For cause and comrades review

The Cause and Comrades

The cause and comrades: why men fought in the civil War is a book that do provides reasons why people went to war through the lens of the Civil War Soldiers. James McPherson does use the letters and diaries of over one thousand men from both Union and confederate armies to argue out his points. He documents their feelings, emotions and thoughts regarding their reasons of going to war. The book, however do not have recordings on the experience of the Black union men with the letters and diaries being used accounting to less than one percent of the total letters and diaries used. McPherson states that radical underrepresentation of the black Union soldiers and sailors could majorly be due the fact that a huge percentage of the black soldiers were illiterate. This means that they could not read or write letters to their families while at war.[footnoteRef:1] [1: Hubbs, G. Ward. ": Why Confederates Fought: Family and Nation in Civil War Virginia.(Civil War America.)." The American Historical Review 114, no. 2 (2009): 443-44. doi:10.1086/ahr.114.2.443.]

McPherson provides detailed demographic information of the soldiers. Despite having done plenty of research McPherson does have inconclusive investigation. He argues the readers to view the works as a representation of the fighting solder in 1861 and 1862. This population is majorly white men from middle and upper-class homes who had left home for their first time to participate to what is known to be one of the bloodiest wars in American history. The book leaves one asking the question as to who were the core group of committed men that populated Civil War armies. What made them remain dedicated? And to what extend do the letters help the readers to understand how they conceived their contribution to war?[footnoteRef:2] [2: Jonathan M. Steplyk, Review of Sing Not War: The Lives of Union and Confederate Veterans in Gilded Age America, by JamesMarten. Alabama Review 65, no. 2 (April 2012): 143. ]

The conceptual framework structure used by McPherson in the books is borrowed from Jonh A. Lynn a famous historian in the French Revolution. The framework contains three parts which are initial motivation, sustaining motivation and combat motivation. Initial motivation aims to find the reasons why people went to war. Sustaining motivation refers to how soldiers at war are able to maintain themselves and combat motivation is what gave them strength and courage when in face of extreme danger. McPherson states “the motives of the many volunteers were mixed in a way that was impossible to disentangle in their own minds” [footnoteRef:3] leading to them developing an impressionistic image that is hugely affected by the hindsight. [3: James M. McPherson, For Cause and Comrades: Why Men Fought in the Civil War (New York: Oxford University Press, 1998), page number.]

McPherson states that the soldiers that participated in the civil war were convinced of ideals for which they fought throughout the conflict. Duty, honor and religion presented as their source of strength at war. The writing the soldiers indicated that the soldiers had strong belief in what they fought for. In one of the letter the soldier writes to his parents stating “While duty calls me here and my country demands my services I should be willing to make the sacrifice,”[footnoteRef:4]. The soldiers are stated to be proud of being involved in upholding their honor. There was nothing pleasing to them than Liberty, freedom; justice and patriotism were the principles in which the individuals fought for. They believed that a soldier had to defend their country honor and manhood no matter the costs. One of the soldier wrote, “I Prefer death to disgrace”.[footnoteRef:5] [4: Ibid., 1] [5: Ibid., 2]

In the writing of the book McPherson relies on the information from 25,000 letters and 250 private emails of the soldiers that participated in the war. The advantage that comes with these letters and diaries is that they were uncensored.[footnoteRef:6] This means that the soldiers were allowed to be frank about their feelings in the war. Any criticism was welcomed. This is the major reason why the book is moving and true compared to most of the books of war. It is also important to point out the fact that soldiers presented themselves as among the most literate during this time. The letters were the only way in which they retain the link with their family members and friends back at home.[footnoteRef:7] [6: Daniel Sutherland. (1997). For cause and comrades: Why men fought in the civil war (review). Project muse. ] [7: James M. McPherson, For Cause and Comrades: Why Men Fought in the Civil War (New York: Oxford University Press, 1998), page number. ]

McPherson points out the fact that the exchanges used were between men and women of close relationships (lovers, sisters, mothers and etc.) It can be noted masculinity was a virtue desired by many in America. The war came at a time when men were considered honorable when they are able to defend their families, and belief.[footnoteRef:8] It is for this reason that issue of masculinity was evident in almost all private messages. War was considered an act to separate men from boys and McPherson brings out this fact well. There was a clear understanding of gender and social behaviors by citizens. In contrast, the Southern Confederacy were not considered honorable in that most of the soldiers professed their desire to be honorable men. The only way they could be considered honorable is if they could join their fellow men in the war. [8: Jensen, Branscombe. For Cause and Comrades: Why Men Fought in the Civil War. By James McPherson. Texas Christian University review (n.d) ]

Both the North and South were defined with “honor” having different commitments. McPherson insinuates that the foundation of American Republic was majorly based on the Northerners and Southerners defending their honor. While the aim to upheld honor of their nation by punishing rebels to defend the existence of the union guiding principles of 1776, the Southerners felt that it was honorable to defend their homeland from tyrannical attacks from the North. McPherson also point out the irony that exists in the war. Thomas Jefferson, who advocates for liberty, is known not to be a liberator himself, in that he is one of the biggest slave owners. It leads to him concluding that slavery and liberty were dependent on each other and that slavery was the only way liberty could be defended.[footnoteRef:9] [9: Roessler, Philip, and Harry Verhoeven. "Why Comrades Go to War." Oxford Scholarship Online, 2017. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190611354.003.0013. ]