Cause Of The War: Morale Of War

“The Cause of War” is a book written by Australian author Geoffrey Blainey. The book is a collection of studies from wars since 1700’s and it analysis the relation of rivaling nations. The book is divided in four parts it starts discussing the weakness behind the current theories of peace, it then moves to talk the “ingredients” which are key for a nation to determine whether they will go to war or not. Third part of the group is about some misleading theories of war, and the last part just deals with the variety of war.

Great War, also known as The First World War, lasted for four year (1914 to 1918). It brought a huge development of war technics and weapons. More number of countries had been involved in the Great War than any previous war. It involved the mobilization of the whole nations, not just an enormous army that turned the war into a “total war”. (Clare 6) However, historians are still arguing about the major cause of the World War I. The major cause will be one of the four long-term causes of WWI, which are Militarism, Alliance, Imperialism, and Nationalism. In my opinion, the two major causes would be Alliance and Nationalism. Alliance is an association between two or more countries for mutual benefits that formed with different treaties, while

James M. McPherson sets out to discover what motivated the Confederate and Union soldiers to continue fighting in the Civil War in his book What They Fought For. McPherson analyses nearly a thousand letters, journals, and diary of Union and Confederate soldiers to determine what urged them to fight is this defining American Conflict. McPherson reads and groups together the common thoughts of the everyday soldier, from their letters and journals that none of which had been subjected to any sort of censorship, in that time period. He then generalizes the motivations that they used to fight for their country. Whether it be for slavery or for the Union, the author views both sides of the fighting to analysis their ideological issues, how deep their belief coursed through their veins to continue fighting, and how the soldiers held their convictions close to heart in the time of war.

The romanticized version of the Civil War creates a picture of the North versus the South with the North imposing on the South. However, after reading “The Making of a Confederate” by William L. Barney, one can see that subdivisions existed before the war was declared. The documents analyzed by Barney primarily focus on the experiences of Walter Lenoir, a southern confederate and a member of the planter elite. His experiences tell a vivid story of a passionate and strongly opinioned participant of the Civil War as well as demonstrate a noticeably different view involving his reasoning when choosing a side. Between analyzing this fantastic piece of literature and other resourceful documents from “Voices of Freedom” by Eric Foner, one

McClellan’s caution in waging war is evidenced clearly in the Army of the Potomac’s Peninsula Campaign. McClellan was charged with leading the assault on Richmond, delivering what could have been a fatal blow against the Confederacy. During the Army of the Potomac’s movements towards Richmond, McClellan repeatedly delayed, believing he had inferior numbers to his initial adversary, Confederate General Joseph E. Johnston. Johnston knew the caution McClellan was prone to, and slowly drew McClellan closer to Confederate forces defending Richmond. At the Battle of Seven Pines, Johnston reinforced the idea in McClellan’s mind that caution was necessary. (McPherson, 1988, p. 461) The surprise attach by Johnston’s forces, though ultimately defeated by the Army of the Potomac, delayed McClellan’s advance as he called for more reinforcements from Washington. Johnston was wounded in the battle, and replaced by General Robert E. Lee. Lee, whose prowess as a tactician bordered on legendary, led a series of surprise attacks against McClellan’s Army of the Potomac in the Seven Days’ Battle. McClellan’s forces were pushed back, and he was relieved of duty as commander of the Army of the Potomac, until later in 1862. (McPherson, 1988, pp. 462-470)

A man of ideals and honor represent the character of Union Colonel Joshua Chamberlain. Being a man of education, Chamberlain knows the demeaning and repulsive nature of slavery and has come to fight to end it. Chamberlain hates the whole idea of the Civil War and the death and destruction that goes along with it. “I used my brother to plug a hole. Did it automatically as if he were expendable,” says Chamberlain (Shaara 304). He hates the idea that men, including his brother, are dying out in the fight for slavery. The only reason he believes in the Civil War is that if he the North did not fight freedom would be tarnished and a great travesty would occur. Chamberlain is not a man of war and blood and doesn’t relish war and its qualities. The idea of war in general to

Michael Shaara depicted General Lee as a widely respected, admired and wise commander who was decisive, regardless of whether the odds were in his favor or not. The decision to attack at Gettysburg had tremendous disapproval however Lee felt as if he had two choices-- fight in the enemy's face or retreat. Longstreet advised the General against the assault on Gettysburg given that the position of an uphill battle on open ground would be disastrous; however Lee was insistent that it be done. While the Confederate Army lost the Civil

Another problem Lee had was that he was seen as a father figure to most of the men and treated them softly. Stuart was supposed to be gathering information for Lee, but instead he was out “joy riding” which left the Army of Northern Virginia basically blind as to where the North regiments were positioned. Longstreet said “When Stuart comes back you ought to court martial him” (82). However, Lee believed reproach, letting Stuart know how badly he let them down, would make him a good soldier. When dealing with Stuart Lee “spoke as you speak to a child” and wanted to reassure him. He treated Stuart softly (256-266). Lee’s age, failing health, and softness on his men was one reason the Army of Northern Virginia lost the Battle of Gettysburg.

Bao Ninh’s The Sorrow of War is a novel that is a personal view of the Vietnam War from the perspective of a Vietnamese soldier. Like the American novel “The things they carried”, this novel brings about the effects of war on people, and especially how it defeats the human capacity for things such as love and hope. Bao Ninh offers this realistic picture of the Vietnam War’s impact on the individual Vietnamese soldier through use of a series of reminiscences or flashbacks, jumping backwards and forwards in time between the events most salient in memory, events which take on a different theme each time they are examined. His main protagonist Kien, who is basically Bao himself, looks back not just at his ten years at

Col. Chamberlain talks about his view on the war, and what it meant to him as he was trying to convince the imprisoned troops from the 2nd Maine Division to fight with him. He believed that this war was far different than any other war ever waged in the history of mankind. He believed that what we were fighting for was the value of man, that they were fighting for each other. “This is free ground. All the way from here to the Pacific Ocean . . . . Here we judge you by what you do, not by what your father was . . . . .What we’re all fighting for, in the end, is each other.” (Pg. 32 / 33 - Killer Angels, Michael Shaara) However, there were still men in the Union who were fighting for themselves rather than the idea of a free nation. In personal discussion, Kilrain says that the reason he, personally, is fighting is "to prove I'm a better man than many" (Pg. 188). He says, "It's the aristocracy I'm after" (Pg. 189). He wants to be treated fairly, as he deserves, no matter what his father deserved.

James M. McPherson, author of For Cause and Comrades, uses more than 25,000 unaltered letters and closely 250 private journals from Civil War soldiers—both Union and Confederate—in his attempt to explain what possessed these men to endure the roaring, gruesome chaos of war. What better way to express the motivation behind fighting than words straight from the pens of the men who were physically there and experienced the Civil War to its fullest? I personally feel as though McPherson succeeded in his explanation of the different driving forces that kept each man going during these difficult years of battle. The Wall Street Journal describes McPherson’s work as “an extraordinary book, full of fascinating details and moving self-portraits.”

I would rather not have done it upon this ground, but every moment we delay the enemy uses to reinforce himself. We must hit him now. We pushed him yesterday; he will remember it. The men are ready. I see no alternatives.” (pg. 184) This proves that General Lee was more concerned about taking quick action against the Union army rather than taking the time to figure out a more defensive attack in order to ensure a higher chance of survival for his

Traditionally, students have been taught that differences between northern and southern economies caused the Civil War. The industrial revolution in the North, during the first few decades of the 19th century, brought about an economy that revolved around a machine age which relied on wage laborers, not slaves. At the same time, the warmer Southern states continued to rely on slaves for their farming economy and cotton production. Southerners made huge profits from cotton and slaves and fought a war to maintain them. Northerners did not need slaves to establish or maintain their economy and fought a war to free them. Everything else, we are led to believe, was tied to that economic difference that was focused on cotton.

While we were studying the world wars, the mentality of the soldiers, how they cope, and what they go through is what I was most curious about. As the wars went on, soldiers kept fighting, what was their mentality? Why did these soldiers have the will to fight after seeing so much death? Without the soldiers, America wouldn’t be where we are today, as well as the other countries involved. What were the soldiers inspiration to keep fighting, and did anyone just stop fighting? The world wars made a big impression on the countries involved. Mass deaths were counted between both world wars, citizens and soldiers both

The South’s investment in slavery inclined many Southerners to have a point of view distinctively different with those in the Union. The authors illustrate how both sides perceived a deep gratitude owed to the Founding Fathers and the legacy of the Revolution. However, the Founding Fathers concept of independence was somewhat differing from those in new Confederate nation. McPherson brings up the point of how these men of the American Revolution were not entirely satisfied with holding slaves, while fighting a war of independence. The author stated that, Confederates claimed “to fight for liberty and independence from a tyrannical government,” while,