Rice University logo
 
Top blue bar image The Movie Group
A student-led group project from HIST 246
 

Change in Union Soldiers’ Perspectives

January 27th, 2011 by gl4
The book “What This Cruel War” is Over by Chandra Manning does provide evidence to suggest that the soldiers participating in the American Civil War changed their thoughts about the reasons behind their willingness to contribute to their respective cause. The Union soldiers had the idea that they were fighting to preserve the Unites States in the beginning of the war, but then marked by different experiences in the South and on the battlefield; their views slightly shifted and instead were driven primarily by their desire to see the end of slavery and a change in their system of government.
At the commencement of the war, in 1861, Union soldiers believed they were fighting for the preservation of a system that provided “to the world [a] republican self-government based on the principles expressed in the Declaration of Independence” (Manning 40). The soldiers felt that the existence of the Unites States provided the world with proof that men were capable of governing themselves. If the Union failed in retaining half of its states, it would indicate that principles behind the government failed. Furthermore, they believed in liberty “less as an individual than a universally applicable idea” (Manning 40.) In other words, slavery did not play the most significant role in their desire to preserve the Union they believed constituted the best manner to govern a country. Since their definition of liberty was not specifically associated with individual people, they did not feel that slavery was as an important issue at the beginning of the conflict.
However, as the rank and file of the Union army experienced the South and they saw the reality of slavery, they changed their views regarding the importance of slavery in maintaining the Union. Some soldiers formed the idea that slavery was “a dehumanizing and evil institution that corroded the moral virtue necessary for a population to govern itself” (49). As they integrated themselves into the army, soldiers formed the belief that ending the war and saving the union would require the abolition of slavery because they could no longer coexist (Manning 75).
Furthermore, as the years in service continued, they realized that the preservation of the Union, even if slavery was abolished, was not enough to make a lasting impact. They concluded that fighting for the ideals of liberty and abolition would do much more than save the Union (Manning 84). It would ultimately mean a reform to the system. In the years of 1862 and 1863, the soldiers came to realize that they were partly to blame for the Union’s defects caused by the perpetuation of slavery. The soldiers realized that the suffering and death the country had to endured would be useless unless they turned the principles of liberty and equality into a reality thorough their armed combat (Manning 84). In a sense, they were no longer fighting for the Union they lived under, but for a new, reformed version of their government where slavery was prohibited and where the principles the Constitution claimed were really followed.
The reform to the Union through emancipation was a major part in the latter reasoning for fighting in the Civil War for some Northerners, as were the moral and religious reasons behind the desire for liberty. As the war progressed, the combatants concluded that the institution was so terrible that it “destroyed the moral health of the nation and angered God” (Manning 119). The soldiers were willing to fight ten more years and see slavery disappear than acquire peace and continue with the institution (119). The Union soldiers continued to fight during the Civil war, but they their motivations and rationalizations changed as they experienced war and they experienced slavery along the way.

Motivations to Fight

January 27th, 2011 by Kat Skilton

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.

Welcome

January 24th, 2011 by Caleb McDaniel

This is the blogging home of one of the student groups in HIST 246 at Rice University. For more information about the course and the project that this blog will support, please visit the course homepage.