Click on the headline to link to a "Wikipedia" entry for historian James MacPherson.
BOOK REVIEW
For Cause and Comrades: Why Men Fought The Civil War, James McPherson, Harperbooks, New York, 1998
This month marks the 147th Anniversary of the beginning of the American Civil War and the fight to preserve the union and end slavery.
Any war, as a violent, organized explosion of human emotions, produces some very unnatural responses on the part of soldiers and civilians alike. James McPherson, undoubtedly now the preeminent American Civil War scholar has, in the words of his own introduction, tried to make sense of what was similar to other wars but also what was different about that experience for the soldiers on both sides of the divide in that war. Working from a plethora of soldiers' letters and other observations he has tried to explain why the citizen soldiers on both sides of that bloody conflict kept at it despite the grueling circumstances, including extremely high casualty rates.
I make no bones about my partisanship for the Northern, Union and anti-slavery side in that conflict. However in war, and civil war in particular, one can note the attributes of bravery, honor and heroism of the opposing side without giving an inch on the political questions. If one thinks about it if one does not recognize those characteristics in the soldiers of the other side one places oneself in a very hard place. The Geneva Conventions, weak as they are, codify that understanding.
McPherson goes into great detail about the phases of the war-the general bloodthirsty and energetic desire of both sides to get at it; the sobering effects of actual combat; the psychological traumas produced in men before, during and after battle. In short, the passion and anger that drive men to fight-and soldiers to reflect a bit afterward. He details the sense of patriotism, honor, manhood, shame and other virtues of mid-Victorian America that further drove these men. Probably his weakest part is an examination of the personal politics of the soldiers, although that may be, in part, a function of the fuzziness of their goals as they became overwhelmed by the other considerations previously listed.
However, overall, McPherson more than adequately makes his point that many considerations entered into the calculations of those who freely volunteered for the citizen armies on both sides, fought tremendous and bloody battles and slogged on through thick and thin. I will stop here with one comment that struck me from a Northern soldier about his reasons for fighting. Admittedly this soldier was a high abolitionist but here is what he said-" I want to be able to sing `John Brown' [John Brown's Body, the anti-slavery hymn and precursor for the Battle Hymn of The Republic] in the streets of Charleston [South Carolina]." Yes, I can, indeed, get behind that sentiment as a reason for fighting.
BOOK REVIEW
For Cause and Comrades: Why Men Fought The Civil War, James McPherson, Harperbooks, New York, 1998
This month marks the 147th Anniversary of the beginning of the American Civil War and the fight to preserve the union and end slavery.
Any war, as a violent, organized explosion of human emotions, produces some very unnatural responses on the part of soldiers and civilians alike. James McPherson, undoubtedly now the preeminent American Civil War scholar has, in the words of his own introduction, tried to make sense of what was similar to other wars but also what was different about that experience for the soldiers on both sides of the divide in that war. Working from a plethora of soldiers' letters and other observations he has tried to explain why the citizen soldiers on both sides of that bloody conflict kept at it despite the grueling circumstances, including extremely high casualty rates.
I make no bones about my partisanship for the Northern, Union and anti-slavery side in that conflict. However in war, and civil war in particular, one can note the attributes of bravery, honor and heroism of the opposing side without giving an inch on the political questions. If one thinks about it if one does not recognize those characteristics in the soldiers of the other side one places oneself in a very hard place. The Geneva Conventions, weak as they are, codify that understanding.
McPherson goes into great detail about the phases of the war-the general bloodthirsty and energetic desire of both sides to get at it; the sobering effects of actual combat; the psychological traumas produced in men before, during and after battle. In short, the passion and anger that drive men to fight-and soldiers to reflect a bit afterward. He details the sense of patriotism, honor, manhood, shame and other virtues of mid-Victorian America that further drove these men. Probably his weakest part is an examination of the personal politics of the soldiers, although that may be, in part, a function of the fuzziness of their goals as they became overwhelmed by the other considerations previously listed.
However, overall, McPherson more than adequately makes his point that many considerations entered into the calculations of those who freely volunteered for the citizen armies on both sides, fought tremendous and bloody battles and slogged on through thick and thin. I will stop here with one comment that struck me from a Northern soldier about his reasons for fighting. Admittedly this soldier was a high abolitionist but here is what he said-" I want to be able to sing `John Brown' [John Brown's Body, the anti-slavery hymn and precursor for the Battle Hymn of The Republic] in the streets of Charleston [South Carolina]." Yes, I can, indeed, get behind that sentiment as a reason for fighting.
Very interesting post. We are historical materialist and support all kind of thing in the past we would not touch with a ten-foot pole today but that at the time represented progress. What did you think of that quote about singing John Brown in Charleston? That is our whole position in one sentence.
ReplyDelete