What do you think?
Rate this book
Vicksburg 1863
A riveting history of the battle that permanently turned the tide of the Civil War.
While Gettysburg is better known, Winston Groom makes clear in this engrossing narrative that Vicksburg was the more important battle from a strategic point of view. Re-creating the epic campaign that culminated at Vicksburg, Groom details the arduous struggle by the Union to gain control of the Mississippi River valley and to divide the Confederacy in two. He takes us back to 1861, when Lincoln chooses Ulysses S. Grant—seen at the time as a mediocre general with a drinking problem—to lead the Union army south from Illinois.
We follow Grant and his troops as they fight one campaign after another, including the famous engagements at Forts Henry and Donelson and the bloodbath at Shiloh, until, after almost a year, they close in on Vicksburg. We witness Grant’s seven long months of battle against the determined Confederate army, and the many failed Union attempts to take Vicksburg, during which thousands of soldiers on both sides would be buried and, ultimately, the fate of the Confederacy would be sealed. As Groom recounts this landmark confrontation, he brings the participants to life. We see Grant in all his grim determination, the feistiness of William Tecumseh Sherman, and the pride and intransigence of Confederate leaders from Jefferson Davis and General Joseph E. Johnston to General John C. Pemberton, the Philadelphia-born Rebel who commanded at Vicksburg and took the blame for losing.
A first-rate work of military history and an essential contribution to our understanding of the Civil War.
While Gettysburg is better known, Winston Groom makes clear in this engrossing narrative that Vicksburg was the more important battle from a strategic point of view. Re-creating the epic campaign that culminated at Vicksburg, Groom details the arduous struggle by the Union to gain control of the Mississippi River valley and to divide the Confederacy in two. He takes us back to 1861, when Lincoln chooses Ulysses S. Grant—seen at the time as a mediocre general with a drinking problem—to lead the Union army south from Illinois.
We follow Grant and his troops as they fight one campaign after another, including the famous engagements at Forts Henry and Donelson and the bloodbath at Shiloh, until, after almost a year, they close in on Vicksburg. We witness Grant’s seven long months of battle against the determined Confederate army, and the many failed Union attempts to take Vicksburg, during which thousands of soldiers on both sides would be buried and, ultimately, the fate of the Confederacy would be sealed. As Groom recounts this landmark confrontation, he brings the participants to life. We see Grant in all his grim determination, the feistiness of William Tecumseh Sherman, and the pride and intransigence of Confederate leaders from Jefferson Davis and General Joseph E. Johnston to General John C. Pemberton, the Philadelphia-born Rebel who commanded at Vicksburg and took the blame for losing.
A first-rate work of military history and an essential contribution to our understanding of the Civil War.
496 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 2009
76 people are currently reading
1183 people want to read
About the author
Winston Groom
46 books597 followersWinston Francis Groom Jr. was an American novelist and non-fiction writer, best known for his book Forrest Gump, which was adapted into a film in 1994. Groom was born in Washington, D.C., but grew up in Mobile, Alabama where he attended University Military School (now known as UMS-Wright Preparatory School). He attended the University of Alabama, where he was a member of Delta Tau Delta and the Army ROTC, and graduated in 1965. He served in the Army from 1965 to 1969, including a tour in Vietnam. Groom devoted his time to writing history books about American wars. More recently he had lived in Point Clear, Alabama, and Long Island, New York.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 83 reviews
October 16, 2011
Does this scenario sound familiar: a society riven by controversy with each side taking increasingly rigid positions; a new form of communications technology that permits news to travel in seconds which used to require days, Supreme Court decisions that seem to feed the flames of divisiveness, and massive immigration from other countries seeking filling the need for cheap labor in factories and farms. Such was the situation just before the Civil War. Slavery was the issue, the telegraph provided near instantaneous communication, and the Irish fled the Potato Famine and worked in slave-like conditions in northern factories. Plus ca change....
The author suggests that following Vicksburg (which occurred the same day as Gettysburg), that Jefferson Davis should have thrown in the towel and negotiated peace with Lincoln. Losing Vicksburg meant loss of control of the New Orleans ports and the lower Mississippi, which meant the Confederacy no longer had any way to export cotton to England, and it was cotton that gave England some reason to purchase Confederate bonds which help fund the war. It was only Davis's pig-headediness and foolishness that kept them fighting and this ultimately resulted in economic collapse for the south after 1865. Before the war, Mississippi had ranked near the top in per capita income. Ever since 1865, it has ranked near the bottom.
Groom’s descriptions of the details of battle are worth reading.
“,,,as a “minié” ball, after its French inventor. In the full fury of an assault, assuming that one corps had attacked another, it would not be inconceivable that during any given minute sixty thousand deadly projectiles would be ripping through the air toward flesh and bone. The size and weight of the bullet would be sufficient to disable most men no matter where it hit them, even in the hand or foot. Because they had no munitions factories at the beginning of the war, the Confederates equipped themselves with weapons from state militias or by seizing federal armories, as well as by making large purchases from abroad, principally from Great Britain. As the war ground on they added to their arsenal by collecting Union weapons left upon the battlefield. More worrisome for the foot soldier, attacks were accompanied by or defended against by artillery fire, which the troops feared even more than rifle bullets because its effects were so ghastly. (Even so, small arms fire caused most of the casualties during the war.) The artillery pieces had come a long way since the previous major world conflict—the Napoleonic Wars half a century earlier. . . .The muzzle velocity of these guns was low compared with twentieth-or twenty-first-century weapons, and soldiers could often actually see the rounds arcing toward them like deadly black grapefruits. One veteran recalled a companion who, watching one of the seemingly slow cannonballs bouncing over the ground near him, stuck his foot out as if to stop the thing and in a split second the foot was ripped completely off his leg. In a battle early in the war a Union general seated on his horse heard a strange sound next to him and, when he turned to investigate, was horrified to see that his chief of staff, still erect in his saddle, had had his head completely taken off by a cannonball.”
The early 19th century had seen a dramatic rise in the economic value of cotton. The cotton gin made removing the seeds from cotton much less labor intensive and the plant’s value as a cash crop skyrocketed. For four decades in a row, according to David Blight, cotton’s economic value increased four-fold and by the beginning of the war slaves, essential to the production of cotton, had an asset value of $3.5 billion, more than the entire worth of railroads and industries in the north. As they represented property, it’s no wonder slave owners reared what they believed to be the confiscation of their property. And the Constitution, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, backed them up first in Prigg v Pennsylvania, then in Dred Scott which invalidated the Missouri Compromise. Northern States like Wisconsin and Pennsylvania were howling for states rights in passing laws prohibiting local magistrates from enforcing the Fugitive Slave Laws while the southern states, in a delicious irony, called for stronger federal and national enforcement of those same laws.
Typical of the type of Southern youngbloods ... was Charles Colcock Jones, a thirty-year-old Georgian who had graduated from Princeton and held a Harvard law degree and thus had had ample opportunity to observe the Northern abolitionist movement firsthand. He wrote his father, a clergyman: “The Black Republicans may rave among the cold hills of their native states, and grow mad with entertainment of infidelity, heresies, and false conceptions of a ‘higher law’; but Heaven forbid that they ever attempt to set foot on this land of sunshine, of high-souled honor, and of liberty. A freeman's heart can beat in no nobler behalf, and no more sacred obligation can rest upon a people than those now devolved upon us to protect our homes, our loves, our lives, our property, our religion, and our liberties, from the inhuman infidel hordes who threaten us with invasion, dishonor, and subjugation.”
In the meantime, Grant, having failed at just about everything else, had managed to secure a colonelcy after show considerable leadership in whipping into shape a recalcitrant regiment. He was one of the first to recognize, along with Lincoln, the importance of the Mississippi, control of which would split the Confederacy and provide a commercial outlet for northern products. He was also blessed with several technological advances in the development of the steamboat and its conversion into the river gunboat. “These were not “boats” in the conventional sense of the term. They were upwards of two hundred feet long and more, weighed as much as five hundred tons, employed crews of up to 150 men, and could bring to bear a concentration of twenty large-caliber cannons at over-the-water speeds of around eight to ten knots. They were self-sufficient except for the coal tenders that supplied their fuel, protected by iron armor plating two and a half inches thick....was one of the most remarkable feats of shipbuilding in the world, since the authorities in Washington had decreed that the vessels must be commissioned within sixty-four days from laying of the keel to final completion.” Had the steamboat been available, Grant would not have been able to subdue the Cumberland and the Tennessee, both of which ran north.
A substantial amount of the book is allotted to describing the events leading up to Vicksburg, including Shiloh and the naval battles for New Orleans. Each had important effects on the distribution of troops before the Vicksburg campaign. Groom has written an enjoyable, very readable account of a lesser known, but vitally important campaign in the west.
The author suggests that following Vicksburg (which occurred the same day as Gettysburg), that Jefferson Davis should have thrown in the towel and negotiated peace with Lincoln. Losing Vicksburg meant loss of control of the New Orleans ports and the lower Mississippi, which meant the Confederacy no longer had any way to export cotton to England, and it was cotton that gave England some reason to purchase Confederate bonds which help fund the war. It was only Davis's pig-headediness and foolishness that kept them fighting and this ultimately resulted in economic collapse for the south after 1865. Before the war, Mississippi had ranked near the top in per capita income. Ever since 1865, it has ranked near the bottom.
Groom’s descriptions of the details of battle are worth reading.
“,,,as a “minié” ball, after its French inventor. In the full fury of an assault, assuming that one corps had attacked another, it would not be inconceivable that during any given minute sixty thousand deadly projectiles would be ripping through the air toward flesh and bone. The size and weight of the bullet would be sufficient to disable most men no matter where it hit them, even in the hand or foot. Because they had no munitions factories at the beginning of the war, the Confederates equipped themselves with weapons from state militias or by seizing federal armories, as well as by making large purchases from abroad, principally from Great Britain. As the war ground on they added to their arsenal by collecting Union weapons left upon the battlefield. More worrisome for the foot soldier, attacks were accompanied by or defended against by artillery fire, which the troops feared even more than rifle bullets because its effects were so ghastly. (Even so, small arms fire caused most of the casualties during the war.) The artillery pieces had come a long way since the previous major world conflict—the Napoleonic Wars half a century earlier. . . .The muzzle velocity of these guns was low compared with twentieth-or twenty-first-century weapons, and soldiers could often actually see the rounds arcing toward them like deadly black grapefruits. One veteran recalled a companion who, watching one of the seemingly slow cannonballs bouncing over the ground near him, stuck his foot out as if to stop the thing and in a split second the foot was ripped completely off his leg. In a battle early in the war a Union general seated on his horse heard a strange sound next to him and, when he turned to investigate, was horrified to see that his chief of staff, still erect in his saddle, had had his head completely taken off by a cannonball.”
The early 19th century had seen a dramatic rise in the economic value of cotton. The cotton gin made removing the seeds from cotton much less labor intensive and the plant’s value as a cash crop skyrocketed. For four decades in a row, according to David Blight, cotton’s economic value increased four-fold and by the beginning of the war slaves, essential to the production of cotton, had an asset value of $3.5 billion, more than the entire worth of railroads and industries in the north. As they represented property, it’s no wonder slave owners reared what they believed to be the confiscation of their property. And the Constitution, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, backed them up first in Prigg v Pennsylvania, then in Dred Scott which invalidated the Missouri Compromise. Northern States like Wisconsin and Pennsylvania were howling for states rights in passing laws prohibiting local magistrates from enforcing the Fugitive Slave Laws while the southern states, in a delicious irony, called for stronger federal and national enforcement of those same laws.
Typical of the type of Southern youngbloods ... was Charles Colcock Jones, a thirty-year-old Georgian who had graduated from Princeton and held a Harvard law degree and thus had had ample opportunity to observe the Northern abolitionist movement firsthand. He wrote his father, a clergyman: “The Black Republicans may rave among the cold hills of their native states, and grow mad with entertainment of infidelity, heresies, and false conceptions of a ‘higher law’; but Heaven forbid that they ever attempt to set foot on this land of sunshine, of high-souled honor, and of liberty. A freeman's heart can beat in no nobler behalf, and no more sacred obligation can rest upon a people than those now devolved upon us to protect our homes, our loves, our lives, our property, our religion, and our liberties, from the inhuman infidel hordes who threaten us with invasion, dishonor, and subjugation.”
In the meantime, Grant, having failed at just about everything else, had managed to secure a colonelcy after show considerable leadership in whipping into shape a recalcitrant regiment. He was one of the first to recognize, along with Lincoln, the importance of the Mississippi, control of which would split the Confederacy and provide a commercial outlet for northern products. He was also blessed with several technological advances in the development of the steamboat and its conversion into the river gunboat. “These were not “boats” in the conventional sense of the term. They were upwards of two hundred feet long and more, weighed as much as five hundred tons, employed crews of up to 150 men, and could bring to bear a concentration of twenty large-caliber cannons at over-the-water speeds of around eight to ten knots. They were self-sufficient except for the coal tenders that supplied their fuel, protected by iron armor plating two and a half inches thick....was one of the most remarkable feats of shipbuilding in the world, since the authorities in Washington had decreed that the vessels must be commissioned within sixty-four days from laying of the keel to final completion.” Had the steamboat been available, Grant would not have been able to subdue the Cumberland and the Tennessee, both of which ran north.
A substantial amount of the book is allotted to describing the events leading up to Vicksburg, including Shiloh and the naval battles for New Orleans. Each had important effects on the distribution of troops before the Vicksburg campaign. Groom has written an enjoyable, very readable account of a lesser known, but vitally important campaign in the west.
August 26, 2023
4.5 stars
There is a richness in this micro history that surpasses most any civil war narrative that I have read. The richness largely comes from a perspective taken, more often than not, from the losing side.
There were some irritating harping points like Groom's obsession with Grant's alcoholism or Groom's belief that Johnston should have done more to help relieve the besieged city. I would not call this a 'Lost Cause' book because Groom does not really praise anyone and he recognizes that Vicksburg was really the decisive point of the war and everything that came after was an utter waste of lives. But there are some Southern sympathies bubbling below the surface.
I was at Vicksburg Military Park many years ago and was gobsmacked at the depth of history preserved there and the terrain (bluffs and ravines) which wholly lends itself to visualizations. In all I've visited over forty Civil War sites and while Vicksburg may not have the reverence of Andersonville or Gettysburg or the haunting presence of a Shiloh or Antietam, it is the most interesting of the battlefields in my opinion. When including the town and the Ironclad ships like the USS Cairo, the educational value ranks at the top. The fact that the prelude and siege lasted over 6 months adds to the richness.
I am glad I read this history. I have also read Groom's book on Ypres, the famous WWI battle, and it was outstanding.
There is a richness in this micro history that surpasses most any civil war narrative that I have read. The richness largely comes from a perspective taken, more often than not, from the losing side.
There were some irritating harping points like Groom's obsession with Grant's alcoholism or Groom's belief that Johnston should have done more to help relieve the besieged city. I would not call this a 'Lost Cause' book because Groom does not really praise anyone and he recognizes that Vicksburg was really the decisive point of the war and everything that came after was an utter waste of lives. But there are some Southern sympathies bubbling below the surface.
I was at Vicksburg Military Park many years ago and was gobsmacked at the depth of history preserved there and the terrain (bluffs and ravines) which wholly lends itself to visualizations. In all I've visited over forty Civil War sites and while Vicksburg may not have the reverence of Andersonville or Gettysburg or the haunting presence of a Shiloh or Antietam, it is the most interesting of the battlefields in my opinion. When including the town and the Ironclad ships like the USS Cairo, the educational value ranks at the top. The fact that the prelude and siege lasted over 6 months adds to the richness.
I am glad I read this history. I have also read Groom's book on Ypres, the famous WWI battle, and it was outstanding.
October 7, 2017
A vivid, well-crafted history of the final campaign for Vicksburg. Groom’s book is more of an overview, and he includes all of the relevant context regarding the war, the political situation, and even finance. Groom argues that Vicksburg was the most significant battle of the war but never returns to this argument in his text. He does do a fine job fleshing out the personalities involved.
However, the narrative is a bit disjointed. There are also a few errors: Groom writes that John Brown was tried in a federal court, that Polk was a major general and died at Atlanta, Lew Wallace’s division wading through swamps (not the roads?) Benjamin Butler’s “atrocities,” the “village of Antietam,” and Kirby Smith and Stephen Lee being “major generals.” Elsewhere he writes that Grant fathered two boys and two girls, that Mississippi didn’t secede until after Fort Sumter, that “eight” states followed South Carolina out of the union, and that James Wilson was present at the Battle of Atlanta. And Groom seems to think that “ironic”and "coincidental” mean the same thing. Groom inexplicably downplays the importance of Champion Hill and accuses Sherman of pyromania. Also, there are no citations.
Still, a rich, interesting, mostly well-written and engaging work.
However, the narrative is a bit disjointed. There are also a few errors: Groom writes that John Brown was tried in a federal court, that Polk was a major general and died at Atlanta, Lew Wallace’s division wading through swamps (not the roads?) Benjamin Butler’s “atrocities,” the “village of Antietam,” and Kirby Smith and Stephen Lee being “major generals.” Elsewhere he writes that Grant fathered two boys and two girls, that Mississippi didn’t secede until after Fort Sumter, that “eight” states followed South Carolina out of the union, and that James Wilson was present at the Battle of Atlanta. And Groom seems to think that “ironic”and "coincidental” mean the same thing. Groom inexplicably downplays the importance of Champion Hill and accuses Sherman of pyromania. Also, there are no citations.
Still, a rich, interesting, mostly well-written and engaging work.
March 20, 2017
Groom has 5 star writing skills and it shows in this work. However, there are too many factual errors and recounting of anecdotes once thought to be real but that scholars have shown to be either apocryphal or pure fiction (such as Cadwallader's accounts of Grant and the bottle...). Additionally, the first two hundred pages of this 450+work are a general overview of the entire war. Still, it was enjoyable to read and can function as a good introduction to Grant's campaign.
November 30, 2012
Marred by errors and Lost Cause angles; stick to Forrest Gump, Winston!
Groom does a good job of looking at the Vicksburg campaign from its start in 1862. (No idea whether he, or an editor, chose "Vicksburg **1863**" as the title, though, when it's clearly wrong.
Anyway, Groom does a good job of looking at the whole, year-plus series of efforts to take Vicksburg before Grant succeeded on July 4, 1863. In doing so, he personalizes the history with anecdotes about Grant's drinking, the campaign, and Northern newspaper and political fallout; ditto with Sherman's "craziness." He also looks at the role of the riverine Navy and its interactions with the Army.
On the Southern side, Groom rightly spends good time dealing with the interactions between Vicksburg/Mississippi commander John Pemberton and the Western Department commander, Joseph E. Johnston. Groom, without "selling" too much, does a good job of showing how Pemberton was at least an OK general, how some of his decisions were damned if you do, damned if you don't based on differing high-level strategic views from Jeff Davis and Lee about last-stand resistance in key cities. And, Johnston comes off none too well, but more on that in a moment.
That said, Groom is about as much in the tank for the "Lost Cause" as, say, Shelby Foote. (And, it's "interesting" at the least that more than one five-star reviewer of this book has expressly compared Groom to Foote.) The first and fourth errors I list below definitely impinge on the Lost Cause angle, as does Groom's interpretation of Johnston.
In history writing, there's errors of fact, errors of interpretation, and errors of fact put in the service of errors of interpretation, the worst of all. And Groom does this more than once. (And, tho I originally thought this was maybe a 3-star work and downgraded it to offset fluff reviews, I now wish I had 1-starred it, given just how much fluff it's attracting.)
First, Groom claims that Lincoln appointed a largely abolitionist Cabinet. Totally untrue. Welles was strongly anti-slavery but not abolitionist. Seward certainly wasn't. Chase was the only original Cabinet member arguably an abolitionist.
Second, and incredibly, at one spot, he claims that Mississippi didn't secede until AFTER Sumter; actually, of course, it was the second state to leave.
Page 107: "Soon ***AFTER*** the firing on Fort Sumter, the state legislature called for an election of delegates to a convention on whether or not to secede." There it is in black and white.
Third, in another spot, he claims eight states followed South Carolina out; of course, it was either six before Sumter or ten after; in either case, it wasn't eight.
Fourth, in looking at the Emancipation Proclamation, he cavalierly dismisses it as a war effort, saying it repelled any chance of Southern conciliation.
Duh... but Groom is being HIGHLY disingeneous.
As a war measure, the Emancipation Proclamation was written for foreign consumption in England and France, elevating the war to one about slavery to keep them out, contra Lost Cause partisans of today who make various false claims about either Lincoln's motives or his intelligence on this issue.
As for Joe Johnston, yes, he was not as much an attacker as some Southern generals. But, given his later career, at least he didn't wreck an army, like Hood did after replacing him, which Groom only notes in passing.
Groom also ignores that Johnston was severely injured while **leading an attack** of the Army of Northern Virginia at Seven Pines. In short, just as D.S. Freeman made Longstreet the ultimate scapegoat for the Lost Cause, Groom (and he's not alone) set Johnston up as a secondary scapegoat.
Groom gets a partial kudo, and a kudo against a Lost Cause angle, for not throwing Northerner Pemberton under the bus.
Back to Joe J. By this time, he was a personal, military strategy and even military foe of Confederate President Jefferson Davis, which influenced his interactions with both Pemberton and Braxton Bragg (another Jeff Davis BFF) at Chattanooga/Chickamauga. Tho we have not a word from him on the subject, after Missionary Ridge, followed by Grant moving East, at the end of 1863, Johnston was probably ready to end the war there, including accepting emancipation.
And, he needs as sympathetic a modern biographer as the one Longstreet got about five years ago.
Finally, at one point later in the book, he talks about Vicksburg in the context of **northern** Mississippi?
Accepting the "Lost Cause" angle, the book might well be good enough to earn a third star, but, the errors here, some unrelated to that interpretation, are inexcusable.
Stick to writing Forrest Gump, Winston. At least we know that's fictional from the start.
Groom does a good job of looking at the Vicksburg campaign from its start in 1862. (No idea whether he, or an editor, chose "Vicksburg **1863**" as the title, though, when it's clearly wrong.
Anyway, Groom does a good job of looking at the whole, year-plus series of efforts to take Vicksburg before Grant succeeded on July 4, 1863. In doing so, he personalizes the history with anecdotes about Grant's drinking, the campaign, and Northern newspaper and political fallout; ditto with Sherman's "craziness." He also looks at the role of the riverine Navy and its interactions with the Army.
On the Southern side, Groom rightly spends good time dealing with the interactions between Vicksburg/Mississippi commander John Pemberton and the Western Department commander, Joseph E. Johnston. Groom, without "selling" too much, does a good job of showing how Pemberton was at least an OK general, how some of his decisions were damned if you do, damned if you don't based on differing high-level strategic views from Jeff Davis and Lee about last-stand resistance in key cities. And, Johnston comes off none too well, but more on that in a moment.
That said, Groom is about as much in the tank for the "Lost Cause" as, say, Shelby Foote. (And, it's "interesting" at the least that more than one five-star reviewer of this book has expressly compared Groom to Foote.) The first and fourth errors I list below definitely impinge on the Lost Cause angle, as does Groom's interpretation of Johnston.
In history writing, there's errors of fact, errors of interpretation, and errors of fact put in the service of errors of interpretation, the worst of all. And Groom does this more than once. (And, tho I originally thought this was maybe a 3-star work and downgraded it to offset fluff reviews, I now wish I had 1-starred it, given just how much fluff it's attracting.)
First, Groom claims that Lincoln appointed a largely abolitionist Cabinet. Totally untrue. Welles was strongly anti-slavery but not abolitionist. Seward certainly wasn't. Chase was the only original Cabinet member arguably an abolitionist.
Second, and incredibly, at one spot, he claims that Mississippi didn't secede until AFTER Sumter; actually, of course, it was the second state to leave.
Page 107: "Soon ***AFTER*** the firing on Fort Sumter, the state legislature called for an election of delegates to a convention on whether or not to secede." There it is in black and white.
Third, in another spot, he claims eight states followed South Carolina out; of course, it was either six before Sumter or ten after; in either case, it wasn't eight.
Fourth, in looking at the Emancipation Proclamation, he cavalierly dismisses it as a war effort, saying it repelled any chance of Southern conciliation.
Duh... but Groom is being HIGHLY disingeneous.
As a war measure, the Emancipation Proclamation was written for foreign consumption in England and France, elevating the war to one about slavery to keep them out, contra Lost Cause partisans of today who make various false claims about either Lincoln's motives or his intelligence on this issue.
As for Joe Johnston, yes, he was not as much an attacker as some Southern generals. But, given his later career, at least he didn't wreck an army, like Hood did after replacing him, which Groom only notes in passing.
Groom also ignores that Johnston was severely injured while **leading an attack** of the Army of Northern Virginia at Seven Pines. In short, just as D.S. Freeman made Longstreet the ultimate scapegoat for the Lost Cause, Groom (and he's not alone) set Johnston up as a secondary scapegoat.
Groom gets a partial kudo, and a kudo against a Lost Cause angle, for not throwing Northerner Pemberton under the bus.
Back to Joe J. By this time, he was a personal, military strategy and even military foe of Confederate President Jefferson Davis, which influenced his interactions with both Pemberton and Braxton Bragg (another Jeff Davis BFF) at Chattanooga/Chickamauga. Tho we have not a word from him on the subject, after Missionary Ridge, followed by Grant moving East, at the end of 1863, Johnston was probably ready to end the war there, including accepting emancipation.
And, he needs as sympathetic a modern biographer as the one Longstreet got about five years ago.
Finally, at one point later in the book, he talks about Vicksburg in the context of **northern** Mississippi?
Accepting the "Lost Cause" angle, the book might well be good enough to earn a third star, but, the errors here, some unrelated to that interpretation, are inexcusable.
Stick to writing Forrest Gump, Winston. At least we know that's fictional from the start.
February 10, 2017
very good book on the Vicksburg campaign of the civil war, taking place during the same time the Gettysburg battle was being fought. It was the the victory for the Union forces that told the Southerners that victory wasn't going to happen for them. Vicksburg did not celebrate a 4th of July celebration until the 1940's or so.
September 1, 2021
Probably the best single volume treatment of the Vicksburg campaign. The author does a great job of balancing the narrative between the generals and the privates who actually did the fighting. Besides that, Winston Groom is a fabulous storyteller!!! Although I wouldn't recommend this book to the novice, it is a great starting point for those looking to enhance their knowledge of this pivotal Western Theater battle. A very good read.
February 24, 2017
To Mr. Groom's critics . . . Leave him alone, what's wrong with being a good storyteller? Maybe history would be more appreciated if it was well told. My takeaways . . .
* As in Grant's memoirs I was struck by the role of the navy in the Civil War, of course and especially in the battles for the Mississippi
* All sorts of commanders and troops tried to conquer Vicksburg a total of 9 times. After the last such failure came the siege.
* Pemberton is much villified, and often rightly so. His commanders must share the responsibility though as he was getting contradictory and often unclear messages from his Commander in Chief (Jeff Davis) and the military line command.
* Joe Johnston should be considered a traitor to the confederate cause. He should have backed up Pemberton but chose to do nothing or retreat. Seems like his career was one big retreat.
* US (Unconditional Surrender) Grant!
* Had read a lot about Grant's drinking. Very nice description of one such bender puts it in perspective. He couldn't hold his liquor.
Highly recommend this if it's a genre you like.
* As in Grant's memoirs I was struck by the role of the navy in the Civil War, of course and especially in the battles for the Mississippi
* All sorts of commanders and troops tried to conquer Vicksburg a total of 9 times. After the last such failure came the siege.
* Pemberton is much villified, and often rightly so. His commanders must share the responsibility though as he was getting contradictory and often unclear messages from his Commander in Chief (Jeff Davis) and the military line command.
* Joe Johnston should be considered a traitor to the confederate cause. He should have backed up Pemberton but chose to do nothing or retreat. Seems like his career was one big retreat.
* US (Unconditional Surrender) Grant!
* Had read a lot about Grant's drinking. Very nice description of one such bender puts it in perspective. He couldn't hold his liquor.
Highly recommend this if it's a genre you like.
April 6, 2011
If you are looking for a general account of the Vicksburg Campaign this certainly fits the bill. Mr. Groom covers the entire campaign to wrest control of the Mississippi River during the Civil War and although a very general study he does a competent job. I would like to be more enthusiastic, but the work was filled with cliches and not a few inaccuracies that left questions about the research. For example he mentions that the Battle of Antietam was fought at the "drowsy little village of Antietam" It was fought at Antietam Creek at the village of Sharpsburg, Maryland. The short section on the Battle of Shiloh sounded like a watered-down account of Ken Burns' version. Like a bad horror movie I could sometimes see the cliches coming.
All that being stated it is still a competent account of the Vicksburg Campaign, although flawed more than would be expected.
All that being stated it is still a competent account of the Vicksburg Campaign, although flawed more than would be expected.
November 9, 2010
Disappointed. I like the topic, but the style of writing is juvenile. And boring. Couldn't read but few pages.
September 28, 2017
Having read very little about civil war battles, and indeed, having read very little of military strategy, I was astonished at a continual scene of missteps and disasters. Misjudging the enemy, bad information, cowardly generals, men sent to be slaughtered because of the bad information - it’s all here, and much more. It seemed like every page had at least one, and sometimes multiple agonies. Although written mostly from the Union perspective, both sides had their share of troubles. Several female diaries describe the tragedy of being in Vicksburg during the siege. The book is kind enough to tell us what happened to the major combatants after the conflict.
This book no longer needs to sit on a shelf in my front room waiting to be read.
This book no longer needs to sit on a shelf in my front room waiting to be read.
January 16, 2013
My family and I took a road trip that included many of the battlefields of Grant's move south in 1862 and 1863, culminating in the siege of Vicksburg; the south finally capitulated on July 4, 1863.
My husband was reading Grant Moves South by Bruce Catton. I read this, which may be titled inaccurately because it covered the same ground as Catton's book, though perhaps with different levels of detail.
I've read other reviews trashing Groom for his academic scholarship and, being a Western Theater neophyte, I cannot say how accurate or inaccurate Groom's reporting may be. But I will assume basic accuracy and recommend this account as utterly readable and filled with interesting tidbits about the people, the places and the oddities (did you know that when Jefferson Davis was Secretary of War he charged Admiral David Porter to go to the middle east and bring back camels to serve as beasts of burden in the newly acquired American southwest territories? The Civil War and the railroads served to disband the Camel Corps and many of the animals were set free to go feral; the last one was sighted in the 1930s)
A good overview of the succession of victories that should have ended the war. A good taste of what life was like and why they fought. A fair tracing of how the reasons for fighting morphed as the war went on. Many instances of southern gentleman voting against secession and then taking up arms anyway, bound by duty and loyalty to state. Hints at what the outside world was thinking about what they saw as the incendiary end of the democratic experiment. The idea that the siege of Vicksburg and its aftermath (a defeated enemy who stubbornly continued to fight even when prospects were more than bleak) foreshadowed the trench warfare and needless battles and deaths prevalent in WWI. The navy on the rivers with their ironclads, the reason the Union could defeat the south at Vicksburg. And good trivial tidbits; LSU used to be a military school run by Sherman, who left when the Louisiana governor sacked a fort and sent him stolen arms for safe-keeping.
And a thoughtful quote or two; "Whom the Gods would destroy, they first make mad." Euripides
And a closing great anecdote;
"A friend liked to tell the story of the time years ago when as a small boy he was walking over the battlefield with his great-aunts and his grandmother, whose father had fought at Vicksburg during the war. Standing at the edge of the magnificent cemetery with its white marble tombstones stretching far as the eye could see, he asked one of the women, 'But why did they do it, Bamaw? Why did they die?' to which the old lady replied wearily, 'Oh, I don't know, son. I suppose they'd all be dead by now anyhow.'"
My husband was reading Grant Moves South by Bruce Catton. I read this, which may be titled inaccurately because it covered the same ground as Catton's book, though perhaps with different levels of detail.
I've read other reviews trashing Groom for his academic scholarship and, being a Western Theater neophyte, I cannot say how accurate or inaccurate Groom's reporting may be. But I will assume basic accuracy and recommend this account as utterly readable and filled with interesting tidbits about the people, the places and the oddities (did you know that when Jefferson Davis was Secretary of War he charged Admiral David Porter to go to the middle east and bring back camels to serve as beasts of burden in the newly acquired American southwest territories? The Civil War and the railroads served to disband the Camel Corps and many of the animals were set free to go feral; the last one was sighted in the 1930s)
A good overview of the succession of victories that should have ended the war. A good taste of what life was like and why they fought. A fair tracing of how the reasons for fighting morphed as the war went on. Many instances of southern gentleman voting against secession and then taking up arms anyway, bound by duty and loyalty to state. Hints at what the outside world was thinking about what they saw as the incendiary end of the democratic experiment. The idea that the siege of Vicksburg and its aftermath (a defeated enemy who stubbornly continued to fight even when prospects were more than bleak) foreshadowed the trench warfare and needless battles and deaths prevalent in WWI. The navy on the rivers with their ironclads, the reason the Union could defeat the south at Vicksburg. And good trivial tidbits; LSU used to be a military school run by Sherman, who left when the Louisiana governor sacked a fort and sent him stolen arms for safe-keeping.
And a thoughtful quote or two; "Whom the Gods would destroy, they first make mad." Euripides
And a closing great anecdote;
"A friend liked to tell the story of the time years ago when as a small boy he was walking over the battlefield with his great-aunts and his grandmother, whose father had fought at Vicksburg during the war. Standing at the edge of the magnificent cemetery with its white marble tombstones stretching far as the eye could see, he asked one of the women, 'But why did they do it, Bamaw? Why did they die?' to which the old lady replied wearily, 'Oh, I don't know, son. I suppose they'd all be dead by now anyhow.'"
October 9, 2024
I was disappointed with Groom’s writing: he refers to the start of a battle as the “kickoff” as in football; describes a cannonball hitting a gunboat as “shivering its timbers” (which is indeed the origin of the phrase but, please, pirate talk?); and used the phrase “get while the getting is good” in reference to a military withdrawal. No! I know Groom wrote “Forrest Gump,” but where was his editor?
March 20, 2013
Glaring inaccuracies in historical research better to read Wikipedia. This work is badly titled. Not for the serious reader of the American Civil War. Save your money!
July 13, 2019
One of the worst Civil War books I have ever read. The lost cause propaganda in this book turns it from non fiction to fiction
July 31, 2020
It is strange to think that the author of Forrest Gump as being a Civil War historian, but that is the case. This is in many ways a mixed bag. The author has a strong sense of the narrative, and that is something that is conveyed here, especially the author's fondness for discussing the civilians of Vicksburg and the surrounding area and their experience of the dramatic and lengthy and portentous Vicksburg campaign. This strength certainly makes the book an interesting and worthwhile one. That is not to say that this book is perfect as history. Indeed, as a history there are definitely some aspects that are lacking, unfortunately. In particular, the author seems to have a difficult time grasping the overall narrative of the Civil War and in particular the geographical aspect of it. A previous reader of the copy of the book I read noted this by correcting nearly all of the direction markers in the book because the author had trouble properly marking things on the map when it came to orienting himself, and thought that Lincoln called Grant east after Vicksburg while neglecting the Chattanooga campaign. These are mistakes that a seasoned historian of the Civil War who has a deep knowledge of its geography and chronology would simply not make but a popular novelist who wrote occasionally about the Civil War would and does make here.
This book is a bit more than 450 pages long and twenty chapters long divided into three parts. The book begins with a preface, introduction, note on military organization, weapons, and tactics, and maps. After that the first part looks at the movement of the war south, setting the stage for the Vicksburg campaign (I), with chapters on the opening of the war (1), the early war experiences of Sherman (2) and Grant (3), the efforts of Confederate generals to do the best they can (4), the squeezing of the Anaconda (5), the refusal of Vicksburg citizens to surrender (6), and the information about the war that was known by the public (7). After that the author discusses the vicissitudes of Grant's early efforts against Vicksburg (II), which features chapters on the various failed efforts to storm Vicksburg or to bypass it with canals. Finally, the last third of the book consists of a discussion of the siege and surrender and aftermath of the Vicksburg campaign (III), after which there are acknowledgements and source notes as well as an index.
Still, even though this book is by no means perfect does not mean that it is not without its charms. So long as the reader comes to this book with a firm knowledge of the Civil War and how it went, this sort of book can provide a service by making the history more humane and more gracious. All too often military history is not the sort of place where people explore how the ordinary person experiences war, and the author here has enough familiarity with the civilian sources of the Civil War that are relevant to the campaign to add a lot of human interest to his account. That is of value, if not necessarily the most obvious value that one gets from popular narrative histories of war. The author also manages to step into some dangerous territory in writing about Grant and his drunken benders during the campaign and not everyone will be pleased to see that particular human interest angle, although the author does deal with it somewhat gracefully after a fashion. This is a book that seeks to create a Civil War story that shows the importance of Vicksburg and the suffering that was involved in its siege and fall and that makes it worth reading if this is your sort of thing.
This book is a bit more than 450 pages long and twenty chapters long divided into three parts. The book begins with a preface, introduction, note on military organization, weapons, and tactics, and maps. After that the first part looks at the movement of the war south, setting the stage for the Vicksburg campaign (I), with chapters on the opening of the war (1), the early war experiences of Sherman (2) and Grant (3), the efforts of Confederate generals to do the best they can (4), the squeezing of the Anaconda (5), the refusal of Vicksburg citizens to surrender (6), and the information about the war that was known by the public (7). After that the author discusses the vicissitudes of Grant's early efforts against Vicksburg (II), which features chapters on the various failed efforts to storm Vicksburg or to bypass it with canals. Finally, the last third of the book consists of a discussion of the siege and surrender and aftermath of the Vicksburg campaign (III), after which there are acknowledgements and source notes as well as an index.
Still, even though this book is by no means perfect does not mean that it is not without its charms. So long as the reader comes to this book with a firm knowledge of the Civil War and how it went, this sort of book can provide a service by making the history more humane and more gracious. All too often military history is not the sort of place where people explore how the ordinary person experiences war, and the author here has enough familiarity with the civilian sources of the Civil War that are relevant to the campaign to add a lot of human interest to his account. That is of value, if not necessarily the most obvious value that one gets from popular narrative histories of war. The author also manages to step into some dangerous territory in writing about Grant and his drunken benders during the campaign and not everyone will be pleased to see that particular human interest angle, although the author does deal with it somewhat gracefully after a fashion. This is a book that seeks to create a Civil War story that shows the importance of Vicksburg and the suffering that was involved in its siege and fall and that makes it worth reading if this is your sort of thing.
March 26, 2025
Originally published by Knopf in 2009.
Winston Groom will always be best known as the author of Forrest Gump , but he should be equally well known as the author of a series of well-told American histories. Included in those histories is a trilogy of Civil War histories that focus on the Western Theater of the war.
Vicksburg 1863 is the second book in the trilogy, but it can be easily read as a stand-alone history. After a short introduction to the war itself, it follows Grant's campaign to take the Mississippi River away from the Confederacy, beginning with a mess of a battle in Missouri that proved nothing of any importance except that Grant was game to fight and push forward, even if the conditions were not perfect.
That, it turns out, was pretty much the key to Grant's eventual success in this campaign and in the war.
From there, we follow Grant through Kentucky, into Tennessee and the terrible Battle of Shiloh. Although ultimately successful, this marked a low point for Grant because he nearly lost his army. His immediate superior came to Shiloh to supervise him and killed most of the momentum of the campaign
Eventually, Grant regained his command (his superior officer was promoted to a desk position in the Eastern Theater) and began his campaign to remove the last major obstacle for Union control of the Mississippi River - Vicksburg, Mississippi.
Vicksburg was a challenge due to its location on an imposing cliff on a massive bend in the Mississippi River. The Confederate military placed cannons on the cliff that threatened any ship that dared to try to pass by. This book details the many efforts he made to bypass Vicksburg, including attempts to build a canal to reroute the Mississippi and an attempt to go through the swamps around Vicksburg. Eventually, he crossed the river south Mississippi and quickly moved his army to cut off Vicksburg, lay siege to it while also engaging and driving away any Confederate troops that could have helped to lift the siege.
Some people will argue with Groom's assertion that Grant did have bouts of drunkenness during the campaign. He describes a rather wild bender featuring Grant cruising through the swampy rivers north of Vicksburg during a lull during the siege, switching boats, and looking for more and more booze. Grant's defenders will deny it all, Grant's detractors will claim it was probably even worse. I go with the simple knowledge that addiction is powerful and Grant often brought along people that kept him accountable. If those people weren't around, I can easily imagine him falling off the wagon. Whether it was a wild run through the swamps or a binge drunk in the corner of a cabin...well, that depends on who told the story back then and who is writing the story now.
I rate this history 5 stars out of 5.
https://dwdsreviews.blogspot.com/2025...
Winston Groom will always be best known as the author of Forrest Gump , but he should be equally well known as the author of a series of well-told American histories. Included in those histories is a trilogy of Civil War histories that focus on the Western Theater of the war.
Vicksburg 1863 is the second book in the trilogy, but it can be easily read as a stand-alone history. After a short introduction to the war itself, it follows Grant's campaign to take the Mississippi River away from the Confederacy, beginning with a mess of a battle in Missouri that proved nothing of any importance except that Grant was game to fight and push forward, even if the conditions were not perfect.
That, it turns out, was pretty much the key to Grant's eventual success in this campaign and in the war.
From there, we follow Grant through Kentucky, into Tennessee and the terrible Battle of Shiloh. Although ultimately successful, this marked a low point for Grant because he nearly lost his army. His immediate superior came to Shiloh to supervise him and killed most of the momentum of the campaign
Eventually, Grant regained his command (his superior officer was promoted to a desk position in the Eastern Theater) and began his campaign to remove the last major obstacle for Union control of the Mississippi River - Vicksburg, Mississippi.
Vicksburg was a challenge due to its location on an imposing cliff on a massive bend in the Mississippi River. The Confederate military placed cannons on the cliff that threatened any ship that dared to try to pass by. This book details the many efforts he made to bypass Vicksburg, including attempts to build a canal to reroute the Mississippi and an attempt to go through the swamps around Vicksburg. Eventually, he crossed the river south Mississippi and quickly moved his army to cut off Vicksburg, lay siege to it while also engaging and driving away any Confederate troops that could have helped to lift the siege.
Some people will argue with Groom's assertion that Grant did have bouts of drunkenness during the campaign. He describes a rather wild bender featuring Grant cruising through the swampy rivers north of Vicksburg during a lull during the siege, switching boats, and looking for more and more booze. Grant's defenders will deny it all, Grant's detractors will claim it was probably even worse. I go with the simple knowledge that addiction is powerful and Grant often brought along people that kept him accountable. If those people weren't around, I can easily imagine him falling off the wagon. Whether it was a wild run through the swamps or a binge drunk in the corner of a cabin...well, that depends on who told the story back then and who is writing the story now.
I rate this history 5 stars out of 5.
https://dwdsreviews.blogspot.com/2025...
October 16, 2017
Detailed, highly readable, history of the campaign that made Grant's reputation: the battle for Vicksburg. In 1862, it had become clear to everyone that the initial estimate that the war would only last six months (a delusion shared by both sides) was wildly off base. As the Eastern theater began to look more and more like it would devolve into an extended stalemate, both sides recognized that control of the Mississippi River was key. If it was controlled by the South, then it could easily ship supplies from the west--primarily Texas--to the Confederate states east of the Mississippi. If controlled by the North, then farmers in the mid-West would have markets reopened in Europe, and would be far more likely to lend support to a lengthy war.
Grant began the campaign as one general among many, based in the southernmost point effectively controlled by the Union, Cairo, Illinois, and began a combined land/river battle headed south, while the Navy, such as it was, focused on capturing New Orleans, and then headed north up,the Mississippi. Everyone recognized that Vicksburg was the key: strategically located near the confluence of several rivers joining east and west, it enjoyed natural fortifications (located on a high bluff, and protected in the rear by swamps, ravines, and thick undergrowth), and heavily armed, it was going to be difficult to capture under any circumstances.
The campaign for the Mississippi was by far the bloodiest of the entire war, leaving aside the one day slaughterhouse of Gettysburg, and was in many ways the most important. The suffering, and death rate, endured by both sides is appalling. This book brings that home quite dramatically (one factoid: in the post-war years, the most robust economic activity in Mississippi was the manufacture of artificial limbs for veterans).
One more tidbit: the author, who has written several other civil war histories, is also the author of Forrest Gump!
Grant began the campaign as one general among many, based in the southernmost point effectively controlled by the Union, Cairo, Illinois, and began a combined land/river battle headed south, while the Navy, such as it was, focused on capturing New Orleans, and then headed north up,the Mississippi. Everyone recognized that Vicksburg was the key: strategically located near the confluence of several rivers joining east and west, it enjoyed natural fortifications (located on a high bluff, and protected in the rear by swamps, ravines, and thick undergrowth), and heavily armed, it was going to be difficult to capture under any circumstances.
The campaign for the Mississippi was by far the bloodiest of the entire war, leaving aside the one day slaughterhouse of Gettysburg, and was in many ways the most important. The suffering, and death rate, endured by both sides is appalling. This book brings that home quite dramatically (one factoid: in the post-war years, the most robust economic activity in Mississippi was the manufacture of artificial limbs for veterans).
One more tidbit: the author, who has written several other civil war histories, is also the author of Forrest Gump!
August 16, 2022
Groom does another great job and is in my mind a US History, historian. Just like he did with Shiloh, he has the uncanny ability to turn a subject that could easily become a college text book read, into something that keeps your interest. Although, I do read books that are college textbooks on the U.S. Civil War. Probably his novelist background gives him this ability.
People complain about how Groom takes "too much time" on character development. I don't think so, I think he does a great job with the background of all the major, and sometimes non major, players around this event, along with his others books. There needs to be some character background, unless you are a hard core US History buff and constantly keep up on all the Generals and other aspects that lead up to the Battle of Vicksburg.
One thing I want to mention, I got the feeling that Groom had a slight "tilt", favoring the CSA as almost like the good guys in all of this. Not a lot, but there was bashing of the Northern Generals and not as much with the Confederate ones. Such as Northern Generals stealing cotton or buying it and selling it for their own profit. You can't tell me that the Southern Generals didn't do the same type of things, or bad things also. Just like all other authors that are from the south, that write Civil War books, it always seems to be some sort of sympathy towards the Southern Army. Never completely unbiased.
Groom is one of my favorite authors, he does a great job on this book. I respect his knowledge and time that he put into this one, along with the other books that I have read.
People complain about how Groom takes "too much time" on character development. I don't think so, I think he does a great job with the background of all the major, and sometimes non major, players around this event, along with his others books. There needs to be some character background, unless you are a hard core US History buff and constantly keep up on all the Generals and other aspects that lead up to the Battle of Vicksburg.
One thing I want to mention, I got the feeling that Groom had a slight "tilt", favoring the CSA as almost like the good guys in all of this. Not a lot, but there was bashing of the Northern Generals and not as much with the Confederate ones. Such as Northern Generals stealing cotton or buying it and selling it for their own profit. You can't tell me that the Southern Generals didn't do the same type of things, or bad things also. Just like all other authors that are from the south, that write Civil War books, it always seems to be some sort of sympathy towards the Southern Army. Never completely unbiased.
Groom is one of my favorite authors, he does a great job on this book. I respect his knowledge and time that he put into this one, along with the other books that I have read.
December 1, 2024
Can't really get any good information due to the author's clear Confederate sympathies. I should've known what I was in for when I read the introduction, in which he is so pleased and so proud to have found an ancestor who fought for the Confederacy. That's embarrassing, dude, you come from a line of traitors and slaveowners.
When Groom writes about the Union soldiers foraging supplies from the country, he very blatantly tries to make the reader feel sorry for the poor plantation owners. Even to the point where he relates a story of a "most trusted slave" escaping from his owners as if it's awful that the man stole from the people who considered him property. Groom even makes sure to emphasize how well Jefferson Davis treated the enslaved people! It gets tiring and it's gross. In my personal opinion, Groom's rhapsodic paragraphs about how idyllic Southern life was makes me think he would like to be a plantation owner.
He also writes throughout the book and primarily at the end about what all the military leaders on both sides did after the war (or if they were killed during the war). Who does he conveniently leave out of his relating of post-war activity? Nathan Bedford Forrest. I suppose it would've been tough for him to wax poetic on Forrest's Civil War ventures if he admitted that Forrest would go on to be the first Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan. Which is weird, since he wrote Forrest Gump and that character is named after that very Forrest. So obviously he's aware!
Basically, anything inventive the Union does is either too extreme or is downplayed, and anything the Confederates do is heroic and proof of their brilliance. Skip this Lost Causer bullshit.
When Groom writes about the Union soldiers foraging supplies from the country, he very blatantly tries to make the reader feel sorry for the poor plantation owners. Even to the point where he relates a story of a "most trusted slave" escaping from his owners as if it's awful that the man stole from the people who considered him property. Groom even makes sure to emphasize how well Jefferson Davis treated the enslaved people! It gets tiring and it's gross. In my personal opinion, Groom's rhapsodic paragraphs about how idyllic Southern life was makes me think he would like to be a plantation owner.
He also writes throughout the book and primarily at the end about what all the military leaders on both sides did after the war (or if they were killed during the war). Who does he conveniently leave out of his relating of post-war activity? Nathan Bedford Forrest. I suppose it would've been tough for him to wax poetic on Forrest's Civil War ventures if he admitted that Forrest would go on to be the first Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan. Which is weird, since he wrote Forrest Gump and that character is named after that very Forrest. So obviously he's aware!
Basically, anything inventive the Union does is either too extreme or is downplayed, and anything the Confederates do is heroic and proof of their brilliance. Skip this Lost Causer bullshit.
April 11, 2018
A wonderfully readable history of the Civil War, as fought on "western" soil, especially along the Mississippi river and in the state of Mississippi. Prior to my visit there in two weeks, I feel well armed to understand the sites I will be seeing.
The first third or so of the book provides context and foundation for the actual siege of Vicksburg, and I'm grateful the author took the time to do this - it is important to understand all the players and why they were there. Who knew that naval battles were part of this war?! I'm excited to see the USS Cairo, restored at Vicksburg. The river was so important to travel and commerce at this time.
Winston Groom (who also wrote Forrest Gump, among other books) really made the men and women associated with the Civil War in this area come to life. Well researched, containing even "controversial" data (depends where one's sympathies lie I suppose). The photos in the book were great (I was wishing for more), and the maps were referred to often.
I have hired a 2-hour personal tour guide to show us around the vast Vicksburg National Military Park and tell us the stories (we did the same thing last year at Gettysburg, adding a third hour - it went by so fast and was fascinating). In the book I learned there are 17,000 graves of Union soldiers at Vicksburg (Confederates are buried at a nearby site) - making it the largest repository of Union dead in the nation, including Arlington.
Amazing story, amazing war - mind blowing, really.
The first third or so of the book provides context and foundation for the actual siege of Vicksburg, and I'm grateful the author took the time to do this - it is important to understand all the players and why they were there. Who knew that naval battles were part of this war?! I'm excited to see the USS Cairo, restored at Vicksburg. The river was so important to travel and commerce at this time.
Winston Groom (who also wrote Forrest Gump, among other books) really made the men and women associated with the Civil War in this area come to life. Well researched, containing even "controversial" data (depends where one's sympathies lie I suppose). The photos in the book were great (I was wishing for more), and the maps were referred to often.
I have hired a 2-hour personal tour guide to show us around the vast Vicksburg National Military Park and tell us the stories (we did the same thing last year at Gettysburg, adding a third hour - it went by so fast and was fascinating). In the book I learned there are 17,000 graves of Union soldiers at Vicksburg (Confederates are buried at a nearby site) - making it the largest repository of Union dead in the nation, including Arlington.
Amazing story, amazing war - mind blowing, really.
February 21, 2020
This is the second non-fiction work I read by Winston Groom and it won't be the last. Groom knows how to tell a story and blessed with characters such as these he does not disappoint. Grant and Pemberton of course get a lot of attention but the supporting cast starting with Sherman is equally strong. Much is made of the importance of Vicksburg to the Confederacy and the recognition of that fact by both sides. More than anyone else in the book we get to live through the highs and lows the Union's attempt to take the Gibraltar of the South. Speaking of highs and lows - we are there side by side with Grant as he visits both, repeatedly. I picked up Vicksburg, 1863 because I don't know nearly as much about the Civil War as I should and I am glad I did. Groom is very engaging and doesn't presuppose knowledge about the conflict among his readers. Pretty much the full cast of characters from the War Between the States get mentions and cameos even if they are not directly engaged in this theater of the war. Groom also explores the relationship amongst many of the generals before war broke out. How these friends and family of even prominent figures found themselves on opposite sides. This was a fun book to read. I am ready for my next work by Groom.
August 2, 2019
This is a very readable and penetrating history of not just the events specifically at and around Vicksburg, but the entire Civil War campaign in the western theater from 1861 to and through 1863. The author, Winston Groom, adds the context of how Vicksburg became such an important key to defeating the Southern rebellion. While the primary focus is the Vicksburg campaign, expect analysis and commentary on Forts Henry and Donaldson, Shiloh, Corinth, Island #10, New Orleans, Fort Pillow and Port Hudson. Those events did have significant impact on how the Vicksburg campaign was shaped and decided. All the major players and personalities involved on both sides of these campaigns are explored and detailed. Those personalities had major impacts on how this campaign progressed, developed and was resolved. Mr. Groom also details the impact the siege at Vicksburg had on the civilian population. All in all, this was a very readable non-fiction book because Mr. Groom is such an excellent story teller. It is not just facts and dates; the human stories are revealed in this book as well.
June 16, 2019
More like 3.5. Not in any way a bad book, but exhaustively thorough. Anything you every wanted to know, and lots of things you didn't want to know, about the battle of Vicksburg are here. I really just wanted a one-volume overview of Vicksburg, which is what Groom's Shiloh is. This is a very detailed, multi-year history, both before and some after the battle. Much of the text is repeated in Shiloh, which I had just read. The characters and brought fully to life and I do have a good understanding of the personalities, land, tactics, etc. about the battle. Thankfully, Groom is a very good writer and it never felt tedious, just too much detail for what I wanted.
August 7, 2025
A book that provides a good overview of all the different strategies and tactical moves that swirled around Vicksburg in 1862 and 1863. That in itself builds to a nice crescendo around Grant's final battles and the siege that ended it all.
However, the writer can't resist noodling around with some ... shall we say historically questionable ... stories and hearsay regarding many of the commanders, politicians, and quasi-related historical events. Good lord, how many pages were devoted to second-hand accounts of Grant's supposed drinking and benders?
This makes it more of a "pop history" rather than a more thoughtful treatise on Vicksburg.
However, the writer can't resist noodling around with some ... shall we say historically questionable ... stories and hearsay regarding many of the commanders, politicians, and quasi-related historical events. Good lord, how many pages were devoted to second-hand accounts of Grant's supposed drinking and benders?
This makes it more of a "pop history" rather than a more thoughtful treatise on Vicksburg.
April 12, 2018
My wife and I bought our first home together in Vicksburg, and our oldest son was born there, which is why I chose to read this book. Only after I started reading did I realize that the author also wrote FORREST GUMP, a favorite movie of ours. I really enjoyed the personal angles used to tell this story, and having toured the battlefield a dozen times and lived in Mississippi for 10 years, I could picture the all the places detailed in this novel. Now, I only wish that while I lived there I'd asked the people I knew about the experiences of their parents and grandparents.
November 14, 2017
Excellent narrative of the Mississippi River campaigns and the Vicksburg Campaign. Contrary to the year in the title, this book does not only focus on the year 1863, but looks all the way back to 1862, when the first major Union movements launched down the Mississippi to occupy the country's artery. Groom does a wonderful job at telling the story, but I did wish there was more discussion on the aftermath of the campaign and its strategic importance overall.
February 9, 2021
Groom is a good storyteller, but his accounts of Civil War battles (Vicksburg, Shiloh, Franklin & Nashville) are, unsurprisingly, def southern-leaning. Still, mostly factually correct, and the narrative moves along at a good pace (doesn't get bogged down in deep detail regarding regiments, companies, etc.). A good, concise telling of an important, though often overlooked and somewhat confusing campaign.
April 5, 2018
Awesome. My great great great Uncle was in the 11th Wisconsin, Company A, in this battle, and I loved the book's detail and thoroughness. It's more a description of the entire civil war in the West, and why Vicksburg was so pivotal. The descriptions of naval river combat, mortars, and civilians under siege were eye-opening.
July 9, 2018
I have mixed feelings about this book. In a way, I think the author hasn’t accepted the fact that the south lost. He seems to have dislike for U. S. Grant and a complete hatred for William T. Sherman. On the other hand, he is also very critical about Jefferson Davis. Vicksburg was an important victory for the north, perhaps the turning point of the war, and it deserves better writing.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 83 reviews