"Theater of a Separate War" progress report

Normally, when the early stages of a book disappoint me as much as those of Thomas Cutrer's Theater of a Separate War: The Civil War West of the Mississippi River, 1861-1865, I simply cast the whole thing aside and move on to greener pastures. I have plenty of other reading options and a regular reviewing schedule to keep. On the other hand, since I've played up the anticipation level for this particular title several times on the site already, I feel rather obligated to comment on my unexpectedly negative experience.

First off, it is shocking that an academic press of UNC's sterling reputation would release a manuscript in the kind of dire state found here. Along with a host of other typos, proper names are misspelled everywhere in Theater of a Separate War. The editorial staff also failed to address rampant repetition. In two instances, there are even entire passages reproduced word for word (or close to it) while separated in the narrative by only a short space. This is a huge book with an immense cast of characters, many of whom most likely remain quite obscure to the more general interest Civil War reader, and it behooves the author of a survey history to take care while introducing (and reintroducing) individuals. Theater does not do a good job of this. For example, at one point the book offers a series of quotes from a Union soldier who is only identified by last name. Not recalling who this guy was, I learned from the index that he was introduced (and last mentioned) nearly a hundred pages earlier! Meanwhile, many other individuals have their identities established and reestablished in paragraphs located only a page (or less) apart.

In big-picture terms the narrative is fine, but attention to detail below that level is very spotty. Here are just a few examples from the Missouri-Kansas sector. The book erroneously claims that, after General Lyon's victory at Boonville, he transported his army all the way back to St. Louis before continuing his Missouri campaign in early July. Later on, in the context of the Battle of Wilson's Creek, Cutrer correctly notes how badly outnumbered Lyon's small, Springfield-based army was by the combined Confederate, Missouri, and Arkansas forces hovering nearby, but only two paragraphs later writes that Lyon's command was superior in numbers to the allied enemy armies. In reference to James H. Lane's nebulous Civil War military appointment, the author more than once muddies the waters by resurrecting Lane's Mexican War rank from Indiana and applying it to 1861. And on the subject of the Kansas "Red Legs," they certainly weren't called that because they wore scarlet pants. I know condensing vast amounts of material often results in oversimplification, but this is more than that.

The above objections and observations represent just a sampling from the first few chapters of a 450+ page narrative. Even after such a limited reading, the sheer number of problems add up to a level that seriously strains the study's overall credibility. I don't know if the book gets better as it progresses (you see that sometimes), but I may not still be with it to find out. Unfortunately, my hopes that this book might serve as the standard introduction to the Civil War west of the Mississippi—and perhaps even inspire a fresh crop of enthusiastic T-M students and readers along the way—appear to be dashed.

[Update: a revised paperback edition of the book was published in 2023. Alas, improvements were minimal. Ultimately, neither version can be recommended.]