Vicksburg Impact On The War

Joshism

Captain
Joined
Apr 30, 2012
Location
Jupiter, FL
Inspired by comments in the Vicksburg vs Gettysburg thread: after initial reactions passed and beyond the basic morale impacts, what was the actual significance of the capture of Vicksburg and the accompanying surrender of Port Hudson? The Union now controlled the whole Mississippi River, but how much actual control did they have and what did this mean in reality?

1. The Mississippi River was now open again to commercial shipping from the Midwest. Did this have a boost on the economy or Union logistics?

2. Did the CSA troops captured but later exchanged miss any important engagements? I think Dave Powell mentions they missed Chickamauga.

3. Did the CSA troops failing to lift the siege miss any important engagements? Stones River and Tullahoma certainly.

4. The end of the campaign freed up large numbers of Union troops, especially important at Chattanooga.

5. How effectively was the Trans-Mississippi cut off? Didn't it stop Texas beef shipments? Did it prevent any significant troop movements or other supplies?

6. Did desertion increase amongst TX, AR, LA, and MO regiments serving east of the river?

Any other impacts on the war?
 
Dang @Joshism - you beat me to it! I was thinking the same thing when reading @67th Tigers comments and thought they needed further examination. Thanks!

The victory at Vicksburg probably had a greater significance to the Union than the Confederacy. After NOLA fell, the Mississippi was lowered to an 'intra' rather than 'inter' waterway. As the Union slowly moved up and down her, less of it was available for use by the South. Vicksburg and Port Hudson allowed for full use, and newspaper headlines, to the Union but by that time, how much of it was useful, and being used, by the Confederacy? Was Vicksburg not just a place where two armies met and one decided to make a stand and was trapped - regardless of 'where' it was? It seemed like an excellent defensible position - until approached from overland...was it not more useful in it's ability to deny the Union of proclaiming it had opened the Mississippi than it was of actual value to the South?

Will be interested in the replies...


Cheers,
USS ALASKA
 
The majority of the parolees from Vicksburg were exchanged on 7th September 1863. They were already formed an in camps in the CSA. They were rapidly back at the front and were engaged at Chattanooga.

Checking, essentially Stevenson's Division from Vicksburg were at Missionary Ridge.
 
Last edited:
Part of a domino. Some troops left there and moved to Helena in preparation for Battle of Little Rock. Others headed to Georgia and the small march that happened there.

Battle in Helena also happened July 4th. Prepared the way for the Army of Arkansas and Gen. Steele.
 
There are other threads on the 'clamoring' for the restoration of the Mississippi to commercial traffic - https://civilwartalk.com/threads/who-was-oliver-p-morton.140782/ - however, was it that desperately needed? The Old Northwest had other avenues of transpo available to them...

emmaandjason123_1394112390.jpg


https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/infogram-particles-700/emmaandjason123_1394112390.jpg

map-of-canals-in-us-1820-1860-transportation.jpg


http://cdoovision.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/map-of-canals-in-us-1820-1860-transportation.jpg

...granted, the canals and Great Lakes were of seasonal usefulness this far north.

The Mississippi DID provide a protected, internal LOC for other military ops. Given things like the Trent Affair, this was of perhaps a more important value...

Cheers,
USS ALASKA
 
...which was an important source of transportation and revenue.

Sir, how much of the 'transportation' aspect as being utilized by the Confederacy post May 01, 1862? The river itself was a barrier that needed to be crossed but was it all that useful in providing north / south transportation for the South?

How much 'revenue' was being generated by the Mississippi river for the Confederacy post May 01, 1862?

Cheers,
USS ALASKA
 
Sir, how much of the 'transportation' aspect as being utilized by the Confederacy post May 01, 1862? The river itself was a barrier that needed to be crossed but was it all that useful in providing north / south transportation for the South?

How much 'revenue' was being generated by the Mississippi river for the Confederacy post May 01, 1862?

Cheers,
USS ALASKA
Post May 1 '62, the CSA used the Mississippi to transport cattle, salt, sugar and molasses from Texas and Louisiana to Mississippi. Yes, it was more difficult and dangerous, but needed and done.
 
Inspired by comments in the Vicksburg vs Gettysburg thread: after initial reactions passed and beyond the basic morale impacts, what was the actual significance of the capture of Vicksburg and the accompanying surrender of Port Hudson? The Union now controlled the whole Mississippi River, but how much actual control did they have and what did this mean in reality?

1. The Mississippi River was now open again to commercial shipping from the Midwest. Did this have a boost on the economy or Union logistics?

2. Did the CSA troops captured but later exchanged miss any important engagements? I think Dave Powell mentions they missed Chickamauga.

3. Did the CSA troops failing to lift the siege miss any important engagements? Stones River and Tullahoma certainly.

4. The end of the campaign freed up large numbers of Union troops, especially important at Chattanooga.

5. How effectively was the Trans-Mississippi cut off? Didn't it stop Texas beef shipments? Did it prevent any significant troop movements or other supplies?

6. Did desertion increase amongst TX, AR, LA, and MO regiments serving east of the river?

Any other impacts on the war?
The capture of Vicksburg gave the Union the option to attack east from there to Jackson, Meridian, Demopolis, Selma and then either Mobile or Montgomery. One attack was made as far as Meridian, but fell back when the joining cavalry component was defeated in northern Mississippi. I don't understand why Sherman fell back when he could have turned a raid into the capture of two very important points (Selma and Mobile).
 
1. There was an election of Governor of Ohio coming up. John Braugh was the Republican candidate. Clement Valandingham was the Democratic candidate. Braugh won, Valandingham lost. That might have been related to Vicksburg.
2. Within 3 months, Burnside's force was in Knoxville. Steele's force was in Little Rock. The United States occupied 3 secessionist capitals, had sacked a fourth capital twice and made Texas irrelevant. You tell me why the war continued after that? What was the rational basis for an expectation that the Confederacy could win a contest of attrition with the United States? Just because the war went on does not mean there was a rational basis for that continuation.
 
2. Within 3 months, Burnside's force was in Knoxville. Steele's force was in Little Rock. The United States occupied 3 secessionist capitals, had sacked a fourth capital twice and made Texas irrelevant. You tell me why the war continued after that? What was the rational basis for an expectation that the Confederacy could win a contest of attrition with the United States? Just because the war went on does not mean there was a rational basis for that continuation.
That's probably the subject of another thread.
 
FWIW, checking my library I found what initially brought me to the understanding that Vicksburg is overblown. Albert Castel published "Vicksburg: Myths and Realities" in North and South Vol.6 No. 7

It's worth a read.
 
Last edited:
The capture of Vicksburg gave the Union the option to attack east from there to Jackson, Meridian, Demopolis, Selma and then either Mobile or Montgomery. One attack was made as far as Meridian, but fell back when the joining cavalry component was defeated in northern Mississippi. I don't understand why Sherman fell back when he could have turned a raid into the capture of two very important points (Selma and Mobile).
How easy (or hard) was it for Selma to ship ammo/shells throughout the Confederacy after Sherman cut off Atlanta railroads?
 
Sherman did not cut those RRs until 8 months after he could have taken Selma.
Selma was never the real point of his task, or Columbus, Augusta...He did quite a bit in taking out Atlanta, and changing base of operations, marching to the Sea!

Kevin Dally
 
2. Did the CSA troops captured but later exchanged miss any important engagements? I think Dave Powell mentions they missed Chickamauga.
The Trans-Mississippi Confederate troops (with the exception of the Missourians) were to head to parole camps in their own respective states, so they were reorganized there and most never fought east of the river again.

As to the troops that were 'exchanged' east of the river, some joined the AoT in time to see action at Chattanooga while others didn't arrive until just before the Atlanta Campaign.

3. Did the CSA troops failing to lift the siege miss any important engagements? Stones River and Tullahoma certainly.
Those detached from the AoT were done so after Stones River; and they did rejoin the army in time to fight at Chickamauga. Not all troops in Johnston's Army of Relief were from the AoT though; it also included Loring's division and some other units pulled from various departments.

6. Did desertion increase amongst TX, AR, LA, and MO regiments serving east of the river?
No. Those that were left stranded east of the Mississippi actually suffered fewer desertions. Usually the troops serving closest to home tended to desert the most and vise versa.
 
Last edited:
Vicksburg cut the CS in half. The loss of New Orleans, then Vicksburg... and the CS absolutely even attempting to retake them proved that the CS was a hollow shell, it would be proved beyond a shadow of doubt a little over a year later when Sherman made his march through Georgia & the Carolinas. The loss of Vicksburg also cost the CS 30k odd small arms, more cannon than they could afford to lose and an army of which large portions would never again rejoin the fight.

Vicksburg was a strategic victory. Gettysburg was a tactical one. Both were losses the CS could ill afford. One would have regional consequences whereas the other was local.

The idea that the fall of Vicksburg was over rated... well sounds like the comments of people who did most of their fighting in the newspapers anyway.
 
Those detached from the AoT were done so after Stones River

Wasn't Stevenson's division sent from Bragg to MS in response to Grant's first move against Vicksburg - the one that ended when Van Dorn burned Grant's depot at Holly Springs - and as a result missed Stones River?
 
Back
Top