vicksburg National Battlefield gift shop upon the recommendation of one of the Park employees. As an aside...the Battlefield is well worth the visit.

Ballard's book is a thorough look at U.S. Grant's entire 1862-63 Mississippi campaign culminating in the battle and seige of Vicksburg. Ballard is at his best in incorporating first hand accounts from the participants and news accounts. The book is meticulously researched and I believe a must read for Civil War enthusiasts.

[Don Heiman · Rating 5 out of 5]

Peter Cozzens, a wonderful Civil War historian, wrote that Michael Ballard's 2004 "Vicksburg" book "... Is not only the best account available of that pivotal event, but also one of the finest Civil War campaign studies ever written." I agree! Ballard's book is very well researched and referenced. It is a "must read" for anyone who visits the Vicksburg battlefields or has a passion for Civil War history. (P)

[Michael Kelley · Rating 5 out of 5]

An excellent account of the complex Vicksburg Campaign. Required reading for anybody interested in the details surrounding Vicksburg in the Civil War.

[Bobby Ward · Rating 5 out of 5]

Well written.

The author gave the seige of Vicksburg and what occurred both before and after a fair and accurate narrative. His take on the importance often overlooked by history.

[Lindsay Chervinsky · Rating 4 out of 5]

Not my usual history book, but I find military history fascinating and would love to learn more about it. I also took a Civil War class last year and that time period ranks a close second behind my specialty (Early American history). Since I was on vacation this week, I also figured I'd have lots of concentrated time on my flights and on the beach to focus on the complex details. I know it's not a typical beach read, but I rarely do things in a typical manner.

I really enjoyed reading this book and found it far easier to read than I expected. Even though it is heavy on military details such as troop movements, battle locations and formations, and numbers- those details are rarely overwhelming. There were only a few moments where I had to take a step back and refocus because I was getting bogged down in details and having trouble seeing the big picture. The author also does a fantastic job of exploring various aspects of life during the war. He discusses the impact on the countryside, homes, civilians, guerrilla warfare, the impressions of every day soldiers and the personalities and relationships between commanders. Those details were really crucial to the development of the story. It helped the book read like a story, rather than a recitation of numerous battles.

There were some aspects of the book that I would have changed. There were far too few maps included. When the author was describing troops movements, the positioning of defensive works, cavalry, etc., I often struggled to understand or picture what he was describing. I ended up flipping back and forth between where I was reading and the closest map, which was neither practical nor efficient. I needed pictures, even small, basic images, to fully comprehend the movements and positions. Just as importantly, the maps that were included, were often confusing and not very helpful. I understand that the author didn't draw most of the maps, but if he was responsible for selecting the images, he did so poorly. Often times, a less sophisticated map with fewer streams, roads, etc. is actually far more helpful. I struggled to decipher what was a road, stream, line of troops or hill ridge when studying the map. Granted, I'm no professional when it comes to that kind of thing, but I'm a smart girl and usually can figure maps out.

Despite these few shortcomings, the book is an extraordinary scholarly work. It clearly required tremendous research, dedication, time and devotion to complete. It does a wonderful job of demonstrating the long term importance of the Vicksburg campaign and the impact the Union victory had on the outcome of the Civil War. I also felt that the author appropriately covered the battles and maneuvering leading up the the Vicksburg campaign and the fighting that continued after the Confederate surrender. The author made a very convincing argument for why Vicksburg and the Western Theater of war influenced the direction of the Civil and why it deserves more recognition and attention for its role. Perhaps most importantly, it piqued my interest in the subject and made me want to learn and read more about that time.

This book is definitely one I would recommend to others interested in the Civil War. If you had no interest, then maybe not so much.

[Darrell E. · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book is okay but doesn't offer much new. My two issues are his continual, long asides to talk about what the soldiers felt and wrote that interrupts the narrative of the campaign and that fact that Ballard, an archivist not an historian or military leader, continually makes judgements about what the commanders should have done with absolute certainty this would work. It is distracting and not good scholarship.

[Jerome Otte · Rating 4 out of 5]

A dense, informative, and well-researched history of the Vicksburg campaign. Ballard argues that the Union was able to achieve victory through superior generalship and naval power. As Ballard tells it, Union forces operated as part of a remarkably smooth team effort, while the Confederates were just about the complete opposite; Ballard is sympathetic towards Pemberton, but less so of Johnston, who appears to have few admirers among historians of the war. He is surprisingly sympathetic with McClernand. Although Vicksburg was widely seen as a target of strategic significance, Ballard questions this assumption, given that the supply flow to the trans-Mississippi was not particularly important; nor did the Union necessarily need full access to the river given their railroads. Ballard emphasizes Vicksburg’s psychological importance: “Vicksburg became vital, ‘the key,’ because both sides ultimately decided it was,” he concludes.

Ballard’s coverage is pretty even, and his treatment of the naval aspects of the campaign is thorough. His treatment of military operations is straightforward, his coverage of Grant, Sherman and McClernand is thorough, and Ballard highlights all of the trouble that Pemberton was able to cause, as well as the controversy of Grant’s drinking. Ballard does a fine job fleshing out the human aspect of the story.

Ballard doesn’t provide much in the way of new scholarship, and the writing is pretty dry and lifeless, despite some lively sections here and there. There are also a few errors here and there, like one paragraph where Pemberton is both in Vicksburg and has to get to Vicksburg at the same time. The maps could have been better drawn, and they’re not always easy to decipher at first glance, and a couple of typos are bound to annoy any reader. Ballard also claims that Julia Grant was captured by Van Dorn at Holly Springs, even though she personally never said so, and Ballard often uses batches of letters to generalize on issues on people's’ minds.

[Ian Fleischmann · Rating 4 out of 5]

Ballard's account of the Vicksburg campaign is both detailed and complete, covering the strategic setting, pre-campaign activities, the battles themselves, and the resulting aftermath of Grant's victory. Drawing heavily on primary source correspondence, Ballard describes the perceptions and decisions of various confederate and Union commanders and the resulting impact of those decisions in a clear concise manner.
The maps presented in the 2004 edition are acceptable but not as easy to read and understand as some of those created by the USMA history department (freely available from their website). Additionally, the book would have greatly benefitted from clear task organization charts identifying command and support relationships of different forces and commanders throughout the campaign. Ballard does describe these relationships in text but, like many Civil War texts, interchangeably uses units, hometowns, and commanders' names to refer to the same forces. A clear reference sheet would have been beneficial.
I would recommend starting off reading a Vicksburg campaign primer (like the 65-page version available from the US Army Center of Military History) to familiarize yourself with the major elements and movements of the campaign. Without this context it is easy to get lost in Ballard's descriptions of Regimental and Brigade actions.

Overall, Ballard assembled a very good reference for an oft-forgotten campaign that led to Union victory.

[Justin · Rating 3 out of 5]

I'll admit it - I didn't finish this book. I picked it up from the library prior to a trip to Mississippi that would include a half-day at the Vicksburg battlefield. I was only about 80-90 pages in when we actually went on the tour, and in the weeks since, I haven't felt the need to go back. This is a reflection of my fickle literary attention span as much as it is the excellence of the Vicksburg audio tour.

Even though I haven't finished, I can venture some opinions. The book is incredibly well-researched, and the author nicely situates its methodological allegiances without becoming boorishly academic. The prose is fine, not dull, but not gripping either. Ballard has to deal with the same problem every historian has to deal with when discussing an event chronologically - keeping the focus on the big picture while delving into minor details - and he does so well, though I found myself frequently thinking "enough already" and wishing I was several chapters ahead.

[Fredrick Danysh · Rating 4 out of 5]

Vicksburg was the Gibralter of the confederacy on the Mississippi River and its conquest by Union forces was necessary in order to split the Confederacy in half. The city controlled the river and it took numerous campaigns and a siege to defeat it.

[jenn Lindsay · Rating 5 out of 5]

Yes, I am a total history dork, but I enjoyed this thorough yet concise (I think that's what it said on the jacket) history of one of my favorite battles. yes, i have favorite battles.

[Jonathan · Rating 5 out of 5]

A detailed, thorough and readable account of the campaign to take Vicksburg and open the Mississippi. A very good popular narrative.

[David Eppenstein · Rating 4 out of 5]

A highly informative and entertaining book about a battle unfairly and foolishly over-shadowed by events at Gettysburg.

[Jim · Rating 3 out of 5]

A nice one volume book about the Vicksburg campaign.

[Sean Chick · Rating 3 out of 5]

Long and rambling book that fills a hole in the literature, but strangely lacks many details on commanders and maps are sorely lacking. The defintive one volume account has yet to be written.

[Rob Humphrey · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book was required reading to prepare for a staff ride to Vicksburg. While the book provides intricate detail, it is severely lacking in maps / sketches.