Customer Reviews

For Cause and Comrades: Why Men Fought in the Civil War

5 star:		(30)
4 star:		(12)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

This book is a very refreshing twist on Civil War history. In this work, as well as in his book What They Fought For, noted Civil War historian James McPherson explores what exactly motivated men to fight in the war. Having done exhaustive research to the tune of diaries and letters from nearly 1,000 soldiers, most of them obscure and average men, McPherson is aptly qualified to perform this work. He looks at several factors, from group unity to sense of honor to desire for vengeance, in an attempt to understand the average Civil War soldier, and ultimately makes a strong case for the idea that Civil War soldiers were idealistic men who were not ignorant of the issues at stake and who were motivated by an extraordinary desire to fight for their beliefs. This, McPherson argues, sets them apart from soldiers in other wars.

As is always the case with McPherson, this book is very well written and enjoyable to read. Most of this book is composed of quotes from various soldiers with McPherson's interpretation and narrative interjected only often enough to keep the discussion flowing. He does a wonderful job of integrating the quotes and making them fit perfectly into what he's trying to say. McPherson's use of quotations from the men who were actually there is infinitely more effective in proving his point than anything he could say himself, and this is what makes this book so great. There are hundreds of books out there that will tell you WHAT happened, but this book is one of only a few that will try and explain WHY and HOW things happened.

This is a wonderful book. Prof. McPherson read over 30,000 letters and diaries for this, and thus I think he has provided one of the most thorough and thought provoking treatments of the psychology of Civil War soldiers and studies on why exactly they fought.

For this work, Prof. McPherson also incorporates theories, reports, and research of the combat motivation, effects of combat, and psychology of men and soldiers in others war such as WWI, WWII, and the Vietnam War, not to mention general medical studies from British, American, and German armies. In some instances, he uses modern knowledge to analyze the thoughts and feelings of the soldiers of the Civil War. As interesting as this is to show how soldiers in the Civil War had the same problems and feelings as most men of war, his academic findings illustrate how Civil War soldiers were also very different from soldiers in other wars.

The difference lay in their devout belief in their causes, and their sustained belief in those causes, and the close relationship with the men they fought with (which is a common thread for men of all wars), throughout the war. McPherson rarely goes on for more than a paragraph or two of his own narrating. He lets the voices of the men who fought take up 90% of the book, giving you a real sense of who these people were, and allowing the reader to derive an opinion for themselves, but always with McPherson's voice in the background guiding the reader, teaching you.

The causes brought up by the letters and McPherson are wide and varied, and McPherson makes sure to research each and explain as elaborately as possible, but quite noticable are the few main causes that men on both sides procliamed in verbose rhetoric. These consisted of Duty, Honor, Liberty, Independence, and the sustainment (US) or creation of (CS) a "free and independent country". For the CS the issue of slavery is brought up, but even though McPherson mentions it quite often and does what he can to explain, I did find some holes, most especially what yeoman farmers in general felt about the slavery and the strife, or what their exact definition of "states rights" (in relation to slavery) was. But that subject in of itself deserves it's own book, and I do not find that as derogative to the book at all, in fact it provoked my thoughts.

This may be strange to say, but while reading it, you feel safe. In other words, the research is so sound, so well documented, so well explained, that you feel like there is no way you are falling into a trap of propagandist, shallowly researched, or off the cuff revisionist history simply masked by some good prose. McPherson is a talented writer, making the read an easy and anticipated one for the reader (I read in 3 days, and I am NOT a fast reader), but he's also an astute historian who settles for nothing less than good hard research and logical and sound analyzation of his findings (thus a lengthy bibliography), without any sway of personal opinion; the book is entirely objective, and the bibliography in of itself is a great read (I've already read some of the books listed and recommended).

Read this book if you want a solid, incredibly well researched, and inspired understanding of the men who fought the Civil War. Hopefully you'll come away with new ideas for yourself and a new knowledge of the men who fought. McPherson muses that these men deserve a respect for fighting for goals and causes that were sustained only by their own willpower, conviction, and mainly their courage, amidst the blood and chaos of the War; and judging by what Prof. McPherson has found, that is something I can concur with.

Although Professor James McPherson wrote this study of the motivation of the Civil War soldier, it is not a great exaggeration to say that in this book the soldiers speak for themselves. Professor McPherson has read and analyzed a prodigious amount of source material written by Civil War combatants, Union and Confederacy, officer and enlisted soldier. For this book, he has taken a sample of the letters home and the diaries of 1076 soldiers, 647 Union and 429 Confederate to analyze their candid, uncensored reflections of why they fought. Professor McPherson also draws on many modern studies of combat psychology and utilzes their findings in discussing the Civil War soldiers.

Professor McPherson's sample is not statistically random and it may be skewed in some ways. For example, the sample does not include (obviously) illiterate soldiers or black soldiers. It tends to be tilted in the direction of those individuals who did most of the fighting and who were committed to their respective causes. Professor McPherson recognizes that many of the combatants were unwilling participants, particularly as the draft was instituted in both armies and that both armies included many shirkers. These individuals are not represented in his sample of letters. But still, these letters, written in the activity of soldiering and not intended for publication, are revealing of their authors' thoughts and feelings in a way impossible to replicate in other writings.

The letters reveal much about the motivation of the combatants and about life in Civil War America. Professor McPherson finds that many of the soldiers in the Civil War had a firm idea of why they were fighting. On both sides soldiers fought for the preservation of liberty and the duty they perceived they owed to their country. Patriotism, in a word. Southern soldiers fought to achieve their independence and to avoid what they viewed as "subjugation" and "slavery". Northern soldiers fought to preserve the Union and, increasingly as the War progressed, to end slavery. Soldiers in both the Union and the Confederacy drew sustenance from religious convictions. They were motivated deeply by the camaraderie that developed with their fellows, particularly in their own units. In the Civil War in particular, soldiers fought side-by-side with others from their own state and community. They developed a strong bond with each other, based on the terrors of war and the privations of the camps, and fought in solidarity with each other.

The letters in the book speak well for themselves with Professor McPherson's organization and commentary. It is moving to read about how many Americans were driven by high ideals in enlisting and fighting in this, the most deadly and formative of the wars of the United States.

There is a sense of poignancy throughout the book. For the Civil War generation, concepts of duty, honor, family, manhood, and patriotism were not viewed with the skepticism that became common following WW I and that remains prevalent with many people today. It was a romantic generation, in part, but one with commitments and ideals. I think there is much contemporary Americans may learn by the devotion shown by the American Civil War soldiers and by the ideals of liberty, duty, and courage for which they fought.

This is an extensive investigation and analysis of both primary and secondary sources regarding the motivations expressed by soldiers for taking up arms in the United States Civil War. Mr. McPherson brings his revered narrative skill to this data and weaves a fascinating and insightful study of information. As a result, a large panoramic tapestry is painted which will join the works of Keegan and others in helping non-soldiers discern somewhat "the face of battle."

Shakespeare enlivens Henry V at the onset of the Battle of Agincourt by his observation that "All things are ready if our minds be so." (Henry V, Act 4, Scene 3, Line 71) This author expands upon this notion of mental readiness by providing a useful framework to understand the basic motivations of these officers and soldiers. He uses this framework to identify each major reason with a separate chapter. You can review these chapter headings in the handy Amazon "look inside this book" feature above.

This is a good book, albeit it can be tedious to finish.

As a side note, I was disappointed that McPherson took this book as an opportunity to paint a portrait of Vietnam veterans based on an anecdotal comment made by a single unknown veteran. This portrait was used several times by the author as a literary device to draw a distinction between them and Civil War soldiers' belief structure and willingness to court death. To McPherson (and unfortunately for the unknowing reader of this book) Vietnam veterans "fought for their own survival, not a cause." As a Vietnam combat veteran let me assert that this broad generalization is wrong. I and many others volunteered to fight in Vietnam for my country and for the freedom of the South Vietnamese from Communist aggression. McPherson does himself damage to his professional reputation and to his integrity by writing such broad generalizations. He owes all Vietnam veterans an apology.

Why did they do it? Why did several million American men put their lives on the line (a bet 600,000 would lose)? It could be argued the Grey men appeared to fight for the right to own slaves most of them had no hope of ever owning themselves while the men in blue fought to stop the spread of an institution which enslaved a race most of them thought not deserving of legal, social or economic equality with themselves.

In McPhereson's brilliantly researched book, he paints the Civil War soldier on both sides as a complex individual whose motives for engaging in Civil War were at times noble, idealistic or principled. The author reviewed more than a thousand letters soldiers wrote during the war to recreate the state of mind and motivations of the combatants.

The results will paint a much more nuanced picture for the reader than they probably had on the subject before. This is important work that does as good a job as I can imagine of recreating the mindsets of individuals long dead but who largely defined the course of American history through our present time. This book is a relatively quick read and written in McPhereson's excellent style -- authoritative while emminently engaging.

With this work McPherson has proved himself to be an outstanding research historian. Many such historians cannot find the right balance between evidence and interpretation. McPherson has done just that. He provides for us a powerful forum for the soldiers to tell us themselves why they fought; but he also weaves their comments into a compelling story, providing keen insight, analysis and juxtaposition for Union and Confederate soldiers. This is truly a great example of the Civil War as social history.

On the surface, McPherson seems to cover the same ground Bell I. Wiley did in his two books on Billy Yank and Johnny Reb. Except, where Wiley concluded that by the end of the war, the soldiers were fighting more to end the conflict rather than for ideological grounds, McPherson found evidence from the letters that the soldiers maintained their high ideals -- to preserve the United States on the Union side, and to preserve individual freedoms (even the freedom to enslave others) on the Confederate side -- through the end of the war. He also noted that it was a time when the words patriotism, honor and courage had value, and that it motivated soldiers into being willing to fight and die for their causes. Reading "For Cause & Comrades" leaves one wondering just how we lost those ideals, and what will replace them in the battles of tomorrow.

When I did research on one of my Civil War ancestors, I discovered that he reenlisted when his enlistment ran out, despite having just been repelled during the assault on Fort Wagner. I always wondered why he would sign on to continue the war, and the book gave amazing insight. I would have to agree with all the points made by the other reviewers who enjoyed this book just as much as I have.

McPherson's vast knowledge of the Civil War, and his never-ending reading of civil war letters, had constructed a very well put together book. A reviewer noted that the book proposed Union men sought to fight to end slavery only, and that the Confederate men sought to fight to keep slavery only. Well he certainly did not read the book, for it offers a much more expansive explanation than that. In fact, McPherson pays special attention to present the factors of fighting outside of the issue of slavery, while still noting its impact.

Something that I was very surprised to see was the high level of ideology that the soldiers had during the Civil War. McPherson contrasts the Civil War with other wars, such as WWII and Vietnam, where American troops often questioned their cause and quickly stopped believing in anything other than survival. The Civil War, as McPherson points out, was indeed ideological to the very end. Men wrote that even though they never again wanted to see another battle, they would gladly go in when ordered to, for god and country so to speak.

The book gave me a lot of insight as to why my ancestor chose to reenlist despite seeing the horrors of war. And why so many others did the same.

James McPherson has brought together thousands of letters along with over 200 diaries in a wonderfully done book on why men fought during the war. When walking upon the fields of battle it's hard to believe that many regiments continually advanced into overwhelming fields of fire. What prompted these men into action, and better yet, what causes were they fighting? Their motivation was religion, as well as duty and honor.

This book answers those questions in an easy to read epigrammatic format. McMherson's analysis has brought forth an outstanding work in regards to the sacrifices put forth during the Civil War. I highly recommend this book for budding historians as well as the serious researcher. It's both captivating and thought provoking.

Another in a distinguished line of treatises on the American Civil War from one of our preeminent historians on that subject. For Causes and Comrades proceeds from a simple questions: Why did they fight? Given the hardships to be endured, the terror of battle and the frightening rate of casualties and loss of life, why did they volunteer in the beginning and then continue to fight, once the war started, despite the misfortunes heaped upon them? Armies on this scale could not have been forced to continue if the individuals (volunteers for the most part, not professionals or conscripts in the beginning) were not committed for some deep-rooted reason. Conducting exhaustive primary research (literally tens of thousands of soldiers' letters to home, from museums, libraries and private collections) McPherson develops the premise that soldiers of both sides of the ACW fought for more than the "usual" reasons (i.e. camaraderie, employment, adventure, fear of being "left behind"). The average soldier in the ACW was indeed aware of the issues at stake and felt strongly that military service proceeded from a sense of duty and honor to family and country. The sense that there are ideals beyond love of life in this world propelled them on. This is a book for students of human nature as well as students of the ACW. Psychological analyses are provided as well, drawing on studies performed after WW I, WW II and Vietnam. McPherson will convince you that we cannot use a 1990s yardstick to measure the hearts and minds of soldiers of the ACW. You will have to decide for yourself whether you believe McPherson's arguments. As for myself, after studying the ACW in general and specific campaigns and battles in depth, there is no doubt in my mind that McPherson is correct. Would modern man be willing to offer up such a "last full measure of devotion"? Again, I agree with McPherson - let's leave that question unanswered and just hope we never find out.