The War for the Common Soldier: How Men Thought, Fought, and Survived in Civil War Armies by Peter S. Carmichael

Abstract

Reviewed by: The War for the Common Soldier: How Men Thought, Fought, and Survived in Civil War Armies by Peter S. Carmichael Jonathan M. Steplyk (bio) The War for the Common Soldier: How Men Thought, Fought, and Survived in Civil War Armies. By Peter S. Carmichael. (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 2018. Pp. 408. $34.95 cloth; $27.99 ebook) The study of the common soldier represents one of the most storied and engaging fields within Civil War historiography. Soldier [End Page 360] studies range from broad surveys of soldier life, such as Bell I. Wiley's studies of "Johnny Reb" and "Billy Yank" and Reid Mitchell's Civil War Soldiers (1988), to explorations of specific topics, such as James McPherson's study of soldier motivation in For Cause and Comrades (1997) and Chandra Manning's examination of soldiers' attitudes toward slavery in What This Cruel War Was Over (2007). In The War for the Common Soldier, Peter Carmichael offers a new soldier study that is both broad in scope and intense in focus, arguing that Civil War soldiers, caught between romanticized notions of conduct and conflict and war's harsh realities, espoused a "hard-edged pragmatism" that privileged victory and survival (p. 7). Carmichael casts his work as a study not of what Civil War soldiers thought but how they thought. He presents Yankees and Rebels as citizen-soldiers whose sentimentalized notions of warfare and manly conduct were challenged by the rigors of homesickness, privation, terror, loss, and doubt. He concludes that "pragmatism gave them the flexibility to act in ways that actually helped them preserve their faith in ideas" (p. 8). Carmichael's work might be understood as a middle ground between Gerald Linderman, who suggested Civil War soldiers' prewar values did not survive the brutality of combat, and James McPherson, who argued that ideology and comradeship sustained most men throughout the war. Carmichael's conclusions align more closely to McPherson's—he finds soldiers' religious beliefs, national identity, and sense of duty generally survived contact with the enemy, yet these elements did not necessarily provide conclusive answers to the trials they faced. A soldier's Christian faith might endure, yet he still might struggle with why God should delay or withhold victory on the battlefield. A veteran might espouse his cause to the bitter end but still rationalize attaining a safer post or even desertion. Carmichael contests the notion that deserters and skulkers were simply lacking in ideology or commitment. "Emotional management" is a key concept in the book and for Carmichael's soldiers, the life of the mind is as much a battlefield as the war's actual killing fields. [End Page 361] Carmichael structures his work around seven thematic chapters, addressing topics that include adjusting to military life, religion and values, letters home, competing ideas of courage and cowardice, desertion and military justice, attitudes toward the enemy and the war's outcome, and the collection and preservation of wartime relics. Each chapter centers on case studies of writings by several Union and Confederate soldiers through which Carmichael explicates how they responded and adapted to the war's challenges. As with a needle and thread, Carmichael weaves his analysis between in-depth examination of his core individuals and supporting evidence from other soldiers while drawing out his broader conclusions. This hybrid of macro- and micro-investigation might at times prove challenging to the reader, but more often than not Carmichael makes it work. Among his many intriguing observations is the suggestion that Union soldiers were far more likely to enjoy irony and self-mockery amid the war's hardships than their Rebel foes. Yankees could laugh at themselves even as their patriotism and sense of purpose endured, while a steely absolutism marked most Confederates' self-image. Did this reflect the rigid code of southern honor? Did it stem from Confederates' sense that the war had much more immediate physical and emotional stakes for them than their foes? Carmichael encourages us to ponder such questions with him. In The War for the Common Soldier, fighting men's worldviews bend but do not necessarily break as they are tried by fire. Carmichael plumbs the psyches...