Analysis Of James M. Mcpherson's A Band Of Brothers

In James M. McPherson’s article “A Band of Brothers” he addresses a question that has been contemplated by many historians: what persuades men to want to fight in wars such as the Civil war? The purpose of this article was to enable readers to understand the personal motivations of the men fighting in the Civil war. This topic thus includes understanding how soldiers’ thought processes, their sense of pride, as well as their connections to others, in the regiments, communities, and families, provoked them to want to fight in an extremely deathly war. Overall, McPherson argues that men fought in the Civil war for the honor of themselves and others.

McPherson explains in his first main point that one major factor that caused men to want to

fight was their sense pride in themselves, their community, and in their families. McPherson states that at this time, soldiers feared being labeled a coward more than death. This was partially influenced by the officers in charge of the troops who condemned them for being cowards, along with the soldiers among the same regiments. Since soldiers from the hometowns and communities near each other were likely to be put into the same regiments, acts of cowardice would not go unknown when they wrote letters to their families back home. These cowardice acts thus reflected on your family and community, which possibly could bring dishonor to their reputation. This is what then caused soldiers to try their hardest, even when not needed, in order for them to prove to others that they were not cowards. What Mcpherson fails to connect to this point however is that not all men were equally influenced by this fear. In the Civil war, it was not uncommon for soldiers to desert their post, whether they were labeled cowards or not. Fortunately, the author does explain how some men would pretend to be ill so that they would be excused from fighting in battles, which shows that not all men were heavily influenced by pride.
Along with fighting for the pride of yourself and community, McPherson’s second main point argues that soldiers also fought for the honor of their regiment, state and nation -all of which were interconnected.

These were all interconnected because soldiers not only represented the regiment they were a part of, but also represented the states and nation in which they came from. However, this does not mean that blame was placed on one person or state, the soldiers shared blame with their entire regiment. Therefore, when rivalries began between the regiments over their pride, even soldiers who were not cowardice in the slightest were accused of being so. Fortunately, this did help create a sense of unity in the regiments as well as influence improvement and reenlistment. Soldiers wanted to stay with their regiments to protect their honor. A majority of soldiers thought their regiments were so important that they not only would be willing to die for their regiment, but for their regiment’s colors. A regiment’s colors were thought as sacred because they symbolized the pride and honor of the regiment, for which many were willing to die for. By adding this fact in his point, McPherson explains the importance of the American flag, even in present time, and where our traditions surrounding it originated from. Nonetheless, McPherson does not explain the legal terms surrounding soldiers enlisting. Soldier in the Civil war were legally bound to enlist due to the draft Lincoln issued

which affected any male between the ages of 20 and 45. This thus forced men to be a part of the army, whether they wanted to preserve the honor of their community or not.
Finally, in his last main point, McPherson connects the sense of unity within the regiments with the idea of primary group cohesion. Primary group cohesion is defined as the want to fight for the soldiers you fight alongside. In this point, McPherson states that what most influenced men to want to fight was to honor their fellow soldiers. This was due to the intense bond shared between the soldiers that was created from the hardships they endured together. By experiencing the same common sorrow, the soldiers created relationships that were unlike any other and learned to care for one another. This thus generated a need for them to protect each other, even if it meant risking their own lives. The author adds that the belief of both primary group cohesion and common ideology is what allowed soldiers to have an even stronger determination. McPherson also successfully explains in this point that having primary group cohesiveness is necessary in any successful armies. He also explains how this idea is used even in modern times, and that is an important aspect of training and doctrines in armies. Although, McPherson forgets to reference that not everyone was supportive of the war or shared common ideology, thus preventing some men to not bond with one another.
Though McPherson’s article was able to convincingly explain the emotional aspects that led men to want to fight in the war, he forgets to reference some important factual information.

One fact McPherson does not explain are the political reasons that led men to want to fight. These reasons include some of the major goals of the war such as the want to preserve or end slavery, reunite the union, protest against Lincoln’s presidency, or fight for state rights. These beliefs majorly coaxed men to want to fight because they were the reasons why the war was being fought to begin with. Another fact the author refuses to explain is how not everyone wanted to fight in the war. In fact, it was commonly known that you could buy your way out of a draft, by either paying your way out or hiring a replacement. Even in the South, if you were a male that owned 20 or more slaves, you did not have to participate in the war. Lastly, the most important fact that the author does not refer is the major role African Americans in fighting for the North during the war. In total there were 180,000 African American troops, which made up approximately 10 percent of the total population of soldiers. These soldiers thus had much different views of what they were fighting for than honor. African Americans were fighting for their freedom. Therefore Mcpherson’s article only explains why poor, white American males fought in the

war.
Even though this article lacks some factual evidence, it does contribute an array of details pertaining to the war that are not easily found elsewhere. One strength of this article was the explanation of family views and beliefs. In the first point, the authors explains the importance of a family name and how everyone seen as a representation of their family and where they came from. This aids in the understanding of why reputations at this time were of heightened importance. Another important belief that the author explains in this article is the importance of the flag and our nation's’ colors. McPherson explains that our sacred view of the colors originated from how soldiers during war viewed the colors as a representation of their army’s pride and honor. This thus caused them to want to protect the colors at any cost, and explains why we have our sacred traditions surrounding the colors today. Lastly, this article was able to also effectively connect the use of primary group cohesion with its importance. The author explains in his third point that in order for an army to be successful, it must use the idea of primary group cohesion. This bond created between soldiers is what strengthens aries greatly by causing them to be able to work together more fluently. This fact helps explain why armies even in modern times value this idea, and use it within their training and doctrine. Altogether, this article held a sense of importance because it expanded of the emotional aspect of the war, and held to the prior consensus that soldiers found their courage to fight through wanting to protect their nation’s honor and values.
The soldiers’ desperate need to protect their honor in war can be closely compared to the traditional values of Japanese families along with the Samurai. The main morales that both soldiers in the Civil war and the Samurai followed were loyalty, courage, forbearance, generosity, and self-control. These morales all contributed to their need to protect their sense of honor, for which the Samurai also represented their family’s sense of honor too. This thus led many Samurai to be willing to die for their sense of honor to prevent shame. However, how the two differ is that the fear of shame was held such a high importance in Japanese culture that armies were willing to use suicide as a form of tactic. The Samurai would then agree to engage in this tactic if it meant that they could evade the humiliation of defeat.