What do you think?
Rate this book
Civil War America
The Darkest Days of the War: The Battles of Iuka and Corinth
During the late summer of 1862, Confederate forces attempted a three-pronged strategic advance into the North. The outcome of this offensive--the only coordinated Confederate attempt to carry the conflict to the enemy--was disastrous. The results at Antietam and in Kentucky are well known; the third offensive, the northern Mississippi campaign, led to the devastating and little-studied defeats at Iuka and Corinth, defeats that would open the way for Grant's attack on Vicksburg.
Peter Cozzens presents here the first book-length study of these two complex and vicious battles. Drawing on extensive primary research, he details the tactical stories of Iuka--where nearly one-third of those engaged fell--and Corinth--fought under brutally oppressive conditions--analyzing troop movements down to the regimental level. He also provides compelling portraits of Generals Grant, Rosecrans, Van Dorn, and Price, exposing the ways in which their clashing ambitions and antipathies affected the outcome of the campaign. Finally, he draws out the larger, strategic implications of the battles of Iuka and Corinth, exploring their impact on the fate of the northern Mississippi campaign, and by extension, the fate of the Confederacy.
During the late summer of 1862, Confederate forces attempted a three-pronged strategic advance into the North. The outcome of this offensive--the only coordinated Confederate attempt to carry the conflict to the enemy--was disastrous. The results at Antietam and in Kentucky are well known; the third offensive, the northern Mississippi campaign, led to the devastating and little-studied defeats at Iuka and Corinth, defeats that would open the way for Grant's attack on Vicksburg. Peter Cozzens details the tactical stories of Iuka and Corinth, analyzing troop movements down to the regimental level and providing compelling portraits of Generals Grant, Rosecrans, Van Dorn, and Price. He also draws out the larger, strategic implications of the battles, exploring their impact on the fate of the northern Mississippi campaign, and by extension, the fate of the Confederacy.
Peter Cozzens presents here the first book-length study of these two complex and vicious battles. Drawing on extensive primary research, he details the tactical stories of Iuka--where nearly one-third of those engaged fell--and Corinth--fought under brutally oppressive conditions--analyzing troop movements down to the regimental level. He also provides compelling portraits of Generals Grant, Rosecrans, Van Dorn, and Price, exposing the ways in which their clashing ambitions and antipathies affected the outcome of the campaign. Finally, he draws out the larger, strategic implications of the battles of Iuka and Corinth, exploring their impact on the fate of the northern Mississippi campaign, and by extension, the fate of the Confederacy.
During the late summer of 1862, Confederate forces attempted a three-pronged strategic advance into the North. The outcome of this offensive--the only coordinated Confederate attempt to carry the conflict to the enemy--was disastrous. The results at Antietam and in Kentucky are well known; the third offensive, the northern Mississippi campaign, led to the devastating and little-studied defeats at Iuka and Corinth, defeats that would open the way for Grant's attack on Vicksburg. Peter Cozzens details the tactical stories of Iuka and Corinth, analyzing troop movements down to the regimental level and providing compelling portraits of Generals Grant, Rosecrans, Van Dorn, and Price. He also draws out the larger, strategic implications of the battles, exploring their impact on the fate of the northern Mississippi campaign, and by extension, the fate of the Confederacy.
400 pages, Paperback
First published April 28, 1997
15 people are currently reading
214 people want to read
About the author
Peter Cozzens
44 books252 followersPeter Cozzens is the award-winning author of seventeen books on the American Civil War and the West. Cozzens is also a retired Foreign Service Officer.
His most recent book is A Brutal Reckoning: Andrew Jackson, the Creek Indians, and the Epic War for the American South (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2023). Cozzens's next book is Deadwood: Gold, Guns, and Greed in the American West (Knopf: September 2025).
Cozzens's penultimate book, Tecumseh and the Prophet: The Shawnee Brothers Who Defied a Nation, was published by Knopf in October 2020. It won the Western Writers of America Spur Award and was a finalist for the George Washington Prize.
His The Earth Is Weeping: The Epic Story of the Indian Wars for the American West was published by Alfred A. Knopf in October 2016. Amazon selected it as a Best Book of November 2016. Smithsonian Magazine chose it as one of the ten best history books of 2016. It has won multiple awards, including the Gilder-Lehrman Prize for the finest book on military history published worldwide. It also was a London Times book of the year and has been translated into several languages, including Russian and Chinese.
All of Cozzens' books have been selections of the Book of the Month Club, History Book Club, and/or the Military Book Club.
Cozzens’ This Terrible Sound: The Battle of Chickamauga and The Shipwreck of Their Hopes: The Battles for Chattanooga were both Main Selections of the History Book Club and were chosen by Civil War Magazine as two of the 100 greatest works ever written on the conflict.
The History Book Club called his five-volume Eyewitnesses to the Indian Wars "the definitive resource on the military struggle for the American West."
His Shenandoah 1862: Stonewall Jackson's Valley Campaign was a Choice "Outstanding Academic Title" for 2009.
He was a frequent contributor to the New York Times "Disunion" series, and he has written articles for Smithsonian Magazine, The Wall Street Journal, True West, America's Civil War, Civil War Times Illustrated, and MHQ, among other publications.
In 2002 Cozzens received the American Foreign Service Association’s highest award, given annually to one Foreign Service Officer for exemplary moral courage, integrity, and creative dissent.
Cozzens is a member of the Advisory Council of the Lincoln Prize, the Western Writers Association, the Authors' Guild, and the Army and Navy Club.
Cozzens and his wife Antonia Feldman reside in Maryland.
His most recent book is A Brutal Reckoning: Andrew Jackson, the Creek Indians, and the Epic War for the American South (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2023). Cozzens's next book is Deadwood: Gold, Guns, and Greed in the American West (Knopf: September 2025).
Cozzens's penultimate book, Tecumseh and the Prophet: The Shawnee Brothers Who Defied a Nation, was published by Knopf in October 2020. It won the Western Writers of America Spur Award and was a finalist for the George Washington Prize.
His The Earth Is Weeping: The Epic Story of the Indian Wars for the American West was published by Alfred A. Knopf in October 2016. Amazon selected it as a Best Book of November 2016. Smithsonian Magazine chose it as one of the ten best history books of 2016. It has won multiple awards, including the Gilder-Lehrman Prize for the finest book on military history published worldwide. It also was a London Times book of the year and has been translated into several languages, including Russian and Chinese.
All of Cozzens' books have been selections of the Book of the Month Club, History Book Club, and/or the Military Book Club.
Cozzens’ This Terrible Sound: The Battle of Chickamauga and The Shipwreck of Their Hopes: The Battles for Chattanooga were both Main Selections of the History Book Club and were chosen by Civil War Magazine as two of the 100 greatest works ever written on the conflict.
The History Book Club called his five-volume Eyewitnesses to the Indian Wars "the definitive resource on the military struggle for the American West."
His Shenandoah 1862: Stonewall Jackson's Valley Campaign was a Choice "Outstanding Academic Title" for 2009.
He was a frequent contributor to the New York Times "Disunion" series, and he has written articles for Smithsonian Magazine, The Wall Street Journal, True West, America's Civil War, Civil War Times Illustrated, and MHQ, among other publications.
In 2002 Cozzens received the American Foreign Service Association’s highest award, given annually to one Foreign Service Officer for exemplary moral courage, integrity, and creative dissent.
Cozzens is a member of the Advisory Council of the Lincoln Prize, the Western Writers Association, the Authors' Guild, and the Army and Navy Club.
Cozzens and his wife Antonia Feldman reside in Maryland.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 21 of 21 reviews
August 13, 2019
Of the three Confederate offensives in the late summer and early autumn of 1862, the best known and documented is, of course, Lee’s Maryland campaign with the major battle at Antietam on September 17. Lagging far behind in second place is Bragg’s Kentucky campaign which culminated at the battle of Perryville on October 8. And, usually relegated to a mere footnote in the more well-known campaign studies, the obscure series of engagements at Iuka (Sept. 19) and Corinth (Oct. 3-4) in northeastern Mississippi and the rear-guard action at Hatchie Bridge (Oct. 5) just across the state line in West Tennessee, constituted the third prong of the ambitious Confederate late summer drive. The indifference accorded these battles in the past leads one to suspect that most historians have found the fighting at Iuka and Corinth difficult to follow and adequately comprehend for themselves, and thus, impossible to easily explain to their readers. Luckily, Peter Cozzens, the noted author of several excellent Civil War battle studies, has accepted that challenge. The result is a work that has added significantly to our knowledge of these relatively small but ferocious battles and their significance to Union and Confederate fortunes in the Western Theater.
In essence, the battles of Iuka and Corinth were a direct result of Braxton Bragg's Kentucky campaign. Jefferson Davis, having hobbled his commanders with ambiguously defined command jurisdictions, hoped for mutual cooperation among the forces under Kirby Smith in East Tennessee, Braxton Bragg’s Army of the Mississippi, Sterling Price’s Trans-Mississippi troops, and scattered commands responsible for the defense of Vicksburg under Earl Van Dorn. On the Federal side, Ulysses S. Grant, still smarting from the near disaster at Shiloh, was unenthusiastically monitoring his various detachments guarding the railroads now under Union control in West Tennessee and northern Mississippi, while Don Carlos Buell, with the balance of Federal field forces, ponderously inched toward Chattanooga.
Although a major factor in initially spurring Bragg into taking offensive action, Smith proved remarkably uncooperative once the two Confederate commands arrived in Kentucky. Price wanted to support Bragg’s movement, but felt he had too few troops to move alone into Tennessee. Pleas to Van Dorn that he join him resulted in yet another shameful display of the Southern high command's inability (or unwillingness) to mutually cooperate unless unequivocally ordered to do so. Van Dorn maneuvered behind Price’s back to ensure Davis would place him in overall command of his own forces and Price’s Trans-Mississippi contingent in the event the commands should be united in the field.
Grant, who saw an opportunity to trap Price’s command, ordered out converging Federal columns under generals Edward O. C. Ord and William S. Rosecrans. These forces collided near the small Mississippi community of Iuka. While good luck enabled him to fight his way out of the Northern pincers, Price realized that if he and Van Dorn were to survive, they would have to unite their commands. Price therefore swallowed his pride and placed himself and his troops under the command of Earl Van Dorn. Having already dismissed Price’s suggestion of a move into Tennessee, but realizing he must do something to support Bragg’s offensive, Van Dorn instead concluded, based on a combination of faulty intelligence reports, wishful thinking, and a desire for personal glory, that the time was now opportune for the Confederates to attack and retake the vital railroad junction at Corinth.
The Darkest Days of the War is the first serious full treatment of the crucial battles that comprised this campaign. Since Cozzens had few secondary sources upon which to draw, he concentrated on locating first-hand and unpublished accounts. He has once again come through with newly discovered materials from newspapers, letters, diaries, and other public and private sources. The result, as we have come to expect from this author's previous battle studies, is a detailed blow by blow account of the fighting, delivered primarily at regimental level, but that also describes even company level movements and actions.
The author is highly critical of most of the major players, both Union and Confederate, involved in the Corinth campaign. As a matter of fact, few officers holding brigade command and higher escape his sometimes scathing criticism. However, Cozzens is at his best in depicting the actual fighting, where he allows most of the action to be reported through the words of the men who were there. While this format has worked very well in Cozzens’ previous books, because Iuka, Corinth and Hatchie Bridge were such confusing affairs, this approach can occasionally make it difficult for the reader to follow the flow of important operational and tactical decisions being made at various higher command levels. The author generally avoids this pitfall however, and, for the most part, expertly details the convoluted series of attacks and counterattacks that characterized all three engagements. More annoying is the frequent interruption of the flow of the action by a biographical essay every time we encounter a new division, brigade, or regimental commander. Such material, although important, would be less intrusive if provided in chapter notes, or perhaps as a sidebar topic.
If chronicling the battle action can be considered Cozzens’ greatest strength, his background introductory material – setting the battles within the context of the larger strategic situation – and summary conclusions, reveal some weaknesses. The author presents a rather biased introduction that seems to ignore, or at least fails to acknowledge the existence of, dissenting historical viewpoints. For example, Albert Sidney Johnston is portrayed as a weak, indecisive Confederate commander who effectively yields control to Beauregard during the Shiloh campaign. While some historians have certainly adopted this view of Johnston, others have presented strong arguments to the contrary. In a similar vein, the conclusions Cozzens has drawn of the consequences resulting from these battles and an examination of some “what-ifs” are not always well supported. For instance, while the author posits that if only Mansfield Lovell had used his division more aggressively, Southern forces may well have taken Corinth, he then abruptly dismisses the impact this result may have had on Grant and the overall Federal fortunes in the theater. Cozzens contends that since Grant could rapidly concentrate 50,000 troops to retake Corinth, the 14,000 Confederates left to defend the town could have been easily overcome. However among other oversights, this conclusion ignores the morale impact such a loss would undoubtedly have had on the Federals, and it also assumes that each side's battle losses would have been the same as they were historically (to arrive at 14,000 surviving Confederates). While Van Dorn probably would have been better advised to move into Tennessee instead of assaulting Corinth, the loss of this vital railroad junction by the Federals would have been considered a major reversal, perhaps even ending the still somewhat shaky career of U. S. Grant. A quick and successful Federal counterstroke to retake the town would not necessarily be a forgone conclusion.
These criticisms are minor for the most part however, and in view of the author’s overall research, generally insignificant. Cozzens is to be congratulated for bringing the stories of the bloody fights at Iuka, Corinth and Hatchie Bridge, so long ignored by other historians, back to the forefront of Civil War literature. This work is highly recommended for anyone with more than a passing interest in the Civil War’s Western Theater. (less)
In essence, the battles of Iuka and Corinth were a direct result of Braxton Bragg's Kentucky campaign. Jefferson Davis, having hobbled his commanders with ambiguously defined command jurisdictions, hoped for mutual cooperation among the forces under Kirby Smith in East Tennessee, Braxton Bragg’s Army of the Mississippi, Sterling Price’s Trans-Mississippi troops, and scattered commands responsible for the defense of Vicksburg under Earl Van Dorn. On the Federal side, Ulysses S. Grant, still smarting from the near disaster at Shiloh, was unenthusiastically monitoring his various detachments guarding the railroads now under Union control in West Tennessee and northern Mississippi, while Don Carlos Buell, with the balance of Federal field forces, ponderously inched toward Chattanooga.
Although a major factor in initially spurring Bragg into taking offensive action, Smith proved remarkably uncooperative once the two Confederate commands arrived in Kentucky. Price wanted to support Bragg’s movement, but felt he had too few troops to move alone into Tennessee. Pleas to Van Dorn that he join him resulted in yet another shameful display of the Southern high command's inability (or unwillingness) to mutually cooperate unless unequivocally ordered to do so. Van Dorn maneuvered behind Price’s back to ensure Davis would place him in overall command of his own forces and Price’s Trans-Mississippi contingent in the event the commands should be united in the field.
Grant, who saw an opportunity to trap Price’s command, ordered out converging Federal columns under generals Edward O. C. Ord and William S. Rosecrans. These forces collided near the small Mississippi community of Iuka. While good luck enabled him to fight his way out of the Northern pincers, Price realized that if he and Van Dorn were to survive, they would have to unite their commands. Price therefore swallowed his pride and placed himself and his troops under the command of Earl Van Dorn. Having already dismissed Price’s suggestion of a move into Tennessee, but realizing he must do something to support Bragg’s offensive, Van Dorn instead concluded, based on a combination of faulty intelligence reports, wishful thinking, and a desire for personal glory, that the time was now opportune for the Confederates to attack and retake the vital railroad junction at Corinth.
The Darkest Days of the War is the first serious full treatment of the crucial battles that comprised this campaign. Since Cozzens had few secondary sources upon which to draw, he concentrated on locating first-hand and unpublished accounts. He has once again come through with newly discovered materials from newspapers, letters, diaries, and other public and private sources. The result, as we have come to expect from this author's previous battle studies, is a detailed blow by blow account of the fighting, delivered primarily at regimental level, but that also describes even company level movements and actions.
The author is highly critical of most of the major players, both Union and Confederate, involved in the Corinth campaign. As a matter of fact, few officers holding brigade command and higher escape his sometimes scathing criticism. However, Cozzens is at his best in depicting the actual fighting, where he allows most of the action to be reported through the words of the men who were there. While this format has worked very well in Cozzens’ previous books, because Iuka, Corinth and Hatchie Bridge were such confusing affairs, this approach can occasionally make it difficult for the reader to follow the flow of important operational and tactical decisions being made at various higher command levels. The author generally avoids this pitfall however, and, for the most part, expertly details the convoluted series of attacks and counterattacks that characterized all three engagements. More annoying is the frequent interruption of the flow of the action by a biographical essay every time we encounter a new division, brigade, or regimental commander. Such material, although important, would be less intrusive if provided in chapter notes, or perhaps as a sidebar topic.
If chronicling the battle action can be considered Cozzens’ greatest strength, his background introductory material – setting the battles within the context of the larger strategic situation – and summary conclusions, reveal some weaknesses. The author presents a rather biased introduction that seems to ignore, or at least fails to acknowledge the existence of, dissenting historical viewpoints. For example, Albert Sidney Johnston is portrayed as a weak, indecisive Confederate commander who effectively yields control to Beauregard during the Shiloh campaign. While some historians have certainly adopted this view of Johnston, others have presented strong arguments to the contrary. In a similar vein, the conclusions Cozzens has drawn of the consequences resulting from these battles and an examination of some “what-ifs” are not always well supported. For instance, while the author posits that if only Mansfield Lovell had used his division more aggressively, Southern forces may well have taken Corinth, he then abruptly dismisses the impact this result may have had on Grant and the overall Federal fortunes in the theater. Cozzens contends that since Grant could rapidly concentrate 50,000 troops to retake Corinth, the 14,000 Confederates left to defend the town could have been easily overcome. However among other oversights, this conclusion ignores the morale impact such a loss would undoubtedly have had on the Federals, and it also assumes that each side's battle losses would have been the same as they were historically (to arrive at 14,000 surviving Confederates). While Van Dorn probably would have been better advised to move into Tennessee instead of assaulting Corinth, the loss of this vital railroad junction by the Federals would have been considered a major reversal, perhaps even ending the still somewhat shaky career of U. S. Grant. A quick and successful Federal counterstroke to retake the town would not necessarily be a forgone conclusion.
These criticisms are minor for the most part however, and in view of the author’s overall research, generally insignificant. Cozzens is to be congratulated for bringing the stories of the bloody fights at Iuka, Corinth and Hatchie Bridge, so long ignored by other historians, back to the forefront of Civil War literature. This work is highly recommended for anyone with more than a passing interest in the Civil War’s Western Theater. (less)
September 1, 2023
A good basic overview of the two battles that had the most influence on Vicksburg in the Western Theater of the Civil War, this battle study satisfies on many levels. We meet and get to know some of the outsized personalities involved in the campaign, including a bull-dog tough US Grant and philandering Earl Van Dorn. The author makes his case that if Iuka and Corinth had turned out differently, Vicksburg might not have been such a pivotal battle in the greater scheme of things. A very good read!!
May 15, 2020
A very informative read of these lesser but important battles. A Line of Battle treatment needs done for them.
November 20, 2019
This is, in my opinion, the definitive work on the 1862 campaign for Corinth. Cozzens does a wonderful job framing the overall situation and characterizing those personalities involved. From the flamboyant Van Dorn, to the bi-polar Rosecrans, to the adored Missourian Sterling Price, I thoroughly enjoyed the individual narratives of some very peculiar leaders who have, in some sense, been overshadowed by their counterparts actions regionally and also in the east. Cozzens style in describing the battles of Iuka and Corinth is on display here, and his focus on the actions of individual companies, regiments, and leaders is much easier to follow than in some of his books on larger battles (ie This Terrible Sound). The maps are adequate, although I’ll never shy from saying more would be better. Overall, highly entertaining and educational. If you have an interest in the western theater, this is a must read.
February 11, 2024
This is the best treatment of this pair of overlooked battles yet written!
May 28, 2019
Avid students of the Civil War are undoubtedly familiar with the battle of Shiloh and the subsequent belabored advance upon the railroad junction at Corinth Mississippi by Halleck. Grant was sidelined. The campaign for Vicksburg was yet to come.
But after Corinth was taken and the Confederates regrouped, what happened next? Well, Bragg's army sought to recover Tennessee by an invasion of Kentucky. Part of Halleck's army, under Buell followed Bragg into Kentucky. But what was going on with the rest of Halleck's army? Not much as they were spread out all over western Tennessee guarding railroads and supply points. Halleck went off to Washington as General in Chief and Grant resumed command. The campaign for Vicksburg had not yet started.
The Confederates aimed to retake Corinth and support Bragg using the forces of Sterling Price and Earl Van Dorn. A bold move to defeat the dispersed Union army was undertaken and resulted in the battles of Iuka and days later, Corinth. Grant was involved from a distance but the main Union units were commanded by William Rosecrans. As with most Civil War battles, the fighting was fierce and the initial Confederate attacks were successful, driving the Union back to the point of disintegration. Units were ably and miserably led. Then night fell (see also Shiloh, Stones River). The troops were exhausted. On the morrow, the Confederates renewed their attack, had success, but then Union reserves counterattacked and the lack of Confederate reserves, bad command decisions, and a severe lack of supplies caused the CSA units to retreat and abandon the field. The way was open to Vicksburg.
OK, enough history. How was the book?
For starters, Cozzens, whose first book No Better Place to Die was about the battle of Stones River, has upped his game in this account. The writing was crisper and more interesting, perhaps because of the colorful Confederate leaders Price and Van Dorn (who disliked each other). The strategic situation is well covered and for once, there are maps that aid the reader as the armies maneuvered. Railroads, roads and rivers are marked. The 90+ degree heat of northern Mississippi figures prominently. Unlike No Better Place to Die which maddeningly had some maps oriented north to the right and others north to the top here, all the maps are oriented north to the top.
The Union missed two opportunities to smash the Confederates in the aftermath of the two battles but poor leadership, tired troops, and the problems of coordinating disparate columns without telegraphic connection led to disappointment.
Overall, a first rate campaign and battle history of September-October in northern Mississippi. The book is an important bridge between Shiloh and Vicksburg and a reminder that both sides were hardly idle.
Quibbles?
In one place, Cozzens lifts practically word for word a paragraph about Rosecrans' excitability and alleged stammering from No Better Place to Die. Had I not read these books back-to-back, I would have missed this. Otherwise, as far as I can tell, the narrative was original and deeply plumbed primary sources. We can be grateful that so many veterans wrote their accounts either in letters or articles.
In the final chapters, Cozzens presents both Rosecrans' and Grant's version of whether to pursue the Confederates after Corinth but passes no judgement on who might have been right.
And lastly, one has to look elsewhere to understand why units lost, recovered, and/or maintained cohesion despite losses. As one reads Cozzens, one gets the sense that units were blown apart by canister or fell in the proverbial windrows. But if this was the norm, how did the battle keep going? I suspect it had a lot to do with the poor performance of the weapons at hand. I suspect it also has a lot to do with the primary sources that would take note of the worst and downplay or omit when nothing was happening or the source was relatively "safe".
I should probably read Paddy Griffith's Battle Tactics of the Civil War to learn more before reading another campaign/battle history.
As a footnote, I picked up this book because of an upcoming trip to central Tennessee where I'm taking the opportunity to visit Civil War battlefields. The planned loop starts at Stones River and then will go through Chickamauga before turning westward to, yes, Iuka and Corinth (I realize these are chronologically out of order). Corinth is described in The Darkest Days of the War as a place founded by a swamp where malaria and dysentery were rife. I can only hope that things have improved in the last 150 years before we check into our B&B.
But after Corinth was taken and the Confederates regrouped, what happened next? Well, Bragg's army sought to recover Tennessee by an invasion of Kentucky. Part of Halleck's army, under Buell followed Bragg into Kentucky. But what was going on with the rest of Halleck's army? Not much as they were spread out all over western Tennessee guarding railroads and supply points. Halleck went off to Washington as General in Chief and Grant resumed command. The campaign for Vicksburg had not yet started.
The Confederates aimed to retake Corinth and support Bragg using the forces of Sterling Price and Earl Van Dorn. A bold move to defeat the dispersed Union army was undertaken and resulted in the battles of Iuka and days later, Corinth. Grant was involved from a distance but the main Union units were commanded by William Rosecrans. As with most Civil War battles, the fighting was fierce and the initial Confederate attacks were successful, driving the Union back to the point of disintegration. Units were ably and miserably led. Then night fell (see also Shiloh, Stones River). The troops were exhausted. On the morrow, the Confederates renewed their attack, had success, but then Union reserves counterattacked and the lack of Confederate reserves, bad command decisions, and a severe lack of supplies caused the CSA units to retreat and abandon the field. The way was open to Vicksburg.
OK, enough history. How was the book?
For starters, Cozzens, whose first book No Better Place to Die was about the battle of Stones River, has upped his game in this account. The writing was crisper and more interesting, perhaps because of the colorful Confederate leaders Price and Van Dorn (who disliked each other). The strategic situation is well covered and for once, there are maps that aid the reader as the armies maneuvered. Railroads, roads and rivers are marked. The 90+ degree heat of northern Mississippi figures prominently. Unlike No Better Place to Die which maddeningly had some maps oriented north to the right and others north to the top here, all the maps are oriented north to the top.
The Union missed two opportunities to smash the Confederates in the aftermath of the two battles but poor leadership, tired troops, and the problems of coordinating disparate columns without telegraphic connection led to disappointment.
Overall, a first rate campaign and battle history of September-October in northern Mississippi. The book is an important bridge between Shiloh and Vicksburg and a reminder that both sides were hardly idle.
Quibbles?
In one place, Cozzens lifts practically word for word a paragraph about Rosecrans' excitability and alleged stammering from No Better Place to Die. Had I not read these books back-to-back, I would have missed this. Otherwise, as far as I can tell, the narrative was original and deeply plumbed primary sources. We can be grateful that so many veterans wrote their accounts either in letters or articles.
In the final chapters, Cozzens presents both Rosecrans' and Grant's version of whether to pursue the Confederates after Corinth but passes no judgement on who might have been right.
And lastly, one has to look elsewhere to understand why units lost, recovered, and/or maintained cohesion despite losses. As one reads Cozzens, one gets the sense that units were blown apart by canister or fell in the proverbial windrows. But if this was the norm, how did the battle keep going? I suspect it had a lot to do with the poor performance of the weapons at hand. I suspect it also has a lot to do with the primary sources that would take note of the worst and downplay or omit when nothing was happening or the source was relatively "safe".
I should probably read Paddy Griffith's Battle Tactics of the Civil War to learn more before reading another campaign/battle history.
As a footnote, I picked up this book because of an upcoming trip to central Tennessee where I'm taking the opportunity to visit Civil War battlefields. The planned loop starts at Stones River and then will go through Chickamauga before turning westward to, yes, Iuka and Corinth (I realize these are chronologically out of order). Corinth is described in The Darkest Days of the War as a place founded by a swamp where malaria and dysentery were rife. I can only hope that things have improved in the last 150 years before we check into our B&B.
September 5, 2017
What do you say about a book that you find pretty much perfect? This seems to be dilemma I am finding myself in right now, as I try to formulate some sort of coherent opinion about Peter Cozzens’ ‘The Darkest Days of the War’. The only thing that keeps popping up in my head is simply ‘This bloody thing is perfect!’.
Of course I realize that this is not a very helpful review and if I’d be hard-pressed to be more precise about the reason why this book made such an impression on me, I’d say ‘balance’. The author strikes absolutely perfect balance between overall picture and detail, between dry facts and personal experience, between commander’s perspective and the horror of combat experienced by individual soldier standing in the line of battle. Military history buffs interested in American Civil War are blessed by the fact that there is a multitude of historians that are also very talented writers, but Peter Cozzens is exceptional all in his own right.
There may be another reason why I cannot help but regard this book as absolutely superb. I read a lot of military history literature and most of the time I regard books in this genre simply as source of information and a learning tool. Very seldom do they manage to touch me on personal level. On this occasion however… there is something in the writing style of Cozzens that on several occasions filled me with immense sense of sorrow and sadness for the men who had to live through the horror of the events author describes. Military history writers often try to present the ‘human aspect’ of armed conflict, but in my case at least it is very seldom that their efforts manage to provoke a reaction. This book is for some unexplainable reason different and it definitely managed to leave a lasting emotional imprint on me.
An exceptional book, both from literary and history perspective and I can’t recommend it highly enough for anyone interested in American Civil War.
Of course I realize that this is not a very helpful review and if I’d be hard-pressed to be more precise about the reason why this book made such an impression on me, I’d say ‘balance’. The author strikes absolutely perfect balance between overall picture and detail, between dry facts and personal experience, between commander’s perspective and the horror of combat experienced by individual soldier standing in the line of battle. Military history buffs interested in American Civil War are blessed by the fact that there is a multitude of historians that are also very talented writers, but Peter Cozzens is exceptional all in his own right.
There may be another reason why I cannot help but regard this book as absolutely superb. I read a lot of military history literature and most of the time I regard books in this genre simply as source of information and a learning tool. Very seldom do they manage to touch me on personal level. On this occasion however… there is something in the writing style of Cozzens that on several occasions filled me with immense sense of sorrow and sadness for the men who had to live through the horror of the events author describes. Military history writers often try to present the ‘human aspect’ of armed conflict, but in my case at least it is very seldom that their efforts manage to provoke a reaction. This book is for some unexplainable reason different and it definitely managed to leave a lasting emotional imprint on me.
An exceptional book, both from literary and history perspective and I can’t recommend it highly enough for anyone interested in American Civil War.
August 1, 2024
A great book. Cozzens does an amazing job of bringing attention to the oft forgotten battles of Iuka and Corinth. These battles, fought between small desperate rebel armies and the large yet dispersed Federal army, helped determine the course of the war not only by keeping the vital town of Corinth in Union hands but by also eliminating the only true offensive Confederate threat left in Mississippi.
Cozzens brings life to the battles and creates order from the confusion. The author also pulls no punches, placing blame where it's deserved whether it be with foolhardy and ignorant Van Dorn or the stunning ineptitude of the Federal generals over the course of the campaign, Grant included.
This is my first review so it's probably not the best, but if you like the Civil War or military history in general then you will love this book.
Cozzens brings life to the battles and creates order from the confusion. The author also pulls no punches, placing blame where it's deserved whether it be with foolhardy and ignorant Van Dorn or the stunning ineptitude of the Federal generals over the course of the campaign, Grant included.
This is my first review so it's probably not the best, but if you like the Civil War or military history in general then you will love this book.
March 16, 2022
Peter Cozzens is well-respected for his books on battles in the Western Theater of the Civil War. This book on the lesser-known battles of Corinth and Iuka is one example. The author describes the maneuverings that preceded and followed the battles, as well as the personalities involved. The maps of the battles themselves are good, often going to regimental level. Cozzens concludes with an assessment of the battles, the commanding generals, and the strategic implications of the battles.
February 11, 2013
This book meant a great deal more to me than it might to most, because my Greatx3 Grandfather was killed at the Battle of Iuka and I was able to read this book just prior to visiting the site. That said, I still think most people with an interest in the Civil War would appreciate the detailed work here. Cozzens shares well researched facts and well reasoned conjectures. Enjoyable and thorough.
March 2, 2022
Good history book on an obscure battle
Very detailed account of the battle of Corinth. Lots of interesting information on a battle not much is written on. Kindle version of this book is riddled with typos. Definitely needed more proofreading
Very detailed account of the battle of Corinth. Lots of interesting information on a battle not much is written on. Kindle version of this book is riddled with typos. Definitely needed more proofreading
July 18, 2022
Well researched, but a bit slow. The lack of maps really hurt it.
January 12, 2026
”Two of his messmates were dead, but Private Kavanaugh kept on. Beside him was Wallace Martin, his closest friend. Both were exhausted. They had lain awake most of the night, nervously relating their battle experiences to each other and speculating on what the morning might bring. Martin closed the conversation. Tucking up his blanket, he rolled away from Kavanaugh, saying, ‘Will, let’s go to sleep, tomorrow some of us have to be killed, but we do not know who it will be.’ One hundred fifty yards short of the Yankee breastworks, Martin fell, shot through the brain. Kavanaugh was unhurt, but thirty-five of the forty-five men of his company were already down.”
Few engagements of the Civil War would have been as atrocious to live through as those of the Iuka-Corinth Campaign in late 1862. Taking place in the large context of a series of Confederate counteroffensives in August through October, a rebel attempt to take the vital rail hub at Corinth resulted in fighting that was relatively small-scale compared to the contemporary clashes in Virginia and Maryland but was no less important and certainly not less brutal. If anything, Peter Cozzens’s The Darkest Days of the War makes a pretty solid case that these battles, taking place in the stifling heat, followed by frigid nights, and fought by hungry, weary men, were some of the most intense of the war.
The use of first-hand accounts brings a lot of immediacy and life to the battle descriptions. I don’t think Cozzens is quite as talented as the likes of Stephen Sears or Gordon Rhea, but he does a fine job relating the horrors of war — certainly I wouldn’t have wanted to be there. Where the book almost breaks down is the lack of battle maps. Cozzens falls victim to the name every unit and its precise position trope that is such a common pitfall for their very low-level battle histories. The lack of maps makes this especially perturbing, as I very often lost track of what was going on. The maps that are included are good enough but more would have made the battle descriptions easier to keep track of.
Still, a number of really solid battlefield vignettes pull things together. One of the best moments was the stand of the 11th Ohio Light Artillery at Iuka. Cozzens truly brings their story to life here in proper fashion and makes me glad that a notable historian gave time to this often overlooked subject. The grinding frontal assaults of Corinth, the brief Confederate breakthrough near the Tishomingo hotel, and the torturous Rebel retreat are also especially well covered.
The sections I found most interesting were actually all of the chapters surrounding the battles. The growing disagreements between Grant and Rosecrans, Sterling Price’s leadership of his Missouri Division, and Earl Van Dorn’s delusions of grandeur are excellent bits of human drama that add meaning to the madness of battle. All along the way, average soldiers have thanks to Cozzens’s extensive research through archives and manuscript collections. This is a history book that is both top-down to bottom-up.
This is not a book you should give to someone who doesn’t care about the Civil War. It is packed with detail, almost to a fault, but considering that so few books cover this subject, that’s understandable. At the end of the day, Cozzens delivered a serviceable and often entertaining battle history. It’s a quick read and definitely an easy recommendation for Civil War buffs who may be looking to explore more overlooked battles.
Few engagements of the Civil War would have been as atrocious to live through as those of the Iuka-Corinth Campaign in late 1862. Taking place in the large context of a series of Confederate counteroffensives in August through October, a rebel attempt to take the vital rail hub at Corinth resulted in fighting that was relatively small-scale compared to the contemporary clashes in Virginia and Maryland but was no less important and certainly not less brutal. If anything, Peter Cozzens’s The Darkest Days of the War makes a pretty solid case that these battles, taking place in the stifling heat, followed by frigid nights, and fought by hungry, weary men, were some of the most intense of the war.
The use of first-hand accounts brings a lot of immediacy and life to the battle descriptions. I don’t think Cozzens is quite as talented as the likes of Stephen Sears or Gordon Rhea, but he does a fine job relating the horrors of war — certainly I wouldn’t have wanted to be there. Where the book almost breaks down is the lack of battle maps. Cozzens falls victim to the name every unit and its precise position trope that is such a common pitfall for their very low-level battle histories. The lack of maps makes this especially perturbing, as I very often lost track of what was going on. The maps that are included are good enough but more would have made the battle descriptions easier to keep track of.
Still, a number of really solid battlefield vignettes pull things together. One of the best moments was the stand of the 11th Ohio Light Artillery at Iuka. Cozzens truly brings their story to life here in proper fashion and makes me glad that a notable historian gave time to this often overlooked subject. The grinding frontal assaults of Corinth, the brief Confederate breakthrough near the Tishomingo hotel, and the torturous Rebel retreat are also especially well covered.
The sections I found most interesting were actually all of the chapters surrounding the battles. The growing disagreements between Grant and Rosecrans, Sterling Price’s leadership of his Missouri Division, and Earl Van Dorn’s delusions of grandeur are excellent bits of human drama that add meaning to the madness of battle. All along the way, average soldiers have thanks to Cozzens’s extensive research through archives and manuscript collections. This is a history book that is both top-down to bottom-up.
This is not a book you should give to someone who doesn’t care about the Civil War. It is packed with detail, almost to a fault, but considering that so few books cover this subject, that’s understandable. At the end of the day, Cozzens delivered a serviceable and often entertaining battle history. It’s a quick read and definitely an easy recommendation for Civil War buffs who may be looking to explore more overlooked battles.
August 12, 2017
Perhaps not for the casual Civil War reader. Marvelous research and detail of the battles in the Iuka Corinth campaign. These battles have been overshadowed by Antietam and even Perryville but were significant. In September, 1862, the Confederates were advancing everywhere east of the Mississippi. Every repulse was significant.
The book also provides thorough descriptions of a few famous generals & many lesser known men. For example, General David Stanley does not receive enough recognition from historians. He was a superb battlefield leader. Others were not superb. The book describes the difference between someone like Earl Van Dorn and Mansfield Lovell. Van Dorn reminds me of George Custer in that Van Dorn was brave but reckless. Before this campaign, Van Dorn's understanding of tactics largely consisted of yelling "CHARGE!"
General Lovell was unfairly blamed for the fall of New Orleans and also blamed for the loss at Corinth. By the standards of the time, Lovell was too cautious. When General Van Dorn ordered attacks at Corinth, General Sterling Price's division attacked vigorously. General Lovell's division did not attack at all. Given that the attack was ordered, should General Lovell have insisted his man make reckless attacks as well? Or was he correct in holding his men back?
I have read two of Cozzens' books and plan to read more.
The book also provides thorough descriptions of a few famous generals & many lesser known men. For example, General David Stanley does not receive enough recognition from historians. He was a superb battlefield leader. Others were not superb. The book describes the difference between someone like Earl Van Dorn and Mansfield Lovell. Van Dorn reminds me of George Custer in that Van Dorn was brave but reckless. Before this campaign, Van Dorn's understanding of tactics largely consisted of yelling "CHARGE!"
General Lovell was unfairly blamed for the fall of New Orleans and also blamed for the loss at Corinth. By the standards of the time, Lovell was too cautious. When General Van Dorn ordered attacks at Corinth, General Sterling Price's division attacked vigorously. General Lovell's division did not attack at all. Given that the attack was ordered, should General Lovell have insisted his man make reckless attacks as well? Or was he correct in holding his men back?
I have read two of Cozzens' books and plan to read more.
September 26, 2025
This is by far the best work on this campaign of the Civil War. Nothing else gets even close. Just a really intense description of the different parts of the battle, plus excellent insight into the minds of the various commanders.
February 28, 2019
Excellent read.
February 12, 2016
Cozzens has written one of the truly masterful campaign studies, where command analysis and battlefield drama are given equal weight. War is depicted for what it is, "a brain-spattering, windpipe-slitting art" to quote Lord Byron. Iuka and Corinth are shown as swirling masses of death.
Cozzens is in no one's corner. Grant is depicted as detached and duplicitous, and possibly depressed. Rosecrans is a genius but with a huge flaw: he loses his head in battle. David Stanley is difficult but a combat officer without equal in either army. Van Dorn has good ideas but not an understanding for detail. Price might be the only hero, shown as brave and truly devoted to his men, but also vain and best when acting as a subordinate. In other words, Cozzens is fair. He makes no excuses for bad behavior but also sees the good in the generals. Well, except for Lovell, who is depicted as arrogant, cautious, and willfully misinformed.
All in all this is a classic of its type. Oh, and the maps are solid.
Cozzens is in no one's corner. Grant is depicted as detached and duplicitous, and possibly depressed. Rosecrans is a genius but with a huge flaw: he loses his head in battle. David Stanley is difficult but a combat officer without equal in either army. Van Dorn has good ideas but not an understanding for detail. Price might be the only hero, shown as brave and truly devoted to his men, but also vain and best when acting as a subordinate. In other words, Cozzens is fair. He makes no excuses for bad behavior but also sees the good in the generals. Well, except for Lovell, who is depicted as arrogant, cautious, and willfully misinformed.
All in all this is a classic of its type. Oh, and the maps are solid.
September 5, 2012
I will admit to being biased about the topic being that Corinth was the first battle my great great grandfather was in. I had spent countless hours reading reports from the officers who were in the battle to get some idea about what my ancestor went through. Then I found this book and it all came together.
This is a very well written and easy to read narrative of these two battle. Besides describing the battles themselves, Mr. Cozzens does a good job explaining the events leading up to Corinth and why this battle was so important. He includes very good maps, an order of battle, and an extensive bibliography.
This is a very well written and easy to read narrative of these two battle. Besides describing the battles themselves, Mr. Cozzens does a good job explaining the events leading up to Corinth and why this battle was so important. He includes very good maps, an order of battle, and an extensive bibliography.
July 3, 2013
This book does a good job of filling the gap between Shiloh and Vicksburg. It does not give a particularly flattering view of Grant, Rosecrans, or Ord. Van Dorn comes off badly as well, although I don't think many people ever had a high opinion of him - then or now.
The maps are good, although the book could have used a few more.
The maps are good, although the book could have used a few more.
December 18, 2025
I really enjoyed this book and I learned so much from it. I knew basically nothing about the campaign discussed in the book so it was nice to learn about a lesser known Civil War campaign. The author provided a lot of detail and context which made the narrative easy to follow and understand. Very good book.
January 8, 2016
An interesting history of the battle for the train hub of Corinth, MS during the last half of the Civil War.
Listened to the unabridged audiobook on Audible.com.
Listened to the unabridged audiobook on Audible.com.
Displaying 1 - 21 of 21 reviews