In the article, “Rethinking the Coming of the Civil War: A Counterfactual Exercise,” the author points out many similarities between the Revolutionary War and the Civil War. He also emphasizes the importance of the Mexican-American war as the precursor to the Civil War. He bases a great amount of his argument on the election of Henry Clay vs James Polk. In fact, he argues that if Clay had won the very tight election, things would have turned out drastically different. This election was heavily centered on the annexation of Texas, which he argues is also very important to consider in the outcome of the war. If Clay had won, there might be a separate country known as Texas, he suggests. This addition of Texas upset the territorial balance between the North and South. He also considers the separation of California from the U.S. as a possible outcome. These ideas add territories to the list of reasons why the Civil War could have happened, as well as a difference in politics; a revisionist view. The idea of a national bank is also brought into play. In essence, the essay suggests possible outcomes under the Clay presidency instead of the Polk presidency. It goes on to mention differences between North and South as far as slavery goes, which all sounds fairly familiar: a small abolitionist group up North unable to persuade or combat a very large pro-slave attitude in the South, or of despondency even in the North.

There are a few things I don’t like about this article, but my main problem with this article is the method of his argument: the counterfactual method. Reading through this, one spots a very large amount of “would have’s” and “what if’s.” Although there are some good points to be made in considering early factors such as the Mexican-American War, the annexation of Texas, and the overall election of Clay versus Polk, there does not seem to be too much support from primary evidence; at least not enough to make the types of claims he’s making, such as Texas being an independent nation, or the Emancipation process being started earlier under Clay. There is also a strong focus on what Clay would have done, and very little on either Polk or any other opposing argument. I feel that the author spends too much time trying to reconstruct what could have happened and not enough time focusing on why history happened the way it did. The author doesn’t spend enough time talking about reasons for the war, but instead spends all his time on the would-have-been presidency of Henry Clay. Granted, there are some decent ideas that arise out of this reconstruction, but it becomes a matter of how he presents it and what angle he takes on it. Slavery is also somehow underrepresented in this article. Although there is a good amount written about it, the angle tends to be from the politics of it all, such as from Henry Clay’s theoretical presidency. There are some good and sometimes familiar points made in this article, but overall becomes a hypothetical scenario through most of it. If the author focused more on the ideas and supported them, rather than reconstructing a scenario that didn’t happen just to make a few points, there possibly could have been a lot of evidence for them and a good argument would have been formed. However, in short, I feel this article falls short of what it could have been.

In “Rethinking the Coming of the Civil War: A Counterfactual Exercise,” author Gary J. Kornblith postulates that the events leading up to the Civil War would have been drastically different had Henry Clay defeated James K. Polk in the presidential election of 1844. In essence, Kornblith argues that, the election of the annexationist president, James K. Polk, was the first in a long series of events that precipitated a massive sectional dispute between the north and the south. If Kornblith’s argument could be visualized as an arrangement of dominos, Polk’s 1844 election would be the original kick that caused all the dominos, up to and past the Civil War, to inevitably come crashing to the ground. In brief, Kornblith argues that the dominos fell in this order: Polk’s election caused the annexation of Texas, which led to the Mexican-American war and subsequent Mexican Cession, which introduced the question of slavery in the new territory and the subsequent Wilmot Proviso, which exacerbated sectional conflict between the north and the south, and along with the creation of the Republican Party, led to southern secession and then the Civil War. With each leap from the previous domino to next, Kornblith argues that a Civil War becomes more and more inevitable prospect. However, by erasing Polk and supplanting Clay in this “counterfactual exercise,” Kornblith argues that a Civil War would have probably never taken place.

To make this argument, Kornblith first presents evidence to establish that the race between Clay and Polk was so close, that the resulting Polk victory can be considered “arbitrary” (Kornblith 84). Although he discusses the various advantages that Clay held over Polk in the 1844 election, such as name recognition(Kornblith 82), his main argument can be boiled down to the fact that, had Clay received a few thousand more votes in New York, he would have won the election. He claims that even a slightly lower immigrant turnout in New York would have won Clay the election (Kornblith

84). Kornblith would probably suffice to say that a bad rainstorm on Election Day in New York would have cost Polk the election. Under the assumption that the election results were merely arbitrary, he logically replaces Polk with Clay, and speculates that the Mexican American War would have not occurred under Clay because he was an outspoken anti-annexationist and he did not believe the British would threaten American territorial integrity by meddling in Texas (Kornblith 83). Without having to focus on a war or the fate of newly acquired territory, Clay could concentrate on economic policies, which Kornblith believes would undoubtedly “strengthen the second party system and push the slavery question into the background of national politics” (Kornblith 89). Ultimately he argues that the divisive issue of slavery, which would later evolve into the deeper questions of constitutionalism and sectionalism, would have never reached the breaking point that it did, if it were not for the annexation of the Mexican Cession.

Although much of Kornblith’s hypothetical history follows a logical procession, to jump from the plausible election of Henry Clay to an implausible peace between the north and the south requires an injudicious leap of faith. For instance, there is no doubt that Clay stood a reasonable chance at winning the election, and had he won, it is likely that he would have held steadfast to his position to oppose “immediate annexation of Texas” (Kornblith 83). However, to argue that focus would have shifted away from the sectional dispute of slavery over to a partisan dispute about tariffs and the national bank is too far reaching. The claim that disputes about the Missouri Compromise “would not have been raised during Clay’s presidency” (Kornblith 90) is possibly true; however, the claim that the problems surrounding the Missouri Compromise would not have precipitated heightened sectional tensions during the mid 19^th century is largely unfounded. As is evident in the writings of many politicians and laypersons, the issue of slavery and abolition were highly focused in the popular collective. If there was not enough concern about the growing institution of slavery to incite sectional tensions, as Kornblith suggests, than what was the original cause for the Wilmot Proviso and all of its popular support? He argues that the increasing concern over the “Slave Power Conspiracy” caused the north to react with Wilmot Proviso which aroused intensely “conflicting passions” (Kornblith 89). However, for northerners to support such a divisive proposal, there must have already been heated tensions about the growing institution of slavery, even before the annexation of the Mexican Cession. Additionally, Kornblith does not convincingly explain how the preexisting tension about slavery would have taken a “backseat” to partisan politics, nor does he address the possibility of manifest destiny sentiments traversing beyond the “Clay presidency.”

It is clear from Chandra Manning’s book What This Cruel War Was Over, slavery was a key cause of the Civil War.  However, slavery falls under the “umbrella” of liberty, which was attractive to Union soldiers and non-slaveholding Confederates.  Each side had its own definition of liberty; for Confederates it was the right to own slaves and for the Union is the right to freedom.  While the soldiers were fighting over slavery, the war was attractive to both sides because they were also fighting for what they believed to be morally right.

For white southerners, the right to own slaves was an inalienable right.  When the Federal government looked to be denying them that freedom, they chose to secede from the Union and establish a government that would defend white liberty.  They had an economic system that was based around slavery and its abolition was viewed as a threat against their way of life.  However, not many white southerners owned slaves so when secession led to war, why did so many of them take up arms to defend the right to something they did not own?  The first reason is because slavery created a caste system that made all whites equal on some level.  Even the poorest white southerners were not on the lowest rung of society as black slaves were the lowest caste.  Without slavery, there would be nothing saving these white men from being of the lowest in society.  The capturing of a black Union soldier even provided a means for social mobility.

Another reason that white southerners would fight for the Confederacy was a fear of freed black slaves.  On page 81, Manning mentions an Arkansas soldier who had a nightmare of blacks eating at the same table was his white wife.  The main fear was that freed blacks would react violently towards white southerners for the their mistreatment of slaves.  Many imagined violent uprisings and former slaves murdering the wives and children of Confederate soldiers.  While this did not occur that often, this was an intrinsic fear that existed in the minds of white southerners.  When the Emancipation Proclamation was issued on January 1, 1863, it was clear that the Union government had made the Civil War about slavery.   Therefore, a Confederate victory became key to the preservation of the southern right to slavery.

On the other hand, northern white soldiers fought because they believed slavery to be morally wrong and that everyone had the right to freedom.  While many felt that blacks were inferior to whites, no human being deserved to be enslaved.  In essence, the system of slavery conflicted with the democratic concept of liberty.  As no other society had a democratic, republican government, the need to preserve the Union for the sake of democracy was a key reason to fight.   By taking up arms against the Confederates, white northerners hoped to do away with a system that denied human beings their basic rights.  When the Emancipation Proclamation passed, white northerners were more likely to fight against the evils of slavery.  For Union soldiers, slavery was so wrong morally, they would fight to see its destruction.

While both sides appeared to fight for different rights, they fought for their own personal concept of liberty. Manning makes it clear that slavery was the key behind this clash of moral and social ideals.

It seems to me that the overall attitudes of many soldiers concerning the meaning and reason for the Civil War definitely changed throughout the course of events that took place. Whether or not there was a specific point in time that the attitude changed or a specific reason for their change is impossible to know completely, but it seems there are three distinctively different thoughts towards slavery specifically in the minds of the Union soldiers all at different points during the war. One of those points is the general understanding of the war and its meaning during the very beginning, when the war is primarily about equality and liberty, and attacking the primary feature of the south; that being slavery. As time passes, the understanding evolves, and starts to change some of its features to define the boundaries of African American Rights. However, there is also a point where the ideas seem to shift toward the main reason being atonement for the country’s sins of racism.
In the beginning of the war, Manning shows us that the main reason for the war against the South in the minds of the soldiers was for slavery. The idea of slavery was alien enough to the Northerner’s that it was relatively easy to support the abolition of forced labor, especially when they lived around paid labor for quite some time. Manning even tells us that, “…in the late summer and fall, a full year ahead of the Emancipation Proclamation, the Union rank and file began to insist on the destruction of slavery…” (p. 218). The journals show us a sense of fighting for liberty and equality; the principles the country was founded on. In order to prevail and be taken seriously in the world, the Union had to last.
This idea changes as the war goes on, however. The idea of African American Rights starts to spread, to which the Union soldiers become evasive of such complicated issues at the time. Although it was okay to fight for the abolition of slavery, the rights were under debated or avoided, and became a complex issue. This idea is relatively present at the beginning, but becomes gradually more prevalent throughout the war until another change of significant notice happens.
After the battles of Gettysburg and Vicksburg, Manning shows us that the battles were “…widely perceived in the Union ranks as God’s direct intervention on behalf of the Union and true freedom…” (p. 220). She goes on to state that the war became about the atonement of the country and its racism towards the slaves. This gives the fight against slavery a whole new meaning, and even starts to tie in the rights of the freed slaves. John Moore argues that the Union must now be “…based upon equality and freedom to all white, black or copper colored.” (p. 188).
These different attitudes towards the purpose of the Civil War have many similarities. The main theme is slavery, but the angles vary from relative indifference at the beginning to a divine purpose towards the end. This range of ideas throughout time shows the dynamic nature of the purpose for the Civil War and the attitude towards slavery and slaves themselves. In short, although the war might have been primarily about slaves, the angles at which the soldiers arrive at that theme vary drastically, especially throughout time.

In her book, What This Cruel War Was Over, Chandra Manning takes a unique sociological, historical, and psychological approach to try to identify why rank and file Confederate and Union soldiers took up arms against each other, and why they continued to fight after four trying years. Beyond identifying slavery as the root cause of the war, she demonstrates that slavery was, in fact, the epicenter for grander issues of manhood, society, liberty, and safety. To make this bold argument, Manning calls forth written accounts of soldiers letters home, records of straw polls, voting behavior of soldiers, public statements, newspaper articles and other anecdotal accounts. Although Manning offers some dissenting opinions of soldiers and politicians, her main purpose is to get the heart of the majority sentiments of soldiers from both sides. After pouring over mostly primary accounts of soldiers’ attitudes, Manning comes to two main conclusions: first, she argues that the mainstream, non-slaveholding, Confederate soldier fought to defend slavery mainly out of the fear that freed African Americans would disrupt the social hierarchy and would endanger the life and sanctity of white southern women. In contrast, she argues that the average Union soldier fought to end slavery as a means to end the war, prevent future conflict, and protect the virtues of republicanism to which they felt strongly attached. The chronological accounts and opinions that Manning brings to light in this book are used to support her theories on soldiers’ mentalities; however, as a quantitative survey of majority soldier opinion, her work does not close the book on why the soldiers fought the Civil War.

To explain why Confederates saw freed slaves as such a threat to society and “white liberty,” while Unionists saw slavery as a threat to republican principles and later as a threat to humanity, Manning provides evidence to support broad generalizations about the differences between southern and northern society. To her, Confederates placed a much higher value on preserving the existing social order, especially when it came to the place of women and blacks. Southerners viewed Union acts like “Butler’s Woman’s Order (Manning 62),” the emancipation proclamation, and the creation of black regiments, as direct attacks on southern society, a special kind of social hierarchy which they believed was ordained by God. To her, the defense of slavery in the Confederacy was motivated mostly by self interest in preserving one’s manhood, which most importantly included protecting one’s family from the aggression of freed slaves. Even though undesirable actions of the Richmond government, such as heavy taxation, possible enlistment of slaves, conscription, and the “twenty-slave law,” threatened non-slaveholders manhood in man ways, Confederate soldiers consistently acquiesced to the wrongdoings of the Confederacy because they believed emancipation would bring greater ills to their society and well being. Whereas Confederate soldiers “fought for the benefit of themselves, their families, and white southerners” (Manning 70), Union soldiers fought to destroy slavery because it was the issue that caused the dreaded war and later because they believed that “[slavery] was so evil that it destroyed the moral health of the nation and angered God” (Manning 119). Much of the reason why the Union fought through the harshness of war, Manning argues, was that northerners had a special interest in proving that their “representative government, founded on the ideals of liberty and equality, could work” (Manning 218).

Despite the numerous accounts of soldiers’ opinions that she cites, in the end, Manning does not make a convincing argument as to how the majority of the soldiers on either side felt. Her evidence relies mostly on a handful of primary accounts recorded by literate or outspoken soldiers, not on broad range survey data. She does invoke some use of survey data, like elections and straw polls; however, she admits that many soldiers were not able to vote and that higher ranking officials and newspapers often distorted or fabricated the results of these votes. For instance, when Confederate regiments voted on the question of using slave soldiers, many brigades who voted against the action were kept silent or had their results falsified. Manning provides evidence that argues that the Richmond government and the periodical The Examiner silenced or explicitly falsified the votes of the Wise Brigade and Private J.C. Wrights’ brigade (Manning 208).  It is difficult to make a solid argument about the majority thought of a group without having reliable survey data to draw on. In fact, Manning’s findings about the differences between northern and southern society seem to raise more questions than answers. For instance, why did fear mongering statements like Zebulon Vance’s assertion, that free slaves “will burn your homes and murder your families” (Manning 174), have more of an effect of creating fear in the south than the racist propaganda of the north? Why was manhood in southern society threatened so much more by emancipation than in northern society? To make a clearer argument about how and why the majority of Union and Confederate soldiers placed value and fear the way they did, Manning needs to use evidence that covers a greater portion of the soldier population.

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.