What do you think?
Rate this book
What They Fought for, 1861-1865
In Battle Cry Of Freedom , James M. McPherson presented a fascinating, concise general history of the defining American conflict. With What They Fought For , he focuses his considerable talents on what motivated the individual soldier to fight. In an exceptional and highly original Civil War analysis, McPherson draws on the letters and diaries of nearly one thousand Union and Confederate soldiers, giving voice to the very men who risked their lives in the conflict. His conclusion that most of them felt a keen sense of patriotic and ideological commitment counters the prevailing belief that Civil War soldiers had little or no idea of what they were fighting for. In their letters home and their diaries--neither of which were subject to censorship--these men were able to comment, in writing, on a wide variety of issues connected with their war experience. Their insights show how deeply felt and strongly held their convictions were and reveal far more careful thought on the ideological issues of the war than has previously been thought to be true. Living only eighty years after the signing of the Declaration of Independence, Civil War soldiers felt the legacy and responsibility entrusted to them by the Founding Fathers to preserve fragile democracy--be it through secession or union--as something worth dying for. In What They Fought For , McPherson takes individual voices and places them in the great and terrible choir of a country divided against itself. The result is both an impressive scholarly tour de force and a lively, highly accessible account of the sentiments of both Northern and Southern soldiers during the national trauma of the Civil War.
112 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1994
18 people are currently reading
598 people want to read
About the author
James M. McPherson
171 books716 followersJames M. McPherson, Ph.D. (Johns Hopkins University, 1963; B.A., Gustavus Adolphus College (St. Peter, Minnesota), 1958) is an American Civil War historian, and the George Henry Davis '86 Professor Emeritus of United States History at Princeton University. He received the Pulitzer Prize for Battle Cry of Freedom, his most famous book. He was the president of the American Historical Association in 2003, and is a member of the editorial board of Encyclopædia Britannica.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 45 reviews
October 9, 2016
I swiped this book from my brother's bookshelf and, as it's only 69 pages, it wasn't a long read. I would estimate that half of this book is quotes from Civil War soldiers' journals and letters, compiled in three chapters: the South, the North, and the Slavery. It was very interesting to read. According to the quotes shared, the Confederates fought for Liberty and independence, viewing the North as tyrants and invaders. The Unionists fought for freedom and peace, viewing the Confederates as traitors.
I would say that this book is an unbiased presentation of information, as a brief overview of the good and evil motives of both sides are covered. There were quotes from both sides that made my skin crawl because of man's hard-heartedness towards other man (specifically towards the enemy). It was a very educational read.
I would say that this book is an unbiased presentation of information, as a brief overview of the good and evil motives of both sides are covered. There were quotes from both sides that made my skin crawl because of man's hard-heartedness towards other man (specifically towards the enemy). It was a very educational read.
September 3, 2009
James McPherson is an eminent historian, who has written some classics, such as "Battle Cry of Freedom." This is a slender volume (part of a larger research project and the basis for a lecture) that is based on an interesting thesis: that soldiers, both north and south, fought to a considerable extent for ideology, and not solely as brothers in arms with other troops, for ideals of manhood, for the notions of honor and duty, and so on..
He used as his "data base" hundreds of letters and diaries written by soldiers, from both the Union and Confederate ranks.
In his Introduction, he observes that there were a range of motivations among soldiers, but that one emerged that surprised him--(pages 1-2) "This theme [the role of ideology:] has emerged to greater importance r=than I expected when I began the project." He notes this thesis in juxtaposition to one common perspective, namely, that many soldiers had little or no idea what they were fighting for.
Among the "causes" that soldiers said they were fighting for in their writings: liberty and independence (both Yankees and Rebs), to preserve what the Founding Fathers stated in 1776 (the Declaration of Independence) and what they fought for in the Revolution, and slavery (many Confederate troops in favor of the peculiar institution and many Union troops opposed to it--far more, apparently, than one might have guessed).
All in all, given its brevity, a good little book. Those who attended this lecture series surely got their monies' worth! For an interesting effort to understand what the soliders, blue and gray fought for, this is a nice volume.
He used as his "data base" hundreds of letters and diaries written by soldiers, from both the Union and Confederate ranks.
In his Introduction, he observes that there were a range of motivations among soldiers, but that one emerged that surprised him--(pages 1-2) "This theme [the role of ideology:] has emerged to greater importance r=than I expected when I began the project." He notes this thesis in juxtaposition to one common perspective, namely, that many soldiers had little or no idea what they were fighting for.
Among the "causes" that soldiers said they were fighting for in their writings: liberty and independence (both Yankees and Rebs), to preserve what the Founding Fathers stated in 1776 (the Declaration of Independence) and what they fought for in the Revolution, and slavery (many Confederate troops in favor of the peculiar institution and many Union troops opposed to it--far more, apparently, than one might have guessed).
All in all, given its brevity, a good little book. Those who attended this lecture series surely got their monies' worth! For an interesting effort to understand what the soliders, blue and gray fought for, this is a nice volume.
September 17, 2022
First college book on goodreads!! Semi interesting but obviously not something I’d choose to read about on my own.
February 16, 2025
Some really good stuff here, and very short. Basically McPherson narrates the many different reasons soldiers fought in the Civil War. Doesn’t really come to any major conclusions, so that is good and bad depending on how you look at it
September 12, 2017
There is a persistent suggestion that the South did not fight the Civil War to preserve slavery. This is most obviously belied by the Articles of Secession, which nearly all cite slavery to justify the act, but also by the journals and letters of Civil War soldiers written in the "immediacy of their experience." This author surveys an impressive collection of such writings and presents his findings objectively.
"Emancipation was a salient issue for Union soldiers because it was controversial. Slavery was not salient for Confederate soldiers during most of the war because it was not controversial. They took slavery for granted as part of the southern way of life for which they fought, and did not feel compelled to discuss it. Although only 20 percent of the soldiers avowed explicit proslavery purposes in their letters and diaries, none at all dissented from that view."
"Emancipation was a salient issue for Union soldiers because it was controversial. Slavery was not salient for Confederate soldiers during most of the war because it was not controversial. They took slavery for granted as part of the southern way of life for which they fought, and did not feel compelled to discuss it. Although only 20 percent of the soldiers avowed explicit proslavery purposes in their letters and diaries, none at all dissented from that view."
November 13, 2015
This is a supplementary text for McPherson's classic text on the Civil War, "The Battle Cry of Freedom." At first I thought it was like reading an appendix crammed full of facts and figures but then I discovered its structure. It is roughly divided into three chapters presenting the Southern view, the Northern view and the issue of slavery. I don't want to give any spoilers but it veers away from the modern "popular romanticization of the Civil War" and suggests that the South had not fought for slavery nor had the North fought for its abolition. The author takes the pragmatic approach cites hundreds of letters and diaries written by the soldiers who had actually served in the war.
April 10, 2022
Though this is a small book, I hoped for better from it. But alas, the author subscribes to the winner's view of history - that after all it was slavery, and really nothing else, that motivated southern secession and the War of Northern Aggression.
He does quote from, and refer to, people on the Confederate side who weren't fighting for slavery, and people on the US side who weren't fighting to free the slaves. But these people get short shrift, even though the historical record shows that many in the south knew that slavery was a great wrong, and hoped it would end, and weren't at all fighting to preserve it; and even though the record equally shows that many in the north had no interest in ending southern slavery, that slavery continued in the north for eight months after it ended by brute force in the south, and that many in the north were worse bigots that any southerner.
But one gets used to such bias when looking at history without the dubious "benefit" of the winner's perspective. Among historians there is a very marked culture of hagiography when it comes to Abraham Lincoln, and of making every possible excuse when it comes to dealing with the gross barbarity of United States forces during the war. It takes considerable integrity and courage to buck the academic trend (which is one reason why peer review, while valuable, is far from an infallible means of ensuring that only the truth gets into print), and McPherson doesn't do it. He comes right up to the edge, here and there, of admitting that the south wasn't a vicious evil and the north wasn't the abode of saints, but he always backs off from that edge with platitudes about "saving the union."
And that bromide, which Lincoln used to justify provoking, and prosecuting, an invasive and imperialistic war, deserves some attention - if only because McPherson swallows the most obvious illogic without a quiver. To say that allowing the southern states to secede (as the 13 colonies had seceded) would destroy the United States is to utter the veriest nonsense. A child could figure out the error. The fact is that with the secession of the southern states, the United States remained intact. Of the 13 states which seceded (of which only 11 were able to firmly enter the Confederacy), four didn't secede until Lincoln called for volunteers to join the United States Army and invade the seven states that had, at that point, left the United States. If he had not openly designed an invasion, the Confederacy might well have never grown beyond seven states, and certainly there would've been no war. And the United States would've continued on - smaller, certainly, but with a far larger arena for growth than the Confederacy would have possessed. The United States would've grown, while the Confederate States would've remained in their southern constraints. Slavery would've eventually died out, as it had already died out in most of the north, and "race" relations would've never undergone the horrors of Reconstruction-imposed Jim Crow laws and attitudes. The idea that the secession of the southern states would've ended "the union" receives a further mortal blow when we consider that for most of American history up to that time, it had been northern states which had contemplated secession, without anyone ever claiming that it would destroy "the union"; indeed, if the War of 1812 had continued into 1815, New England very likely would've seceded over Mr. Madison's War, which damaged that section's interests just as northern polices were damaging southern interests 50 years later. If the secession of New England wouldn't have destroyed the United States, then the secession of the south wouldn't have done so. The theory which McPherson supports is a palpable fraud.
This is an interesting book...partly because it reminds us again that even uneducated people in the 1860s were far more articulate than many college graduates today. And it does give some small insight into why soldiers on both sides were willing to endure four years of unspeakable suffering. But it's far from the whole story, and its bias makes it less valuable than it could have been.
He does quote from, and refer to, people on the Confederate side who weren't fighting for slavery, and people on the US side who weren't fighting to free the slaves. But these people get short shrift, even though the historical record shows that many in the south knew that slavery was a great wrong, and hoped it would end, and weren't at all fighting to preserve it; and even though the record equally shows that many in the north had no interest in ending southern slavery, that slavery continued in the north for eight months after it ended by brute force in the south, and that many in the north were worse bigots that any southerner.
But one gets used to such bias when looking at history without the dubious "benefit" of the winner's perspective. Among historians there is a very marked culture of hagiography when it comes to Abraham Lincoln, and of making every possible excuse when it comes to dealing with the gross barbarity of United States forces during the war. It takes considerable integrity and courage to buck the academic trend (which is one reason why peer review, while valuable, is far from an infallible means of ensuring that only the truth gets into print), and McPherson doesn't do it. He comes right up to the edge, here and there, of admitting that the south wasn't a vicious evil and the north wasn't the abode of saints, but he always backs off from that edge with platitudes about "saving the union."
And that bromide, which Lincoln used to justify provoking, and prosecuting, an invasive and imperialistic war, deserves some attention - if only because McPherson swallows the most obvious illogic without a quiver. To say that allowing the southern states to secede (as the 13 colonies had seceded) would destroy the United States is to utter the veriest nonsense. A child could figure out the error. The fact is that with the secession of the southern states, the United States remained intact. Of the 13 states which seceded (of which only 11 were able to firmly enter the Confederacy), four didn't secede until Lincoln called for volunteers to join the United States Army and invade the seven states that had, at that point, left the United States. If he had not openly designed an invasion, the Confederacy might well have never grown beyond seven states, and certainly there would've been no war. And the United States would've continued on - smaller, certainly, but with a far larger arena for growth than the Confederacy would have possessed. The United States would've grown, while the Confederate States would've remained in their southern constraints. Slavery would've eventually died out, as it had already died out in most of the north, and "race" relations would've never undergone the horrors of Reconstruction-imposed Jim Crow laws and attitudes. The idea that the secession of the southern states would've ended "the union" receives a further mortal blow when we consider that for most of American history up to that time, it had been northern states which had contemplated secession, without anyone ever claiming that it would destroy "the union"; indeed, if the War of 1812 had continued into 1815, New England very likely would've seceded over Mr. Madison's War, which damaged that section's interests just as northern polices were damaging southern interests 50 years later. If the secession of New England wouldn't have destroyed the United States, then the secession of the south wouldn't have done so. The theory which McPherson supports is a palpable fraud.
This is an interesting book...partly because it reminds us again that even uneducated people in the 1860s were far more articulate than many college graduates today. And it does give some small insight into why soldiers on both sides were willing to endure four years of unspeakable suffering. But it's far from the whole story, and its bias makes it less valuable than it could have been.
December 30, 2023
Zoomed through this one, its pretty short. McPherson uses letters and diaries to try and figure out what motivated soldiers during the Civil War. There's a mistaken belief that soldiers didn't care about ideology or politics during the Civil War, but soldiers on both sides had strong political convictions and plenty of units set up debating societies DURING the war(which is one of the nerdiest things of all time). There are def wars where soldiers didn't care about politics or ideology, but this wasn't one of them.
For the Union almost everyone believed in preserving the Union and fighting against secession. Abolitionism wasn't embraced by everyone, and a decent amount of Union soldiers were racist/didn't care about slavery. By the end of the war though, most Union soldiers were abolitionists. For the South, soldiers believed they were defending their homeland against a foreign invader, and protecting their right to own slaves. Lots of Confederate soldiers wrote about how they would never let themselves be "enslaved" by the Union, which is like come on, read the room.
McPherson admits he doesn't have a lot of info on black soldiers, which would've been cool to read. Generally the soldiers were pretty good writers, but some of them were hilariously awful spellers, which was a hoot.
Quotes
"It was a sentimental age when strong men were not afraid to cry (or weep, as they would say), when Harriet Beecher Stowe’s great novel and Stephen Foster’s songs could stir genuine emotions. What seems like bathos or platitudes to us were real pathos and convictions for them."
"'Should We the youngest and brightest nation of all the earth bow to traters and forsake the
graves of our Fathers?' He answered his own question: 'No no never'"
“It tells me that while I am absent from home, fighting the battels of our country, trying to restore law and order, to our once peaceful & prosperous nation, and endeavoring to secure for each and every American citizen of every race, the rights garenteed to us in the Declaration of Independence...
I have children growing up that will be worthy of the rights that I trust will be left for them.” °
For the Union almost everyone believed in preserving the Union and fighting against secession. Abolitionism wasn't embraced by everyone, and a decent amount of Union soldiers were racist/didn't care about slavery. By the end of the war though, most Union soldiers were abolitionists. For the South, soldiers believed they were defending their homeland against a foreign invader, and protecting their right to own slaves. Lots of Confederate soldiers wrote about how they would never let themselves be "enslaved" by the Union, which is like come on, read the room.
McPherson admits he doesn't have a lot of info on black soldiers, which would've been cool to read. Generally the soldiers were pretty good writers, but some of them were hilariously awful spellers, which was a hoot.
Quotes
"It was a sentimental age when strong men were not afraid to cry (or weep, as they would say), when Harriet Beecher Stowe’s great novel and Stephen Foster’s songs could stir genuine emotions. What seems like bathos or platitudes to us were real pathos and convictions for them."
"'Should We the youngest and brightest nation of all the earth bow to traters and forsake the
graves of our Fathers?' He answered his own question: 'No no never'"
“It tells me that while I am absent from home, fighting the battels of our country, trying to restore law and order, to our once peaceful & prosperous nation, and endeavoring to secure for each and every American citizen of every race, the rights garenteed to us in the Declaration of Independence...
I have children growing up that will be worthy of the rights that I trust will be left for them.” °
July 8, 2020
This is a printing of three lectures that the author gave at a conference. This project later evolved into a more substantial effort, the book "For Cause and Comrades." The author analyzed the letters and diaries of close to 1000 soldiers to answer 3 questions:
-- Why did Confederate soldiers fight?
-- Why did Union soldiers fight?
-- What did these two groups think about slavery and emancipation?
The author lets the soldiers answer these questions by liberally quoting their writings, misspellings and all. I came away with a much better understanding of the perspectives of the people who made the sacrifices, but wanted more analysis. I think I'll find that in my future reading of "For Cause and Comrades."
-- Why did Confederate soldiers fight?
-- Why did Union soldiers fight?
-- What did these two groups think about slavery and emancipation?
The author lets the soldiers answer these questions by liberally quoting their writings, misspellings and all. I came away with a much better understanding of the perspectives of the people who made the sacrifices, but wanted more analysis. I think I'll find that in my future reading of "For Cause and Comrades."
August 19, 2023
Such a compelling, concise and illuminating little history. McPherson's reflexivity when it comes to acknowledging and addressing the limitations of his methodology was refreshing to read, and I thought he did a great job of synthesising these letters enough to provide coherence but remaining respectful of the diversity and nuance that characterised Union and Confederate soldier's rhetoric and beliefs. It's also a great general case study on the de humanising and intensely polarising impact of war, and the 'us' and 'them' thinking that is both necessary to compel a person to commit to combat and is then further entrenched and intensified due to the trauma and violence of that combat.
February 5, 2019
Incredible historian who takes a nuanced study of 500 Union and Confederate diaries. What follows is not an easy to swallow narrative but instead a fascinating look at motivations and morale, looking to soldiers themselves to justify their participation in the war. McPherson does good history - easy to engage with and converse with in a way that forces one to question my own assumptions.
September 15, 2020
Overall this is very insightful, but still I would’ve like more from the actual letters since this is so short. It feels like we hardly got to know “what they fought for” with such a small sample size, that always got followed with “but this was the minority in comparison to x”
at least I learned a few things I guess
August 23, 2017
This is an excellent survey of the letters of Union and Confederate soldiers. As far as I know, this is the only work which has tried to compile the letters of ordinary officers and men and to measure statistically the opinions held by them.
April 7, 2024
I had to read this for my history class and have no real interest in the topic outside of the classroom so tbh 2 stars feels like fine praise. It was easily the least dry and most digestible reading I was handed this semester.
August 30, 2020
Excellent short review of the Civil War and its causes.
February 22, 2021
Useful insights from primary sources. Pleasantly brief.
February 21, 2023
Read this for History 372 focusing on the Civil War.
November 1, 2023
Straight forward and to the point. An easy read filled with lots of information.
December 16, 2023
Well written account of the ideological beliefs of soldiers.
April 20, 2024
quick read. take my review with a grain of salt, i literally only read this for school. don't love it, don't hate it.
November 13, 2024
Another school book. Guys history is not THAT bad to read about. Interesting topic too.
December 2, 2024
I had to read this book in 1 day for class but it honestly was pretty interesting. It completely changed my perspective on the war.
November 10, 2025
Excellent and concise. I would welcome more discussion on religion, but other books do that. This focuses more on ideology, a slippery thing but supported well.
June 5, 2019
This book gives an insight to what the soldiers of the CSA believed when they were fighting in the Civil War. It was interesting to read actual accounts from soldiers' journals and understand the reasoning behind why they fought. I liked the book overall. The author uses actual journal writings as proof to back up his generalized statements, however I would have liked to see him use the actual statements more instead of paraphrasing so much. Overall it was a good book and I would recommend reading it if you are interested in history, the south, or the Civil War.
Read
December 8, 2023This is a small monograph of three chapters and an introduction that seeks to answer the question: What did the soldiers of the American Civil War fight for? This isn’t to answer the question about broader political causes, nor is it designed to obfuscate the causes of the Civil War. Instead, using the letters, journals, and other personal documents of Civil War soldiers of both sides, James McPherson simply wants to better understand the personal motivations of the soldiers.
He wants to debunk the idea that a sense of senseless adventure was a motivating cause, as well as debunking the idea that most of the soldiers didn’t really have any sense of why they fought. He also spends some improtant time thinking through the question of what especially motivated Northern soldiers, given that they essentially had little gain, and everything to lose in the war (ie that if they simply went back to their lives, nothing much of consequence would change in their lives, as compared to Southern soldiers who were being asked to give up what they often considered their rights, their property, and their sense of personal liberty). McPherson of course iterates the point that these rights and this property is slavery and the benefits of slavery, as well as the important psychological liberty that white supremacy brought with it. And of course recent elections show the appeal and individual value that white supremacy holds for many voters still. He comes to understand that many soldiers were deeply ingrained with causes and most listed their sense of continuing on the legacy of the American Revolution. Northern soldiers did want to end slavery and Souther soldiers wanted to keep it, though they imbued it with additional, almost spiritual meaning.
He wants to debunk the idea that a sense of senseless adventure was a motivating cause, as well as debunking the idea that most of the soldiers didn’t really have any sense of why they fought. He also spends some improtant time thinking through the question of what especially motivated Northern soldiers, given that they essentially had little gain, and everything to lose in the war (ie that if they simply went back to their lives, nothing much of consequence would change in their lives, as compared to Southern soldiers who were being asked to give up what they often considered their rights, their property, and their sense of personal liberty). McPherson of course iterates the point that these rights and this property is slavery and the benefits of slavery, as well as the important psychological liberty that white supremacy brought with it. And of course recent elections show the appeal and individual value that white supremacy holds for many voters still. He comes to understand that many soldiers were deeply ingrained with causes and most listed their sense of continuing on the legacy of the American Revolution. Northern soldiers did want to end slavery and Souther soldiers wanted to keep it, though they imbued it with additional, almost spiritual meaning.
April 13, 2019
Southerners fought to protect their homes, institutions and way of life. Black Union soldiers fought to free their race. Why white Union troops fought is harder to understand. After early battles, the patriotic, idealistic, adventure seeking, machismo displaying men were largely dead, wounded or disillusioned. McPherson seeks answers in the letters of average soldiers. Americans were largely literate and soldiers were encouraged to write home. However, these are the records left by likely the more thoughtful men trying to reassure their loved ones and justify the dangers they faced. Still, it strikes me that the men who carried the burden of war for the Union did so because they felt an obligation to their country and a hope for a safer, freer and more just future. A country that could have been, but was discarded in the post war hustle for a buck, a desire for normality, and a spurious, exclusionary search for "unity".
June 25, 2021
When this came in the mail, I don't know why but I didn't realize before how short this book is. What They Fought for is a written version of a lecture and research for one of his many books on the topic. The writing is divided into 3 sections; The confederate soldiers, the union soldiers, and the issue of emancipation and slavery in the war. I greatly appreciated the amount of research that went into this from reading many many letters and diary entries from both sides. What I appreciated even more was the acknowledgement from McPherson of the bias that may have been contributed from the lack of certain populations within his sample size.
McPherson categorizes his findings and gives examples also noting that most of those he quotes will not live long after their words are written. He also hypothesizes that their deaths are likely the reason why their letters and diaries are preserved. This would pair well with Killer Angles, which is also based on the writings of soldiers.
McPherson categorizes his findings and gives examples also noting that most of those he quotes will not live long after their words are written. He also hypothesizes that their deaths are likely the reason why their letters and diaries are preserved. This would pair well with Killer Angles, which is also based on the writings of soldiers.
June 13, 2008
McPherson explores the reasons Union soldiers fought, the reasons Confederate soldiers fought, and attitudes of both sides towards slavery. An easy read while still being very informative. A precursor to a longer book titled For Cause and Comrades : Why Men Fought in the Civil War.
April 11, 2009
Although it is a short book of less than one hundred pages, quite a lot is packed into the book. The author succinctly articulates the motivations of Union and Confederate soldiers based largely on letters written by the men in blue and gray.
November 2, 2020
A rather feeble book. This is the sort of work you produce when you've decided to coast on your laurels. McPherson deservedly won acclaim with The Battle Cry of Freedom, which was a good synopsis of the Civil War, but he's gone badly downhill ever since.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 45 reviews