Why They Kept Fighting

During the Civil War, Southern children learned arithmetic with problems such as, "If one Confederate soldier can whip seven Yankees, how many soldiers can whip forty-nine Yankees?" There, on a small scale, little Mary and Johnny encountered one spirited view of Civil War soldiers—a group that Jason Phillips and other historians have studied closely. During the past twenty years a series of thoughtful books have explored the motivation of these troops. Studies by writers such as Gerald Linderman, Reid Mitchell, and James McPherson build on Bell Irvin Wiley's classic works, The Life of Johnny Reb (1943) and The Life of Billy Yank (1952).¹ Jason Phillips's addition to this field focuses on the "diehard Rebels," the soldiers who steadfastly supported the Confederacy until its last days. Although Phillips's book rests on impressive archival work and offers valuable insights, serious flaws in the research design weaken its argument—and point to other explanations.

Phillips examines the outlook of these resolute fighters during the final twenty months of the war, from the defeats at Gettysburg and Vicksburg in July 1863 to Robert E. Lee's surrender at Appomattox in April 1865. In describing these soldiers' mind-set he draws upon hundreds of diaries and collections of letters. These sources, Phillips notes, are "an embarrassment of riches when compared to the evidence available to scholars of other [earlier] wars" (p. 5). The problem that frames the book is explaining the dedication of these Confederates in the face of mounting adversity. As the war dragged on, rations were cut; mortality soared; dissension on the home front intensified. By 1864, and particularly with William Tecumseh Sherman's march through Georgia, setback followed setback. Phillips remarks, "the deserter's rationale is easy to understand; how others resisted the temptation to leave or lacked it altogether is more difficult to comprehend" (p. 80).

The explanation Phillips provides for the behavior of these dedicated Confederates—and the thesis of his book—lies in his subtitle: the culture of invincibility. Dismissing other explanations, he states: "Throughout the war, diehard Rebels knew they were not conquered, but even more, they thought they were unconquerable. Such men did not stick it out because of peer pressure, military authority, inertia, or even Confederate nationalism. They submitted to unending carnage and squalor because they expected to win" (p. 2). Phillips sees Rebel beliefs as the precursor of the Lost Cause myth. This ideology exalted white Southerners as nobler individuals and better fighters than their opponents. In this view, only the weight of numbers allowed the North to grind out a victory.

In looking at the roots of the culture of invincibility, Phillips explores four areas: the Rebels' religion, their distorted view of the enemy, their conviction that one victory could change everything, and the hope they drew from unfounded rumors. Phillips begins with religion and points to the diehard Rebels' fervent belief that the Lord was on their side. Phillips traces the roots of this mind-set back to the "awakenings" early in the century, and particularly to the Great Revival of 1800–1805. Moreover, the schisms dividing Northern and Southern Presbyterians, Methodists, and Baptists during the 1830s and 1840s freed the Southern churches to expound pro-slavery doctrines.

During the war, Phillips notes, faith in a benevolent Divine Providence boosted Confederate morale. National fast days brought both spiritual and military renewal. Phillips discusses the revivals that spread through Confederate ranks after Gettysburg and Vicksburg. He also examines how battlefield defeat tested soldiers' belief in a righteous God. Some considered these setbacks as God's rebuke for their sins of impenitence. Once reformed, a purer South, they felt, would triumph on the battlefield.

Even in these early chapters, however, flaws in the research design weaken Phillips's argument. Phillips never makes clear which men he assigns to the "diehard Rebels" or how he might define the membership of such a cohort. Despite the strongly stated thesis of the book, many soldiers he quotes did...