•Andrew Haughton Primary Group Loyalty

Primary Group Loyalty
To explain how so many volunteers not only survived such conditions, but repeatedly advanced into enemy fire in battle after battle, historians have examined the concepts of combat motivation proposed by sociologists in the aftermath of World War II, the Victorian moral principles and community ties that first propelled men into the ranks of the Union and Confederate armies, and the leaders they followed into fire zones so intense they attracted names like Devil’s Den and Bloody Angle. The Cause was, of course,
fundamental not only to bringing men into the ranks, but also to combat and sustaining motivation. Yet not all Union and Confederate troops fought for the cause—after 1862, for instance, increasing numbers of conscripts augmented the strength of both sides—and those who did often referred to other psychological supports which helped them in moments of crisis when ideological convictions seemed distant. The most physically immediate stimulus to the infantryman of the Civil War was the men on either side of him. In terms of training and tactics, both sides remained committed to close order throughout the first three years of war, despite the impact of rifled muskets, and this was in part due to the belief that close order made it easier for volunteers to maintain cohesion and discipline. While men were often unable to see their enemy, they seldom lost contact with the men of their squad, company, and regiment. As long as the regiment remained in place, men were loathe to fall to the rear and not only lose the respect of their comrades but to fail those with whom they had shared the travails of camp life, marching, and previous combat experience. Civil War soldiers were bound to their comrades in much the same way as the GIs of World War II
would cite the primary group as crucial to their combat motivation, and were as keen not to let their comrades down.
41
Nevertheless, primary group loyalty in the Civil War must be addressed within its historical context. In the studies of combat motivation that have emerged over the past ten years, Gerald Linderman, Reid Mitchell, James
McPherson, and Earl J. Hess have highlighted the importance of duty and honor in the American mind, and the strength of the ties between the troops at the front and the communities from which their units had been formed.
“The community never entirely relinquished its power to oversee its men at war and the values represented by those at home—the values for which men had volunteered in the first place—were continually reinforced by those ties. Men were well aware that any show of cowardice, any failure to fulfill one’s duty as it was perceived by comrades and community, would mean disgrace and scorn among friends and even family. Of course, the possibility of disgrace never crossed the mind of some, but they were nonetheless eager to maintain their honor and demonstrate their courage—virtues closely interwoven with Victorian perceptions of masculinity and morality.
42
Men at Arms
•
91

These links to the community back home also acted to reinforce the commitment of soldiers to the war where the letters they received commended them,
and the knowledge that those at home were relying upon and supporting a soldier acted as a powerful stimulus to remain in the ranks when under fire.
43
As George Reeves and Joseph Frank have pointed out, the bond between community and soldier was crucial for the latter’s self-esteem, and acted as an emotional support not only in the midst of combat, but also in the difficult transition from civilian life to a military existence.
44
In some cases, however, men would receive letters begging them to return,
often because a soldier’s wife found herself in financial difficulty, or sometimes due to simple loneliness, and this no doubt severely impaired the morale of men who received such missives.
45
In the historical context of nineteenth-century America, the primary group to which the soldier owed his loyalty might be extended to the community he had left behind, so close and influential were the connections between home and the front. These connections also reinforced the concepts of duty and honor which were inextricably caught up in the relationship of the individual to his comrades because, for many, the social values of the community had merely been shifted to anew location—a location where pressure made those values all the more intense.
Another central feature of American culture in the nineteenth century was a commitment to religion, and many mentioned their religious belief as sustaining them in the most difficult moments of battle. Although some were deeply devout, and trusted in God to see them through the battle, or to ensure that they would be victorious, religious belief was more commonly expressed in a resigned fatalism. A common entry in the diaries or letters of soldiers, particularly upon the death of a friend of relative, was Man proposes and God disposes This balance between belief in freewill and divine omnipotence led men to the acceptance of their fate, an acceptance supported by a widespread belief that killing others in battle would not preclude entry to Paradise when death should finally come.
46
The importance of religion is exemplified in the baptism of the Confederate commanders
Joseph E. Johnston and John B. Hood in 1864, an individual act that was perhaps not entirely free from the awareness of flagging morale in the
Southern army at the time.

Download 2.25 Mb.

Share with your friends: