Mcpherson why they fought

But it is directed as well against the great bourgeois revolutions of the seventeenth, eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. In this new work, based on lectures McPherson delivered at Louisiana State University in , the author considers the intellectual motivations of soldiers who fought in the Civil War. He explains in the introduction that the work has been "carved from research for a larger book tentatively entitled Why They Fought ," in which one of the themes to receive attention will be ideology.

He adds, "This theme has emerged to greater importance than I expected when I began the project. McPherson culled his material from some 25, letters and more than one hundred diaries written by Union soldiers—only two of them black—and Confederates. In two separate chapters, McPherson analyzes the overall motives of Southern and Northern soldiers, and in a final chapter he considers their attitudes towards slavery. In introducing the material, the author makes the general point that a large number of the soldiers on both sides "were intensely aware of the issues at stake and passionately concerned about them.

Furthermore, most of the soldiers were volunteers and their median age at enlistment was 24, which meant that a majority had voted in the election of , "the most heated and momentous in American history.

Newspapers were widely read in both armies and political discussion took place, according to the diaries McPherson quotes, on a wide scale. Several units, he writes, established debating societies which considered quite complex social questions. One such society organized among convalescing soldiers debated the following: "Resolved that the present struggle will do more to establish and maintain a republican form of government than the Revolutionary war.

The legacy of the first American revolution was in fact claimed by both sides. Although it might seem ludicrous in our day, Confederate apologists portrayed the preservation of chattel slavery as the defense of the highest democratic principles of the American republic.

Southern soldiers made constant reference in their letters and diaries to the traditions of An enlisted man in a Texas cavalry unit, for example, wrote that just as his forefathers had rebelled against the British to establish "Liberty and freedom in this western world Enslaved was another frequent choice to describe that fate.

At its best, the Union soldiers' patriotism was infused with a revolutionary democratic content. Its essence was not "national," but universal and all-embracing, the opposite of the striving for privileges, wealth and territory with which we associate modern-day bourgeois nationalism. The most politically advanced soldiers quoted in What They Fought For were animated by great principles and not the defense of a particular geographical entity.

Echoing these sentiments, a New York captain wrote his wife in "Every soldier [knows] he [is] fighting not only for his own liberty but [even] more for the liberty of the human race for all time to come. The identification of the Union army's mission with the general furtherance of human progress was also widespread, according to McPherson's researches.

To cite one example, an English-born Ohio corporal wrote his wife in , after enlisting for a second three-year hitch: "If I do get hurt I want you to remember that it will be not only for my Country and my Children but for Liberty all over the World that I risked my life, for if Liberty should be crushed here, what hope would there be for the cause of Human Progress anywhere else?

One citation along these lines from a Union naval officer is remarkable because of its source. Drayton, whose brother became a Southern general, was the scion of a prominent planter family. He asserted in that there would never "be peace between the two sections until slavery is so completely scotched [that] I think myself the Southerners are fighting against fate or human progress.

The most complex section of the book deals with the attitude of northern soldiers to slavery before and after the Emancipation Proclamation of January 1, Yet many countries still predicted their victory.

It could have been speculated that the Southern men were "rough and tough" due to their upbringing. The south was also fighting a defensive war, meaning that they only had to focus on defending their territory. Brooke was a man of traditional beliefs, therefore he firmly believed that his country has more value than his life and it is an honourable act to die for it.

This sonnet was written at the beginning of the First World War, when Rupert Brooke was inspired by the noble idea of protecting his country. Nowadays his poem can serve as a motivation for the young people who are yet to become soldiers and fight for their country.

The love that the author of the poem felt for his country is inspiring. He was facing death, yet he did not give up but rather think in a way that it is the only noble thing to do. For Cause and Comrades is a book written by James McPherson, with the help of diaries and letters written by soldiers from the Confederate and Union forces, he is able to formally detail accounts on why men fought in the civil war.

Consequently, McPherson is able to shed light on the mentality and motives that soldiers possessed that made them fight in the war. Although we will never truly know why soldiers fought in the civil war, this book most definitely gives readers evidence that soldiers had certain values and morals that gave them reason to fight. Another world leader whom I think is important is Abraham Lincoln, because he played a pivotal role in preserving the Union during the Civil War and beginning the process that led to the end of slavery in the United States As well as being known for his presidency and his leadership through the Civil War, Lincoln was also known for his letters and speeches and his character.

In that speech he explained that the nation was fighting the Civil War to see if they could survive as a country. He dedicated the battlefield to their soldiers that had fought and died there.

And he called on the people who were still alive to finish the task the soldiers had begun. Open Document. Aug 09, Josh Bulmer rated it liked it. The type of book where it wasn't the greatest or most engaging read ever, but I'm very glad that I read it. May 06, Taylor rated it liked it. This book gives an insight to what the soldiers of the CSA believed when they were fighting in the Civil War. It was interesting to read actual accounts from soldiers' journals and understand the reasoning behind why they fought.

I liked the book overall. The author uses actual journal writings as proof to back up his generalized statements, however I would have liked to see him use the actual statements more instead of paraphrasing so much. Overall it was a good book and I would recommend readi This book gives an insight to what the soldiers of the CSA believed when they were fighting in the Civil War. Overall it was a good book and I would recommend reading it if you are interested in history, the south, or the Civil War.

Mar 01, Billhotto rated it really liked it. Southerners fought to protect their homes, institutions and way of life.

Black Union soldiers fought to free their race. Why white Union troops fought is harder to understand. After early battles, the patriotic, idealistic, adventure seeking, machismo displaying men were largely dead, wounded or disillusioned. McPherson seeks answers in the letters of average soldiers.

Americans were largely literate and soldiers were encouraged to write home. However, these are the records left by likely the mo Southerners fought to protect their homes, institutions and way of life.

However, these are the records left by likely the more thoughtful men trying to reassure their loved ones and justify the dangers they faced. Still, it strikes me that the men who carried the burden of war for the Union did so because they felt an obligation to their country and a hope for a safer, freer and more just future. A country that could have been, but was discarded in the post war hustle for a buck, a desire for normality, and a spurious, exclusionary search for "unity".

Dec 23, Zach Vaughn rated it liked it Shelves: non-fiction , history. In "What They Fought For," James McPherson presents us with his study of the correspondence of Confederate and Union soldiers during the Civil War as an examination of what these men believed they were fighting war. There is constant debate about what the Civil War was about and why these men chose to fight, and McPherson presents us words straight from the horse's mouths.

The first chapter covers the correspondence of Confederate soldiers, while chapter 2 that of Union soldiers. The last chapte In "What They Fought For," James McPherson presents us with his study of the correspondence of Confederate and Union soldiers during the Civil War as an examination of what these men believed they were fighting war. The last chapter looks at the views of both groups with regards to slavery. This is a very educational and enlightening look at the ideology of Civil War soldiers.

Jun 13, Missmath rated it it was amazing Recommends it for: my siblings. Shelves: history , civil-war , war. McPherson explores the reasons Union soldiers fought, the reasons Confederate soldiers fought, and attitudes of both sides towards slavery. An easy read while still being very informative.

Apr 06, Michael rated it liked it Shelves: non-fiction , american-civil-war. Although it is a short book of less than one hundred pages, quite a lot is packed into the book. The author succinctly articulates the motivations of Union and Confederate soldiers based largely on letters written by the men in blue and gray. Jun 06, Avis Black rated it did not like it Shelves: dnf.

A rather feeble book. This is the sort of work you produce when you've decided to coast on your laurels. McPherson deservedly won acclaim with The Battle Cry of Freedom, which was a good synopsis of the Civil War, but he's gone badly downhill ever since.

View 1 comment. Jun 18, Jody rated it liked it. Extremely interesting read for anyone interested in the Civil War.

Essentially, the novel is composed of thousands of letters of officers in the Civil War. This novel gives readers a true look into the insight of what soldiers who were on the battle lines were going through.

Aug 31, Luis rated it liked it Shelves: history. A great hour long read that helps you understand the reasons the North and South went to war. McPherson with the help of the thousands of soldier letters he read shows what the soldiers on the battlefield thought of fighting their neighbors and what they believed they were going to war for.

Sep 29, Margaret Madden rated it liked it Shelves: library-book. A short look at what the soldiers, fighting in The Civil War, really thought they were fighting for A bit too choppy to make it a comfortable crossover from academic, reference book to an accessible non-fiction title. Enjoyable read all the same. Sometimes they jotted down their thoughts in the midst of battle, crouching behind a tree just before or after an attack.

These passages have the power of immediacy; their authors might die at any moment. Where the words end and the blank pages begin can mark a moving realization for the researcher comfortably seated in a modern archives. These soldiers wanted to articulate to families back home their understandings of war and why they fought.

The record they left behind is intimate, personal, and private—authentic. McPherson came to feel he genuinely knew many Civil War soldiers better than most of his living acquaintances.

But while soldiers honestly worked hard to get their feelings accurately down on paper, sometimes even they had trouble figuring it all out. Soldiers quarreled with messmates; captors challenged their prisoners' ideas. When northerners insisted they fought only for a legal principle, preservation of the government, Confederates would not believe it. With so many thousands of men writing, struggling to explicate the meaning of their war, no single, clear sentiment stands out.

Since the Civil War, Americans have sought answers to the same questions argued in those long-ago camps. Battlegrounds were only briefly places where soldiers fought; they have a much longer history as places where visitors struggle to understand what happened and what it meant. Tourists visiting Civil War battlefields today encounter bicyclists and joggers gliding by smoothly mowed green meadows and vales.

It is hard to picture such parks as battlefields. At Vicksburg, the locals warn visitors that without a guide providing narration, the trip along Confederate and Union avenues is "just a pretty drive. The first scholars to look hard at the question of why Civil War soldiers fought did so in an intellectual world where America's Page [End Page 86] bureaucratically organized military had gone to war against the ethical relativism of fascism. Books like William Whyte's Organization Man seized the popular imagination.

Legal writers in the "process school" insisted that neutral principles should guide judges. The secret of good judging lay in finding the right procedures—not in ideology. They told interviewers that they fought for their buddies, not for flag and country. He ain't fighting for patriotism" Such sentiments precisely reflected—or inspired—the prevailing intellectual paradigm.

This reaction against ideology seemed all the more plausible because it reflected an obvious truth. All soldiers in all wars do care less about abstract ideology and patriotic flag-waving than politicians back home. As Civil War soldiers marched toward battle, thoughts not all that different from the feelings of Roman legionnaires, World War I doughboys, or soldiers in the Persian Gulf war crowded their minds. Every soldier in any war fights to avoid being seen as a coward by his fellow warriors.

Fighting to save a few close friends can prove a more immediate and powerful motivator than such abstract ideals as flag and country. This insight is so obviously and powerfully true that it has long influenced writers and scholars. By the time he had completed these books, Wiley had read thirty thousand sol- Page [End Page 87] diers' letters and several hundred diaries. For all his prodigious research, Wiley could find only superficial differences between Confederates and Yankees.

Northern soldiers were more literate, less religious, better educated, and more political than southerners. But the similarities far outweighed the differences, Wiley concluded. No wonder the two sides fraternized, bantering across lines. Wiley noted that after some battles opposing armies intermingled to bury their dead.

In at least one instance, Confederates borrowed Union army shovels. More recent scholars have made the same point. In Gerald Linderman published Embattled Courage , concluding that the Civil War hardened soldiers on both sides, stripping away whatever patriotic, ideological motives they had in the first years. Two other historians, Joseph Allan Frank and George Reaves, are a bit more pointed in their criticism of Linderman, writing that he used only "some fifty-odd soldiers' reminiscences, mainly published memoirs of upper class, highly educated individuals.

Soldiers in all wars discover the brutal reality of combat. The revolt against romanticism inspired by World War II influenced Wiley but so too did ideas he could less easily comprehend. Wiley wrote before the civil rights awakening of the s and s.

Histories of slavery, the Civil War, and Reconstruction written before the civil rights era are strikingly different from those composed during and after that tumultuous time. In , the historian James Ford Rhodes expressed wonderment that anyone could advocate enfranchising "such a mass of ignorance" as African Americans. The rival myths that northerners and southerners developed about the Civil War measure the state of American race relations.

Some northerners denied southern distinctiveness, insisted on national unity, and called southerners' regionalism a "myth. White northerners adopted those features of southern culture they liked. So, since northerners admired the streak of rebelliousness manifest in the South, they made it a characteristic of all Americans.

After , Union veterans increasingly socialized with their former enemies, holding joint blue-gray memorial services. In this period, northerners found they could distinguish southerners' admirable traits, their "manly daring," from the evil disloyalty of their treason.