What They Fought For 1861-1865

Rating:
Summary: The finest of its kind
Review: James McPherson's stunning work on the ideology of Civil War soldiers is a fascinating look at the lives of the remarkable men who fought in that bloody conflict. Its value, however, lies not so much in the examination of that ideology but in the disclsure that these men in fact had an ideaology at all, which comes through with stunning clarity as you read their letters and diarys.

McPherson's little book (it can be read comfortably in one sitting) is actualy the precurser to his equaly fine FOR CAUSE AND COMRADES, and readers would do well to read the two as a pair. But for those who want to at least begin to understand "what men fought for" thy can start in no better place than in "WHAT THEY FOUGHT FOR"

Rating:
Summary: Just Bad
Review: This book was deplorable. It was obvious Dr. McPherson started out with some preconcieved ideas of what he wanted to prove with this book, and then he proceeded to force the data to meet his theories. In addition, the logic he used was overtly flawed. This was one of the worst Civil War books I've ever read. What a waste from a really good author.

Rating:
Summary: What made a Civil War soldier fight?
Review: This is a different kind of book about the Civil War. Instead of discussing all the "official" reasons for the war--in other words, instead of examining why Lincoln and Davis said the war was being fought--and instead of looking at the causes of the war from a philosopher's or idealist's point of view, James McPherson examines what really made men fight. After reading thousands of letters and scores of diaries of simple soldiers, McPherson attempts to explain why the men who participated in the actual combat of the war were there.

His process is simple. He looks at a group of Confederate soldiers (just under 400) and another of Union soldiers (a little over 500) and tries to discover what made them tick. In the book (which was originally a series of lectures), he quotes from many of them, and cites such causes as preservation of the Union, abolition of slavery, and individual liberty as reasons for fighting. Certain classes of soldiers are either over or underrepresented by his study, but McPherson makes allowances for these, and attempts to hypothesize what his data mean on a larger scale.

The Result? Basically, McPherson's study is a refutation of the recent scholarly belief that the common man fights in war more in a spirit of comradery than for any other ideal. In other words, men become dependent on each other, and fight to save their own skin and that of their buddies. While this may have been true for the world wars and other conflicts, McPherson alleges it was not the case for the Civil War. And he makes his case pretty well. From his sample, it appears that a great deal of Civil War combatants were actually fighting for something, and believed in the cause for which they struggled. For this reason, this book is essential to any study of the war. McPherson has broken new ground with this study and helped us to better understand the human side of the Civil War.

Rating:
Summary: What made a Civil War soldier fight?
Review: This is a different kind of book about the Civil War. Instead of discussing all the "official" reasons for the war--in other words, instead of examining why Lincoln and Davis said the war was being fought--and instead of looking at the causes of the war from a philosopher's or idealist's point of view, James McPherson examines what really made men fight. After reading thousands of letters and scores of diaries of simple soldiers, McPherson attempts to explain why the men who participated in the actual combat of the war were there.

His process is simple. He looks at a group of Confederate soldiers (just under 400) and another of Union soldiers (a little over 500) and tries to discover what made them tick. In the book (which was originally a series of lectures), he quotes from many of them, and cites such causes as preservation of the Union, abolition of slavery, and individual liberty as reasons for fighting. Certain classes of soldiers are either over or underrepresented by his study, but McPherson makes allowances for these, and attempts to hypothesize what his data mean on a larger scale.

The Result? Basically, McPherson's study is a refutation of the recent scholarly belief that the common man fights in war more in a spirit of comradery than for any other ideal. In other words, men become dependent on each other, and fight to save their own skin and that of their buddies. While this may have been true for the world wars and other conflicts, McPherson alleges it was not the case for the Civil War. And he makes his case pretty well. From his sample, it appears that a great deal of Civil War combatants were actually fighting for something, and believed in the cause for which they struggled. For this reason, this book is essential to any study of the war. McPherson has broken new ground with this study and helped us to better understand the human side of the Civil War.