What this Cruel War was Over:  Soldiers, Slavery, and the Civil War.  By Chandra Manning.  (New York:  Alfred A. Knopf, 2007.   Pp. 350.)

            Chandra Manning asserts that the common soldier—North and South—thought slavery caused the Civil War.  Building on Reid Mitchell’s Civil War Soldiers and James McPherson’s For Cause and Comrades: Why Men Fought in the Civil War, she infuses men’s individual attitudes toward liberty, equality, honor, duty, and manhood into the reasons why they fought.  To avoid the pitfalls of earlier studies that she believes projected modern viewpoints and vague notions of “emotional patriotism” onto enlisted men, she analyzes them on their own terms and in their own time through contemporary letters, diaries, and rarely used regimental newspapers (p. 6).  The author develops the themes of attitude toward slavery, faith, and patriotism geographically over the course of the war for Confederate soldiers and Union men both black and white to illustrate her thesis.

            For Manning threats to slavery drove Southern men toward war whether they owned slaves or not because emancipation would disturb the role of the South in government, because freed slaves would create a public safety problem, and, most importantly, because equality for black men would disturb the system of white social structure and identity regardless of class.  Northerners challenge to slavery insulted Southern honor and further inspired animosity.  The author describes personal behavior and salvation as key elements of religious belief in the post-Second Great Awakening South.  By relying on a literal interpretation of the bible, they justified slavery as part of God’s divine plan and considered social reform an individual rather than collective effort.  Southerners, therefore, valued familial protection and material support, as well as local and regional allegiances above duty to government.  This arrangement of loyalties helped validate secession, but it also weakened the confederate government’s ability to function or conduct war.  The author suggests that as the conflict progressed and disappointments in the new government and its military success became overwhelming, the only remaining motivation for Southern soldiers was the defense of slavery.  Southern white males felt that when the Confederate government approved the enlistment of African American soldiers in 1865, the last bastion of their social dominance was destroyed and only then was surrender inevitable.

            Manning’s research indicates that fundamental differences in religious principles and patriotic convictions led Northern soldiers to fight against slavery because it threatened the success of the United States’ experiment in republican government which they wished to preserve as an example for the entire world.  In the aftermath of the Second Great Awakening in the North, the idea that God made humans in his perfect image led believers to deduce that moral perfection could be achieved through both individual improvement and collective social reform movements such as abolition.  Initially, many Northern white men became soldiers to protect the legacy of the American Revolution.  The author demonstrates that while their position on slavery followed the ebb and flow of victory and defeat, first-hand exposure to slave life, and political actions including the Emancipation Proclamation and the legalization of black enlistment, most believed that the practice must end in order for their wartime sacrifices to have meaning and to preserve the Union in the long term.  On the other hand, African Americans always viewed emancipation as the purpose of the war.  Black men embraced service to their country as a way to claim manhood and as a route to citizenship and equality.  Manning argues that regardless of color, the northern version of patriotism transcended personal interest and enabled soldiers to weather the war better than their southern counterparts.

            What this Cruel War was Over examines letters from over one thousand Union and Confederate soldiers and more than one hundred regimental newspapers written by and for enlisted men.   Manning meticulously organized and selected her data to establish an approximate snapshot of individuals populating the two armies throughout the period.  For the most part she avoids the voice of officers and politicians in favor of the viewpoint of the ordinary soldier.  Her causal investigation adds refreshing nuance and detail to this long-debated question, but necessarily omits the larger picture that includes economic and political influences.  Readers progress through each year of the war chapter by chapter lending a greater understanding to the changes of opinion that rippled through the ranks.  Scholars and general audiences alike will appreciate this well-crafted volume.

Texas Christian University                                                                               LeAnna Schooley