Jeff Davis and Vicksburg

mural.jpg


And a mural at the floodwall downtown, the description tablet of which reads:
JEFFERSON DAVIS AT BRIERFIELD:
"The painful selection of a president"

On a February day in 1861 as Jefferson and Varina Davis were pruning roses on the lawn at Brierfield, their home south of Vicksburg, a messenger arrived information Davis that he had been elected president of the Confederate States of America.

Mrs. Davis wrote, "He looked so grieved that I feared some evil had befallen our family. After a few minutes' painful silence, he told me, as a man might speak of a sentence of death ..." The mural captures the approaching storm clouds of war.

He left the next day for Montgomery, Alabama, for the inauguration, making his first speech as president-elect at the Vicksburg Wharf.

Davis was a graduate of West Point and a hero of the Mexican War. He served in the United States Congress, Senate, and was Secretary of War.

After the War Between the States, he was a greatly revered Southern statesman and predicted for America "a future full of promise, a future of expanding national glory, before which all the world will stand amazed."
 
It is very easy for Professor Gallagher to control the debate about the significance of Vicksburg, because he is still alive.
The people who were commenting about the situation in 1860 had a different opinion.
Specifically, what "debate about the significance of Vicksburg" is Mr. Gallagher 'controlling'? Are you referencing one of his books or lectures? If so, which one: I'd like to learn his point of view before critiquing it....
 
That might be true of forts, per se, but not necessarily true of "strong points." I don't think it's appropriate to commingle forts and strong points in reference to Vicksburg and Port Hudson. I don't think either were designed to be supported solely by the other like forts. Vicksburg, for example, was supported by the Southern Railroad of Mississippi, which connected to other rail roads, supply points, throughout the south. It was also supported by the Trans-Mississippi and the Mississippi River (for a time) As well as the Yazoo River and Mechanicsburg Corridor.

Although Port Hudson and Vicksburg shifted troops back and forth it was not their only means of support. Nor do I think they were ever designed to do so.
Lincoln called Vicksburg "the key" and Davis called it "the nailhead." The city was crucial to both sides -- geographically, militarily, politically, psychologically. The Union had tried for more than a year to capture Vicksburg by river and by land, extraordinary means and maneuvers that had all failed. Once Davis and Johnston knew that Grant was on land south of the city, and knowing, as you point out, that the city was supplied by rail and must not be allowed to be isolated and hemmed in, they should have moved heaven and earth to defeat Grant in those May battles before he could back Pemberton's army into a corner. And they had 47 days, once the siege began, to send additional troops to attack Grant's rear, and they didn't.
 
Specifically, what "debate about the significance of Vicksburg" is Mr. Gallagher 'controlling'? Are you referencing one of his books or lectures? If so, which one: I'd like to learn his point of view before critiquing it....
Prof. Gallagher is a fun guy. Naturally he wants to emphasize the war in Virginia. He is pulling our collective leg in de-emphasizing Vicksburg, in my view.
 
Prof. Gallagher is a fun guy. Naturally he wants to emphasize the war in Virginia. He is pulling our collective leg in de-emphasizing Vicksburg, in my view.
Thanks for your response.
He is, indeed, very entertaining, making it easier for his audience to understand his lessons. He's also a talented writer.
But were you referring to a book or a lecture? I'd like to 'follow-up'....
 
Back
Top