Mcpherson’s For Cause and Comrades: Why Men Fought in the Civil War, interprets not what was previously expected from this novel, including the political and militaristic motivations, but rather the personal, and humanistic side of the Civil War. Slavery, being commonly interpreted as the highlighted factor concerning all things related to the Civil War, the assumption was that in all sincerity, this was the cause, sustentation, and motivation for War between the North and the South. But as McPherson bases his thesis on, with the letters he has chosen to do extensive reviews on, he shows what sustained the soldiers throughout the phases of war. The book is filled with constant references to Mcpherson’s sources, giving backing to his conclusions.
…show more content…
Similarly again, The Union and Confederate forces both relied on similar tactics for motivation, and reasoning as to why they engaged in fighting, according the letters listed by McPherson. Good training would encourage the soldiers, but they often lacked this, so many focused on religious obligations. McPherson states “Wars usually intensify religious convictions” (82). It gave the soldiers reassurance as to why they were killing and, justified their actions in doing so. Group Cohesion seemed to be a widely explained topic in For Causes and Comrades: Why Men Fought in the Civil War. As seen in the title, “and Comrades” gives a hint as to where the topic would lead into throughout the book, and explains why camaraderie was such a key point. One factor that contradicted with the other conclusions in this book was the idea of group cohesion, and how it overlaid any patriotic or ideological convictions (109). For combat motivation, those things meant nothing when you or your brothers in arms were in the line of fire. Democracy was not at the forefront of soldiers’ minds, regardless of which side, when in battle. The sheer idea that they relied on one another to not only be successful but to survive was enough motivation to get them through. This according to the book is a factor that contributed to their ability to continue to fight, and bravely face battle regardless of what the outcomes may …show more content…
McPherson cites a letter written by a major in Georgia wrote about courage describing it not only as “merely bravery in battle” but the ability to go on throughout extreme hardships, even when the future and hope was bleak (182). After assessing this book, Mcpherson’s argument can be made to show that both sides, though opposing, had very similar causes, and beliefs of retribution. They both fought for Liberty, freedom, and what each believed to be a “just cause”. For Cause and Comrades: Why Men Fought in the Civil War, shows a rare different view of the Civil War, comparing more similarities between the Union and confederate armies than what is usually shown. McPherson brought down the war to a humanistic level that allows the comparison between the Northern and Southern States, without the politics behind it. His collection of letters he chose and cites throughout the book gives an insight into why the three ideas of motivation are true, and gives backing to McPherson’s statement that Civil War Soldiers were ideologically motivated, rather than politically motivated in their
Similarly again, The Union and Confederate forces both relied on similar tactics for motivation, and reasoning as to why they engaged in fighting, according the letters listed by McPherson. Good training would encourage the soldiers, but they often lacked this, so many focused on religious obligations. McPherson states “Wars usually intensify religious convictions” (82). It gave the soldiers reassurance as to why they were killing and, justified their actions in doing so. Group Cohesion seemed to be a widely explained topic in For Causes and Comrades: Why Men Fought in the Civil War. As seen in the title, “and Comrades” gives a hint as to where the topic would lead into throughout the book, and explains why camaraderie was such a key point. One factor that contradicted with the other conclusions in this book was the idea of group cohesion, and how it overlaid any patriotic or ideological convictions (109). For combat motivation, those things meant nothing when you or your brothers in arms were in the line of fire. Democracy was not at the forefront of soldiers’ minds, regardless of which side, when in battle. The sheer idea that they relied on one another to not only be successful but to survive was enough motivation to get them through. This according to the book is a factor that contributed to their ability to continue to fight, and bravely face battle regardless of what the outcomes may …show more content…
McPherson cites a letter written by a major in Georgia wrote about courage describing it not only as “merely bravery in battle” but the ability to go on throughout extreme hardships, even when the future and hope was bleak (182). After assessing this book, Mcpherson’s argument can be made to show that both sides, though opposing, had very similar causes, and beliefs of retribution. They both fought for Liberty, freedom, and what each believed to be a “just cause”. For Cause and Comrades: Why Men Fought in the Civil War, shows a rare different view of the Civil War, comparing more similarities between the Union and confederate armies than what is usually shown. McPherson brought down the war to a humanistic level that allows the comparison between the Northern and Southern States, without the politics behind it. His collection of letters he chose and cites throughout the book gives an insight into why the three ideas of motivation are true, and gives backing to McPherson’s statement that Civil War Soldiers were ideologically motivated, rather than politically motivated in their