Talk:Vicksburg campaign

Untitled
I wrote this article as a companion to the other campaign articles I've contributed. It used to be a REDIRECT to the Battle of Vicksburg. I intend to rewrite that 'battle' page to represent only the actual battle/siege of the city. Actually, that 'page' is eight separate articles and once the text about the siege and the Battle of Champion Hill is relocated, there should be no reason to keep 7 of the 8 pages. They don't fit into the overall encyclopedia style anyway. They are long-winded, colloquial, seem to have section headers for every few sentences, and are packed with quotations from popular historians. And they include too much biographical commentary on Grant. It's more like a magazine article than an encyclopedia article. Hal Jespersen 22:39, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

expansion
I am starting an upgrade of the Vicksburg-related articles and have started with a partial upgrade of the campaign article itself. I have added in a number of references that I intend to use for footnotes, but this process is not completed yet. I would appreciate it if others would not delete any of these references until I am finished. Thanks. Hal Jespersen (talk) 23:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

List of sources
FYI, a list of sources on this subject can be found here:. Cla68 (talk) 04:00, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Confederate Strength and Casualties
I would thank if someone could help me to understand the confederate strength/casualties numbers in Vicksburg Campaign. NPS states 9,091 casualties from April 22nd to July 4th. Obviously, that excludes 29,495 soldiers captured upon the fall of the fortress and the losses before the blockade running on April 16th (that must have been small). Adding the numbers results in 38,586 ("bayou phase" excluded). But no source I seen (except Grants own estimation of 60,000) mentions the confederate strength to exceed 36,000. How that may be explained? The only explanation I see (except for grossly inaccurate numbers) is that the confederate losses were replenished during the campaign, being 36,000 the peak strength. Is that correct? M.Campos (talk) 16:27, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes. A single strength figures for a lengthy period is difficult to establish because men come and go as well as become casualties. Also, throughout the war, Confederate strength and casualty figures are often not as accurate as the Union ones. Hal Jespersen (talk) 01:16, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Balfour House Christmas Ball
I've written a short article about Vicksburg's Balfour House that includes some information I think might be useful in this article. It was during a Christmas Ball at this house that Gen. Smith received word that Union forces were approaching the city by river, and thus a surprise attack on Vicksburg was thwarted, one which might well have dramatically shortened the Vicksburg Campaign.

Does anyone object to me adding a sentence or two to the present article referring to this Ball? Berberry (talk) 03:17, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * A well constructed "sentence or two" would be fine. Please note that Smith was not in overall command at Vicksburg as that article originally indicated. And the Battle of Chickasaw Bayou was definitely not a "skirmish." Hal Jespersen (talk) 16:32, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

"Major General" Grant?
Why does the article say that the Vicksburg Campaign was directed by "Maj. Gen. Ulysses S. Grant", and then conclude with his promotion to Major General? He was not a Major General during the campaign, right? If this is the standard for military articles, fine, but by extension of the same logic, one could as well say that the Vicksburg Campaign was directed by "President U.S. Grant". :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.44.146.227 (talk) 18:12, 28 September 2011 (UTC) Oops, my mistake, but I still think the article is not quite clear. Grant apparently held a brevet commission as Major General, and the promotion was to a permanent commission.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.44.146.227 (talk) 19:05, 28 September 2011 (UTC)


 * He started the campaign as a Maj. Gen. of volunteers. This is not the same as a brevet appointment, it's essentially a temporary wartime rank that is created for management of the large-scale volunteer units raised for the war. Virtually all of the ranks you see listed for Civil War officers are of this type. Regular Army ranks are "permanent"--one does not revert to a lower rank at the end of the war--and it is therefore much harder to receive a high rank in the Regular Army. Hal Jespersen (talk) 20:38, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Lead section
Your lead section has been divided in two by the Contents box. It clearly ends before the section headed 'Background'. 86.144.117.25 (talk) 12:03, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * You're right. Hal Jespersen (talk) 18:49, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Goodrich's Landing
The wording for the Goodrich's Landing section is misleading. The way it is currently worded implies that the Union leased farmland and then employed freedmen to farm it. This is incorrect. The land was in fact confiscated from its owners and leased out to others, who 'employed' former slaves only in the broadest since of the term, as the workers were never actually paid for their labor, and the whole experiment was a failure on the part of the Union. Lorzu (talk) 08:00, 4 August 2012 (UTC)


 * This section is derived from the brief battle article, which is essentially a copy of the public domain article from the National Park Service, http://www.nps.gov/history/hps/abpp/Battles/la014.htm. If you would like to propose changes, please provide appropriate citations to balance or counter the NPS view. Hal Jespersen (talk) 00:06, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

New book, 2019
A new book about Grant, by Donald L. Miller (Simon and Schuster, Oct. 2019) is slated for release on October 29: Vicksburg: Grant's Campaign That Broke the Confederacy. Hopefully there will be a review that tells us what this book has to offer that previous such works have not, if indeed it does so. Simon and Schuster has a review, however, it's more of a generic promotional piece than an unbiased review. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:51, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Timing of events at Grand Gulf
This summary on this page says "After dark, however, the ironclads engaged the Confederate guns again while the steamboats and barges ran the gauntlet." However, the full article at Battle of Grand Gulf says "Later that afternoon, while the angle of the sun interfered with Confederate aiming, Porter again sent his ships to Grand Gulf." Was it dark or was the sun interferring with aiming at the time? Or, eventually, both? Housecarl (talk) 23:40, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I have several books about Vicksburg but am out of town (I'm a primary author of the Grand Gulf article). I'll check once I get back. Hog Farm Talk 01:09, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * That's great, thanks. I have also copied the information from the Grand Gulf article that just days after the battle of Grand Gulf on April 29, the Confederates abandoned their positions there on May 3. Looking at this map and dates: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3c/VicksburgCampaignAprilJuly63.png I'm guessing they abandoned Grand Gulf as they were in danger of being cut off as Union troops moved north near Willow Springs, but I didn't want to state that as I'm making an assumption. If it's right perhaps that could be added to both articles. Housecarl (talk) 21:32, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I kinda forgot about this, will try to remember to look at this tonight. Hog Farm Talk 19:27, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
 * - The quote from the source at Grand Gulf (Ballard p. 219) Taking advantage of the late afternoon sun to blind Confederate gunners, Porter led his boats in a screening action to get transports and barges past Grand Gulf to ferry Grant's troops across downstream Hog Farm Talk 03:02, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

"Actions Prior to Grant's Landing" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Actions_Prior_to_Grant%27s_Landing&redirect=no Actions Prior to Grant's Landing] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. Mdewman6 (talk) 22:56, 15 April 2024 (UTC)