The American Civil War

Student's Name:

Professor’s Name:

Course Number:

Date:

The American Civil War

            Over the last decade, an influential school of the Confederate War, possibly the dominant orthodoxy-has contended that gender, race, and class segregations so wracked the South that the Civil War was bound to fail. Exponents of this argument claim that the Union lacked not only the requisite popular will but also the necessary nationalism to gear the battle for sovereignty. A corollary stance holds that the Union wasted its resources with an offensive approach whose significant cost undercut what little nationalism existed and thereby accelerated the hour of defeat. Generally, the proponents of this position argue that a vast population of the Southerners had lost hope of winning the battle by 1863 and that a considerable portion of the community genuinely committed to the Southern cause would have continued to fight harder and longer prior to their submission to Northern domination. This stance establishes a review of the broad interpretation that the South was defeated inevitably by the powerful Northern army. As such, this paper will explore some of the interpretations of the Confederacy as argued by Gary Gallagher in his book “The Confederate War” as well as Chandra Manning’s stance regarding the Confederacy in her book "What This Cruel War Was Over: Soldiers." 

Gary Gallagher's Interpretation Regarding the Southern Confederacy

            Essentially, Gary Gallagher contends that by concentrating on the slight, if stylish, triad class, gender, and race, exponents of the new orthodoxy restrict their comprehension of the history of the Confederacy (Gallagher, 68). Gary Gallagher believes that it is not unforeseen that these followers conclude that fissures in the Confederacy brought down the struggling nation because the revolutionists focused on the slight military side of the struggle as well as the home-front matters. Moreover, according to Gary Gallagher, “such conclusions have made historians lose sight of the view of the point that a substantial number of Southerners-the white folks-steadfastly supported their nascent nation and that Confederate militaries more than once nearly persuaded the North that the cost of compelling the rebellious southern states to defeat would be too costly” (Gallagher, 71).

            Drawing profoundly on primary sources as evidence for his arguments, Gary Gallagher confronts the primary claims of the other historians in sequence, and particularly persuasive are his chapters on the closely linked features of nationalism and popular will. Here, Gary Gallagher contends that other historians have become more involved in the selective exploitation of sources to conclude their verdict that internal conflict led to the defeat of the Southerners (Gallagher, 73). Gary Gallagher argues that the revisionists ignored the essential and massive body of proof revealing that a majority of the white southerners, irrespective of their gender, class, or race, supported the fight for their sovereignty until their field soldiers were compelled to surrender (Gallagher, 74). He finds unsubstantial evidence for the claim that a vast population of the Southerners suffered emotions of guilt concerning servitude or that the Southern womenfolk were withdrawn from their rebellious husbands (Gallagher, 76). According to Gary Gallagher, “this interpretation of the Confederacy only reflects the politically related fantasy and not the historical truth” (Gallagher, 78).

            In my view, the weight of proof provided by Gary Gallagher reaffirms his proposition that the Union surrendered because the Northern army broke their military opposition and not as a result of the internal conflicts. In Gary Gallagher’s premise, the South’s eventual submission of defeat was both rational and realistic. Moreover, I perceive that the Civil War is a substantial and thought-provoking count to the contemporary body of Civil War texts (Gallagher, 81). Gary Gallagher has undoubtedly returned the concentration of the warfare to the theatre where it was decided–military actions, and in doing so, he established the huge material as well as financial investment that the Southerners put into the struggle for nationalism or independence.

Chandra Manning’s interpretation concerning the Cause of the Confederate War

            Historians have for a long time debated the minds and lives of the Civil War common militias. However, they disagreed on the degree to which patriotism and ideology stimulated these armies (Manning, 224). On the contrary to these historians, who are exponents of the stance that group and societal cohesion encouraged the Civil War’s universal militia more than ideas, Chandra Manning argues that the armies were “deeply philosophical” (Manning, 226). Chandra Manning further contends that soldiers from both the North and South exhibited fervent nationalism in the letters that they inscribed for their families but revealed substantial dissimilarities amid the Confederate and Union nationalism (Manning, 228).

            Chandra Manning, for instance, refutes historian Gary Gallagher's premise that the zeal for the Confederacy outdid class segregation. Instead, Chandra Manning contends that the armies’ commitment to the Confederacy stemmed from their perception that the Confederacy could better be shaped by their household, which in return relied on safeguarding the South’s slave-based and hierarchical social order (Manning, 231). Therefore, according to Chandra Manning, “slavery acted as the core reason which bound the Confederate together, even amid the non-slaveholding Southern whites who possessed an extremely deep obligation to servitude” (Manning, 235). In spite of becoming deeply discontented with their government, armies confirmed their desire to assist the Confederacy so long as it could stop the Southern white folks from being subject to a state authority administered by an antislavery leader (Manning, 238). Simply put, Chandra Manning believed that the Confederacy was a union based on self-interest against slavery (Manning, 239).

            For this impressively researched Confederate War social history, Chandra Manning-a Georgetown assistant history professor-toured more than twelve states to examine libraries and archives in pursuit of the primary source material, majorly letters of the soldiers who participated on both sides of the Confederate War, diaries together with more than one hundred regimental newspapers. The outcome is a thought-provoking inscribed, persuasively argued social past with the fact that those who took part in the Civil War (in the Confederate and Union armies) “plainly acknowledged slavery as the reason for the Civil War” (Manning, 242). Chandra Manning supports her argument with a massive quantity of first-person testaments inscribed during that period instead of the common unreliable after-the-fact autobiographies. As most Civil War chronicles lean profoundly on men, Easterners, and officers who fought in Virginia, Chandra Manning captures a much more comprehensive detail of the war. For instance, Chandra Manning includes the Western fighters, African-Americans, as well as immigrants so as to “estimate cross sections of the real Confederate and Union ranks” (Manning, 247). Based on her exposition, the book "What This Cruel War Was Over: Soldiers" is free of jargon and appeals to the general readers, although Chandra Manning’s cruel censure of the white southerners' perceptions regarding slavery and her overwhelming praise of Union military obligation to independence takes a step beyond scholarly neutrality.

Conclusion

            In light of the facts mentioned above, it is clear that Gary Gallagher seeks to express the fact that the southern Confederates were bound as a result of the strong sense of nationalism. According to Gary Gallagher, other historians' interpretation of the Confederacy merely mirrors the politically linked fantasy and not the historical truth. Gary Gallagher draws profoundly on primary sources as evidence for his arguments and confronts the central claims of the other historians in a series principally persuasive are his chapters on the closely related features of nationalism and popular will.

            On the contrary, Chandra Manning considers that the Confederacy was a union founded on self-interest against slavery. Moreover, she argues that soldiers from both sides demonstrated fervent nationalism in the letters that they inscribed for their families. However, she discloses considerable dissimilarities between Confederate and Union nationalism.  

Works Cited

Gallagher, Gary W. The Confederate War. Harvard University Press, 1999: pp. 68-126.

Manning, Chandra. "What This Cruel War Was Over: Soldiers." Slavery, and the Civil War (New York, 2007) 12 (2007): 221-294.