Fighting Means Killing: Civil War Soldiers and the Nature of Combat

by Jonathan M Steplyk

Richard W. Ulbrich Award “War means fighting, and fighting means killing.” Confederate cavalry commander Nathan Bedford Forrest famously declared. The Civil War was fundamentally a matter of Americans killing Americans. This undeniable reality is what Jonathan Steplyk explores in Fighting Means Killing , the first book-length study of Union and Confederate soldiers’ attitudes toward, and experiences of, killing in the Civil War. Drawing upon letters, diaries, and postwar reminiscences, Steplyk examines what soldiers and veterans thought about killing before, during, and after the war. How did these soldiers view sharpshooters? How about hand-to-hand combat? What language did they use to describe killing in combat? What cultural and societal factors influenced their attitudes? And what was the impact of race in battlefield atrocities and bitter clashes between white Confederates and black Federals? These are the questions that Steplyk seeks to answer in Fighting Means Killing , a work that bridges the gap between military and social history—and that shifts the focus on the tragedy of the Civil War from fighting and dying for cause and country to fighting and killing.

Genres: Civil War, History

304 pages, Paperback

First published May 1, 2018

Reviews

[Joseph · Rating 5 out of 5]

Like all good books, I found this one to be too short!! But other than that, I have no complaints. The author pulls back the curtain on a less talked about aspect of the Civil War; why were men willing to kill each other? He proceeds to lay out several chapters worth of explanation. The book fills a necessary gap in the historiography of the war. A very good read.

[Douglas Meyer · Rating 2 out of 5]

Jonathan M. Steplyk’s _Fighting Means Killing: Civil War Soldiers and the Nature of Combat_ explores the psychological and moral dimensions of killing in battle during the American Civil War. His central thesis is that understanding soldiers’ attitudes toward killing is key to grasping the comprehensive nature and visceral experience of combat. My 2-Star rating is principally because of the dry and academic writing style that holds the piece back. I took the better part of a year to read this (ignore my dates read, I edited to make myself feel better). Why is that? Because it was just so damn dry. I felt like I was reading an academic paper with forced transitions, excessive pages to make simple points, and no compelling narratives.

I could forgive this fact if the source material was boring—but we are talking about killing! We are talking about the Civil War…Americans killing Americans. Steplyk’s source material draws from the letters, diaries, memoirs, and writings of Civil War soldiers. Grossman’s _On Killing_ and _On Combat_ are dry too, but this takes it to another level.

However, this is an important read—albeit painful—to pair with Grossman, Keegan, and SLA Marshall. Steplyk argues that Civil War soldiers didn’t avoid killing, but rather recognized it as an inherent and fundamental reality of combat. However, like anything that involves humanity their approaches were as diverse as they were. Some used religion, others a sense of honor, and others camaraderie to navigate the moral implications of killing. Some were more hesitant than others. Soldiers spanned the spectrum of sociopathy and apathy. But all were forced to face the reality that war means death.

Steplyk explores the desensitizing nature of continuous combat, the role of dehumanization of the enemy, and the enduring patterns of warfare and human behavior. Ultimately, Steplyk adds a nuanced and in-depth review of how individual soldiers overcame or succumbed to the horrific moral and psychological challenges faced in the crucible of ground combat.

I mentioned Keegan, Grossman, and SLA Marshall as additional readings/pairings to this text. I would also recommend:

• _Red Badge of Courage_, by Stephen Crane
• _All Quiet on the Western Front_, by Erich Maria Remarque
• _Forgotten Soldier_, by Guy Sajer
• _Matterhorn_, by Karl Marlantes
• _Platoon Leader_, by James McDonough
• _The Centurions_, by Jean Lartéguy

[Sarah Horton · Rating 4 out of 5]

I read this book for my HIS103 class as completed a book review on it. Despite it being a class assignment, I genuinely enjoyed reading it and learned a lot about the Civil War. Steplyk wrote the book in a way that makes it accessible to expert historians as well as general readers.

[Mark Joubert · Rating 3 out of 5]

Steplyk provides a helpful overview of Civil War combat psychology, borrowing the term 'killology' to describe his subject. It's not the most readable book and at times, difficult to get through. Section headers may have helped in this regard. Still, an excellent introduction to a complex issue.

[Bill Freil]

Well researched and supported.

[MSG · Rating 5 out of 5]

(Note: Citations show the Kindle location number).

Jonathan Steplyk’s Fighting Means Killing is an engaging work of military history that explores the thoughts, attitudes, motivations, and experiences of both Union and Confederate soldiers concerning killing in the American Civil War. Jonathan Steplyk’s experience includes teaching history at both Texas Christian University and the University of Texas at Arlington.

The author uses a wide range of primary sources including letters and diaries of Civil War soldiers, post-war memoirs, and military manuals of the era. He also uses Dave Grossman’s esteemed On Killing to build some of the psychological frameworks of combatants and as a
comparative analysis in which he respectfully compares his research on Civil War soldiers versus Grossman’s. The author writes that the work of scholars like Grossman, and history in general, paints a picture of soldiers who experienced “an innate resistance to killing their fellow man” (Steplyk, 2018, 4874). Contrary to this historical perception, regarding the Civil War, the author’s thesis contends that “the majority of Union and Confederate soldiers positively affirmed and accepted killing the enemy as part of their military duty”, they saw killing as necessary to win, most felt “purpose and meaning” in killing on the battlefield, and that both sides “displayed greater willingness in their attitudes and behavior to kill in battle than previously supposed” (Steplyk, 2018, 201, 214, 225).

The title of Steplyk’s book comes from a quote by Confederate General Nathan Bedford Forrest and Steplyk opens the book with a historical vignette about the notorious Marshall House incident where a Union colonel and a Confederate sympathizer were killed, resulting in Union and Confederate defenders celebrating their side’s killer and mourning their side’s slain (Steplyk, 2018, 91, 166). This vignette serves as an important foundation for the book as it shows both sides “affirmed that war could mean both dying and killing for a country and for a cause” (Steplyk, 2018, 163). Building on this, Steplyk makes a compelling case of how nineteenth-century American culture primed soldiers for violence, how Civil War tactics made it easier to kill, and the shockingly brutal encounters between black Union soldiers and white Confederate soldiers.

The author writes how Civil War soldiers wrote “candidly and unashamedly about
killing” without fear of societal rebuke (Steplyk, 2018, 289). This was a product of the culture. Soldiers on both sides had been “steeped in numerous ideological, cultural, and societal influences” that encouraged them to fight such as preexisting sectional rivalry between the North and South, consistent exposure to death, hunting and shooting experience, and previous events of political violence which all helped desensitize soldiers to killing (Steplyk, 2018, 317, 321, 323, 364, 630). While religion discouraged some soldiers from killing, for others, it “played a decisive role” giving soldiers a strong worldview in “ideas of good and evil”, and Americans “were no strangers to the language of sacrifice” (Steplyk, 475, 536).

The tactics and equipment of the Civil War era also played a part in encouraging men to kill. As the author points out, the highly centralized control that officers had over enlisted and their ability to exercise fire control ensured more soldiers fired their weapons (Steplyk, 2018, 951). Since the soldiers were in long firing lines, this helped foster “strong senses of camaraderie and cohesion, and thus a strong desire not to let their comrades down” as well as anonymity in the mass firing of battle (Steplyk, 2018, 959). Furthering this anonymity and confusion was the low visibility created by the fog of black powder weapons (Steplyk, 2018, 1046). All these factors worked together to encourage hesitant soldiers to fire their weapons.

One of the saddest portions of the book that reinforces the author’s thesis is the combat encounters between black Union soldiers and white Confederate soldiers. Black soldiers saw combat as a chance to “prove their valor and worth on the battlefield”, and fight for the freedom of their families and people against men who had abused and enslaved them (Steplyk, 2018, 3974). For white Confederates, the presence of black soldiers “affronted their honor”, threatened their racist social order, and conjured up images of an “apocalyptic race war” (Steplyk, 2018, 3983). The racism in the South resulted in the Confederacy committing multiple brutal massacres of black soldiers, and some black soldiers began to respond in kind, resulting in some of the “most blatant, unrestrained killing of the war” (Steplyk, 2018, 3994).

Jonathan Steplyk’s book is powerful and well-researched. Contrary to many of history’s wars, it presents a majority of Civil War soldiers who were willing to kill to achieve victory. More importantly, what makes the book an essential read, is the way it shows how preexisting political, societal, and cultural attitudes, positive and negative, set the foundation for the violence of the Civil War.

[Mark Harden · Rating 3 out of 5]

Although it contains interesting details on combat in The civil war, it was frustrating because the author relies far too much on Grossman’s “On Killing”. He cites it continually in support of the claim that a significant portion of soldiers were very reluctant to kill their enemies in battle. But his sources in letters, diaries and memoirs do not adequately support the contention. At least he denied Grossman’s silliest claim: that the finding of hundreds of guns on the Gettysburg battlefield after the fighting, with multiple loads of unfired ammunition, indicates soldiers who only pretended to fire their weapons (!)

[Don · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is an impressive and important book. Using a very balanced collection (north, south, walks of life, branch of service, theater of service) of primary sources and research, Jonathan Steplyk offers new insights into how soldiers of the Civil War thought of combat and killing, as well as mercy, prisoners, and other factors of the conflict. Along the way he also offers important insights and reminders about the cultural norms of American society in the 19th century. This should be essential reading for any serious student of the Civil War.

[Graham · Rating 2 out of 5]

While interesting at points, it reads like a poorly edited Ph.D thesis.

[Kathy West · Rating 4 out of 5]

5 ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️- Excellent - Highly Recommended
4 ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️ - A good, solid read
3 ⭐️⭐️⭐️ - An okay read
2 ⭐️⭐️ - Meh
1 ⭐️ - Not my cup of tea