In a footnote to What this Cruel War Was Over, Chandra Manning explains:
…the idea for this study took root in class one day when students and I were discussing [James McPherson’s] For Cause and Comrades. Discussion remained lively until I asked students what made Union and Confederate soldiers different from each other. Sometimes dead silence in response to a question simply means students have not read the book, but on that day, they had been chatting right along up until that point. The student silence led me to resolve that before settling for the notion that 620,000 Americans killed one another because they all agreed on everything, I wanted to take another, more consciously comparative, look (227 n.16).
As many of you showed in your blogs, this comparative approach allows Manning to demonstrate difference and change over time in Union and Confederate motivation. Manning locates slavery as the central and dividing issue. As Craig from the Map Group argues, “For men in both armies, slavery represented the core of the society that needed to be changed or upheld. Thus you didn’t need a personal connection to slavery to fight for it [or against it], only a connection to your Northern or Southern society.”
Some of you questioned the “sweeping” nature of Manning’s thesis. Stephanie from the Movie Group, Clarissa from the Timeline Group, and Alex from the Podcast Group used evidence and close reading to critique Manning’s argument. Stephanie questions how Manning represents the relationship between slavery and the family in Confederate soldiers’ motivation. Clarissa points to Manning’s own evidence to press the issue of change over time in Confederate morale and motivation. Alex questions how Manning can make her argument without broad range survey data. What ideas do these critiques share? Would a greater focus on the economic role of slavery – as discussed by Dr. McDaniel on Thursday – help in addressing these critiques?
I encourage you all to check out these and other posts from the group blogs.