For Cause and Comrades: Chapter 4 Summary & Analysis

Traditionally, soldiers are motivated by means of training, discipline, and leadership. McPherson observes that “Civil War volunteer regiments were notoriously deficient in the first, weak in the second, and initially shaky in the third.” The Union and Confederate armies were formed by means of “do-it-yourself mobilizations” in local communities. Most volunteers thought of themselves as civilians who were filling a temporary role. Most elected their officers and most entered combat mere weeks after organizing.

Early on, most officers knew very little about military drill or tactics and they had to master a military manual very quickly and lead their men in dull, dreaded close-order drill. Part of the purpose of such drills was to instill obedience. This wasn’t an easy task in a citizen army, though, as McPherson observes that “American white males were the most individualistic, democratic people on the face of the earth in 1861.” A North Carolina lieutenant, however, argued that manliness and independences, not servile obedience, were needed to be a good soldier.

McPherson points out that Civil War armies wouldn’t have lasted so long if they had been “undisciplined mobs.” Over time, most came to see the value of drill and discipline. Nevertheless, the threat of deadly force was sometimes employed to compel a scared soldier into the line of fire. Through the 18th century, this was been standard practice, but Americans began to reject the method during the Revolutionary War. It nevertheless occurred sometimes that cavalry would be stationed to threaten skulkers back into line. Sometimes, known cowards would be publicly shamed by being dishonorably drummed out of the army.

Some soldiers are known to have gotten drunk before battle, especially officers who would have been able to access liquor more easily. On both sides, rumors abounded about the drunken antics of their enemies, yet McPherson argues that such exploits were few and far between during the Civil War.

Leadership was key to effective fighting. The most important characteristics of a good officer were his personal courage and his willingness to do whatever he asked his men to do. Relationships among officers and soldiers began during training, but these men were often from the same community, and officers—usually a bit older and more educated or with more social standing—took “an almost paternal interest” in the men. A Massachusetts captain reflected that his responsibilities included not only drill and discipline, but looking after his men’s habits, small personal disputes, and overall wellbeing. Officers who were willing to share their men’s burdens made the best impression. A young private describes a major who, when a man collapsed on the march, let the man ride his horse and carried his gun as well. On the other hand, officers who flaunted their rank tended to fare poorly with their democratically minded men.

Leadership found its ultimate test in the heat of combat. The only way for a man to pass this test was to demonstrate his readiness to do whatever he asked of his men. At the first battle of Bull Run, a Massachusetts lieutenant wrote, “I knew if I flinched I was ruined.” An Ohio captain dismissed his men’s urging to take cover and instead he “set the example by taking the most exposed place.”

While army structure could gradually train and discipline soldiers and provide good leaders, ultimately volunteer civilian soldiers were only going to fight if they wanted to since American culture emphasized “individualism, self-reliance, and freedom from coercive authority.” Ultimately, Victorian America primarily focused on individual responsibility and virtue, not on social institutions. While institutions could teach men how to fight and how to manage their fear, internal motivation was needed to motivate them to fight.