PART 2
Pemberton withdrew around 5 P.M., with Featherston covering the rear on the left, and Tilghman covering the Raymond Road on the right. Skirmishing and artillery fire marked the extent of the fighting along the southern Raymond Road between Tilghman and the Federal Divisions of A.J. Smith and Frank Blair. Barton’s Confederate Brigade, after having been routed earlier in the day by Logan, had moved west and was now covering the northern crossing of Baker’s Creek. S.D. Lee had crossed at the southern crossing and was moving north to guard the northern crossing (Pemberton did not know Barton was already there). Barton thought Lee was the enemy, and withdrew from the crossing! Thus the Federals were handed a gift and crossed Baker’s Creek. Bowen, covering the southern crossing and waiting for Loring, was then forced to withdraw. As a result, Loring, still east of the Creek as a rear guard, decided not to cross and took his entire Division south and then back northeast to Johnston. He thus saved his Division but deprived Pemberton of much-needed strength in the Siege to come. This decision has been controversial ever since, and Smith, although not committing decisively one way or the other, seems to lean towards the impossibility of Loring crossing Baker’s Creek. He says that Union artillery already had the crossing covered, and that Loring’s decision was a prudent one. This is the first time I had heard it presented this way. I had always thought Loring deliberately took himself out of the Campaign to rid himself of a commander he hated. Smith, although blasting Loring earlier for his disobedience, gives the Division commander a pass in this case.
In the aftermath of the battle, Hovey’s Division, which had suffered a disproportionate number of casualties, remained behind to tend to the wounded and the prisoners, and to bury the dead. Out of 29,000 Union troops present, 2,441 were casualties, for an 8.4% casualty rate. Pemberton suffered much more severely. Out of 24,000 men, he lost 3840 for a casualty rate of 16%. When you throw in the removal of Loring from the campaign, the Confederate casualties were disastrous. Smith also points out that the above stats are a little misleading. Hovey’s, Logan’s, and Crocker’s Divisions of the northern column had done most of the fighting for the Union, while the four divisions to the south suffered very little. I was amazed at just how few troops were casualties in McClernand’s columns. To me, Smith gives McClernand a little too much of a free pass. If he had been more aggressive, Bowen or even the entire Confederate Army could have been trapped and destroyed. He does point out Grant’s order to be cautious, but McClernand had to have heard the obviously major fighting going on right in front of him. Grant’s orders at that point were for all intents and purposes obsolete. On the Confederate side, Stevenson and Bowen did almost all of the fighting, and Loring’s tardiness allowed his Division to escape virtually unscathed from the fighting.
The subsequent night time retreat of Loring near and sometimes almost through Union camps that night is an entirely different story, however. Smith calls Champion Hill a “decisive strategic and tactical victory” for Grant. He blames Pemberton almost completely for the defeat, citing his poor approach march, his lack of proper cavalry reconnaissance, his almost criminal neglect when he failed to ride over to the left completely to directly observe the fighting, and his decision to leave two full divisions behind in the entrenchments of Vicksburg. He points out again that Pemberton was unfit for command, and that he was a bureaucrat and a desk general. At this point he goes back to Loring’s decision not to cross Baker’s Creek and retreat with Pemberton. As I stated earlier, Smith believes that it would have been a close call if Loring had tried to cross the Creek, and that Loring might have been trapped and forced to surrender.
In the final chapter, Smith describes the disaster that befell the Confederates at the Big Black River Bridge the next day. Grant pursued relentlessly, and as a result routed the Confederates out of their entrenchments on the east side of Big Black River. Over one thousand more Rebels were captured, and Grant was well on his way to besieging Vicksburg. He then proceeds to wrap up the ensuing assaults, the Siege, and the surrender of Pemberton on July 4, 1863. Smith points out that Champion Hill was the most important and decisive battle of the Vicksburg Campaign, although he stops short of calling it the most important battle of the entire Civil War. It vaulted Grant and Sherman to later prominence, although it cut McClernand down at the height of his success. He had only himself to blame, due to a selfish proclamation he issued to his Corps after the Second Assault at Vicksburg on May 22. Grant relieved him and he never again held an important field command. Finally, Smith points out that with some better decision making by Pemberton, and with some more timely support of Bowen, the Confederates could have won the day. Champion Hill was a closer-run affair than it would seem at first sight.
In several interesting sections after the text, Smith details the later lives of the main players involved in the battle. He also has an excellent selection of modern-day photos, accompanied by a map depicting the position and orientation of the camera for each photo. What amazed me was that the Jackson Road in that area is obviously no longer used. It is little larger than an ATV path at this point!
The first thing that struck me after reading Champion Hill was Dr. Smith’s assessments of McClernand and McPherson. He states that Grant thought McClernand was a better tactician than McPherson, and bases that on the fact that he rode with McPherson’s column on May 16 and allowed McClernand independent command to the south. I do not entirely agree with this assessment, as I mentioned previously. For instance, how did Grant know which column would strike the enemy first? And how did he know precisely where the enemy was in strength when he set out on the morning of May 16. Regardless, I do partially share Smith’s high opinion of McClernand. Although I am not fond of his unbounded and very public ambition, the political General did show a good tactical eye and an aggressive nature in numerous fights. However, I would not excuse his timid performance on May 16 as much as Dr. Smith does. He points to an order from Grant to McClernand not to bring on a general engagement. This is all well and good, but heavy fighting raged only several hundred yards to the west and northwest of McClernand on Champion Hill. Surely he heard the racket made by tens of cannon and thousands of rifled muskets? At that point, Grant’s orders had become obsolete. McClernand had a chance to at the very least bag Bowen’s entire Division of excellent fighters, a fine prize indeed, but he was uncharacteristically timid this day. While I also agree that Pemberton was to blame for the defeat, Loring’s performance deserved a court-martial, and Joe Johnston was his usual timid self at the time of decision. It didn’t help that the inexperienced Stevenson was in charge of the Division hit first and holding the most important terrain of the entire battle. These rather small points aside, I thought Dr. Smith’s battle history of the Battle of Champion Hill to be well told and excellently explained book which went down to the regimental level. Since I am almost as much of a wargamer as am amateur historian and Civil War buff, I thoroughly enjoyed the attention to detail. As I mentioned in the introduction, Smith differs in some cases with Bearss, and does not hesitate to say so. He backs this up with good explanations, and I appreciate the fact that he was not simply rewriting Bearss’ chapters on Champion Hill.
I must also take a moment here to mention the maps done by Ted Savas, who also happens to be the publisher. Anyone who has read any books published by Savas, whether under his old name of Savas Publishing or now Savas Beatie, knows that Mr. Savas has more appreciation for numerous good maps than any other publisher I have ever seen. This book is no exception. Fully 41 maps cover the action in regimental level detail and accompany Smith’s words in perfect harmony. They allowed me to fully appreciate just what went on and gave me an insight into the battle I haven’t had up to this point. I did have one minor quibble, and this coincides with the observation of Tony Gunter, who posts on the “civilwarwest” Yahoo Group. Mr. Gunter has pointed out in the past that the maps use various shades for elevation, and this makes it a little harder to determine elevations than if topographical lines of elevation had been used. This is, like my minor disagreements with some of Dr. Smith’s conclusions, a minor quibble. No one does maps like Mr. Savas, and I mean NO ONE.
As anyone who reads my reviews on a regular basis knows, I tend to recommend a book as long it is of reasonable quality if it is the only one to cover a given battle. In this case, although Dr. Smith’s book is the only one to concentrate on Champion Hill to date, it is an almost perfect model of everything a tactical battle study should be. Smith delivers on his promise in the Preface, and delivers in a big way. This book was well-written, both in terms of being able to explain the often confusing action, and also in being able to keep me entertained at the same time. Dr. Smith has obviously done his homework, as the numerous manuscript collections in the bibliography suggest. His “Thereafter” section detailing the later life of the participants was also a fresh idea, as were the modern photographs of the battlefield. And the maps, as usual in a Savas-published book, were obviously seen as a major part of the book and not thrown in as afterthoughts like some books published today (Donnybrook comes to mind). Every serious student of the Civil War, and especially of the war in the Western Theater, should own a copy of this book. I eagerly look forward to more work from Dr. Smith in the future.
502 pp., 41 maps.
© Copyright Brett Schulte 2005. All rights reserved.




Reply With Quote