Days of Glory: The Army of the Cumberland, 1861-1865

Rating:
Summary: Days of glory for the Army of the Cumberland in the CW West
Review: Ask any American to name a Civil War battle and the answer you will usually get is "Gettysburg". The average person knows little about the Western theatre of the conflict which was
crucial in leading to ultimate union victory (not that the Eastern theatre wasn't also key!).
The Rev. Larry Daniel's books on Shiloh and Soldiering in the Army of Tennesse are well done. In his latest work he chronicles the history of the Army of the Cumberland largest of the three
major union armies in the Western Theatre (the other two being the Army of the Tennessee and the Army of the Ohio).
Instead of strictly battlefield accounts of such important battles as Shiloh, Stones River, Perryville, Chickamauga,
Chattanooga and the Atlanta Campaign the author focuses more
on the personalities and conflicts among the commanders.
Daniel draws detailed accounts of the five commanders of the Army of the Cumberland: Robert Anderson, William Sherman, Don
Carlos Buell, William Starke Rosecrans and George Thomas.
All of these men had major faults, enemies within the ranks and made mistakes. Nevertheless, the Army of the Cumberland fought well in several tough campaigns of the war.
Daniel writes clearly and his prose is easy to follow. The book took years to write, is well researched though it does need more and better maps.
This is a good book for a Civil War reader tired of the endless tomes on Virginia battles and longing to learn more
about the western campaigns of the Civil War.


Rating:
Summary: A well done army history
Review: A book by Larry J. Daniel is an event in the ACW community. He has an established reputation for scholarship and readability that some authors can only envy. A book on the Union Army of the Cumberland by him is a milestone. No real history of this army is in print. Except for some battle histories, the majority by Peter Cozens, the AOC might not exist in print. This book is a good start to correct a deficiency in ACW history.

First, this is a readable book populated with very well drawn characters. Second, the battles and campaigns occur within the life of the army. All to often, an army seems to spring from battle to battle without an idea of how or why. We understand how the campaigns come about and why the battles occur where they do. Most of all, we come to understand the relationships between the generals. Thomas' reasons for refusing to replace Buell and the effect it had on him is an interesting and on going story. How this action and Rosecrans' habits echo through the army's history is one of the best subplots in the book. This is not the reason for the book but these two men have a major impact on this army.

Objections, the maps could be better and more of them would have helped. The post Chattanooga history seems rushed; another 100 pages would have made this a better book. I would have liked to follow Thomas and the major elements of the AOC back to Nashville and seen them face Hood. These are "nits" and do not detract from this excellent book.


Rating:
Summary: An execellent history of the Army of the Cumberland
Review: Daniel has written the definitive history of the Army of the Cumberland which compares favorably with Connelly's two volumes that deal with the Confederate Army of Tennessee. In the first section Daniel excuses General Buell for failure to take Chattanooga because the Confederate cavalary destroyed all of his supply depots. However Daniel is very critical of Buell in the Battle of Perryville for not coming to defend his left and for allowing Bragg to invade Kentucky. Daniel is also critcal of Rosecrans for leaving his right flank vulnerabale during the Battle of Stones River and for failing to destroy the Confederate army of Tennessee in the spring of 1863. Finally Rosecrans failed miserabely in overexending his forces during the Battle of Chickamauga which left them vulnerabe for a Confederate attack. Daniel believes that the final general of the Army of the Cumberland, General Thomas, had flaws in that he was too slow like Buell, but gradually improved over time. This is a crtical and very readable history of the Army of the Cumberland, but Daniel leaves out how regimental dynamics such as those mentioned in Gerald Prokopowicz's book impeded the Army's military effectiveness. Overall, I would reccomend this book for anyone who is interested in the Western theater of the Civil War.

Rating:
Summary: Finally a Modern History of the Army of the Cumberland
Review: Thanks to Mr. Daniel and LSU Press we finally have a modern history of the too often neglected Army of the Cumberland (AoC). Where this book excells is in its characterization of the the high level command structure. While I was familar with much of this material I found this book helped me gain a far deeper understanding of the growth and transformation of the Army of Ohio into the Army of the Cumberland. Mr. Daniel also does a good job of weaving in plenty of first person detail to give this book the compelling human touch essential to any book's readability. Where this book falls short is in its operational details. The maps, what few there are don't really help the reader. The author also makes the case early on that he is not the big fan of George Thomas that previous AoC writers and biographers such as McKinney, Buell and Castel were. Yet Thomas comes off looking very good in Daniels' book. His only real dig against Thomas is that he was only the overseer of victory at Stones River and not the savior of that battle as other authors have claimed. Here is where the lack of operational detail bites Daniel. Thomas' key positioning of the Regular Brigade, his unbreakable reserve unit, followed by its nearly suicidal commitment at the key moment at Stones River, was the real turning point of that battle. The author provides a good description of the Regular Brigade's first engagement of Dec 31, 1862, at Stones River, but then omits their far more critical second action, ordered by Thomas, then attributes the Regulars total casualty figures for both actions to the less signifcant first action. John King is protrayed as the CO of the 18th US Infantry's three battalions when he was actually the CO the 15th US Infantry's one battalion. A better understand of the brigade level operational details might have led Mr. Daniel to some different conclusions. Still I am very happy with this book and consider it a neccessary reference for anyone seriously studying the Civil War's Western Theater.