Manning’s book offers evidence to explain why both non-slaveholders in the South would fight for a Confederate government devote to upholding slavery and why Northern soldiers would fight in a war to emancipate slaves. Her arguments regarding each of these questions are largely based on the timing and relative ideologies of the men involved and are very different for Confederate soldiers motivations and Union soldiers motivations.
In the case of non-slaveholding whites in the Confederate army, she states “Non-slaveholders regarded black slavery as vital to the protection of their families, interests, and very identities as men and they relied upon it to prevent race war.”(Manning, 39) Central to Manning’s argument is the southern the fear of disruption of the social order which they relied upon as the basic organization of society and relations. As the Richmond Enuqirer, which Manning uses as a source, states, “where the two races approximate equality in numbers, slavery is the only protection of the laboring classes against the evils of amalgation.” (Manning, 36) Amalgamation or miscegenation refers to sexual relations between the races, which while a common practice between white males and black females, in the case of white females and black males became an issue at the heart of Southern white manhood. Southern white manhood and honor are a major factor in Manning’s explanation of non-slaveholding whites participating in the war, as the protection of slavery meant white southern men would remain at the top of the social order and would needed to protect the honor and chastity of white women. While not all white men owned slaves in the South, by this explanation of Manning, they had far more invested in the social order and structure of slave institutions in the South.
Like Southern non-slaveholding whites, Northern men without major convictions about abolition would fight in a war to emancipate slaves. Aside from her arguments that while Northern soldiers entered the slave south they saw a string of abuses and through their interactions with blacks would change their motives, the main motivations according to Manning lie in a different type of ideology. Spawned by the Second Great Awakening, Manning argues that Northern soldiers had been raised in the ideologies that, “the United States as a specifically chosen example would bring ideals like liberty to the whole world, while simultaneously leading the rest of the globe to a state of moral perfection.” (Manning, 42) This special understanding of the place of the United States in the world and its moral authority could be tarnished by slavery taking place within America’s borders. This moral superiority and a strong faith in the Union are according to Manning perhaps the biggest motivators of participation in the war effort. As she states, “the immoral and blighting institution of slavery was antithetical to republican government and that any republican government that tried to accommodate slavery was doomed to eventual failure.” (Manning, 50) This clear statement of why Northern non-abolitionist whites may choose to participate places most of the ideological weight, not with the abuses Northerners may have seen happening within the South, but instead with maintenance of all that was held dear in the republican government.
It is interesting, that Channing presents the idea that the Civil War motivations for fighting were not merely to protect property or emancipate slaves, but instead were related to ideological differences and what each side felt was central to the functioning of society. According to Manning’s interpretation the events that unfolded, soldiers weren’t necessarily fighting over the fate of the slaves, but instead the fate of the nation and how it might be organized in the future. In both cases, not to win would doom society to failure.