An Analysis in Support of the Moral Argument Against Slavery in Chandra Manning’s What this Cruel War Was Over
This historical analysis will define the evolution of the moral argument against slavery as the reason for fighting the Civil War in Chandra Manning’s What this Cruel War Was Over. Manning’s (2008) argument is defined through the primary documents of Union and Confederate soldiers and abolitionist militants that viewed through the moral issue of slavery as the primary cause of the Civil War. This argument goes in contrast with revisionist historians tht claim the issue of secession and economic factors, such as the monolithic slave system, was the primary cause of the Civil War. This amoral perspective is countermanded by Manning …show more content…
In historiography, the 20th century notion of the economic rationale for fighting the Civil War has become a dominant ideology, which tends to discount the moral tenets of Southern Christian in contrast with the religiosity of Northern Abolitionist ideology. Manning (2008) argues against the economic arguments that the monolithic nature of the slave economy was the driving force of the Civil War, since her evaluation of Confederate soldiers defines a different moral pathology: “Georgia solder A.H. Mitchell, for one, linked abolitionism in the north to other moral pathologies like “spiritualism and free love” (Manning 35). In this context, Mitchell is defining the moral conflict between the “spiritualism” of Quaker and evangelical ideology, which sought to spread the abolitionist movement in the South. In contrast to Northern spirituality, the religious perspective of the Confederate soldier, such as Mitchell, would reflect a pro-slavery ideology that was confirmed by a moral argument in favor of slave holding. These primary courses define why the Civil War was a primarily moral issue, instead of an amoral economic or political …show more content…
However, the letters of militant abolitionist John Brown defines the lack of popular sentiment for secession in the Southern population: “Brown assures his father that “folks are very moderate here,” and he saw no “probability of…any trouble” (Manning 25). In this context, the historical letters of this time provide insight into the fundamental morality of slavery through a spiritual lens, instead of being viewed as a political rationale for the soldiers to fight in the war. More so, this ‘moderate’ perspective of political conflict is also evident in the way that Union soldiers became more acclimated to the idea of a moral cause during the war, as they increasingly encountered recently liberated African-Americans in the theater of combat: New York private Haven Putnam also conceded the need for a “social revolution” (Manning 219). This aspect of the moral fiber of social interactions amongst Union soldiers illustrates Manning’s argument that the war was fought for moral reasons, and not the revisionist aspects of amorality that proposed the act of secession and the economy were the causal factors in this conflict. This is why I agree with Manning’s assessment of the moral issue of slavery that was generated before and during the Civil War, which reflect an
This historical analysis will define the evolution of the moral argument against slavery as the reason for fighting the Civil War in Chandra Manning’s What this Cruel War Was Over. Manning’s (2008) argument is defined through the primary documents of Union and Confederate soldiers and abolitionist militants that viewed through the moral issue of slavery as the primary cause of the Civil War. This argument goes in contrast with revisionist historians tht claim the issue of secession and economic factors, such as the monolithic slave system, was the primary cause of the Civil War. This amoral perspective is countermanded by Manning …show more content…
In historiography, the 20th century notion of the economic rationale for fighting the Civil War has become a dominant ideology, which tends to discount the moral tenets of Southern Christian in contrast with the religiosity of Northern Abolitionist ideology. Manning (2008) argues against the economic arguments that the monolithic nature of the slave economy was the driving force of the Civil War, since her evaluation of Confederate soldiers defines a different moral pathology: “Georgia solder A.H. Mitchell, for one, linked abolitionism in the north to other moral pathologies like “spiritualism and free love” (Manning 35). In this context, Mitchell is defining the moral conflict between the “spiritualism” of Quaker and evangelical ideology, which sought to spread the abolitionist movement in the South. In contrast to Northern spirituality, the religious perspective of the Confederate soldier, such as Mitchell, would reflect a pro-slavery ideology that was confirmed by a moral argument in favor of slave holding. These primary courses define why the Civil War was a primarily moral issue, instead of an amoral economic or political …show more content…
However, the letters of militant abolitionist John Brown defines the lack of popular sentiment for secession in the Southern population: “Brown assures his father that “folks are very moderate here,” and he saw no “probability of…any trouble” (Manning 25). In this context, the historical letters of this time provide insight into the fundamental morality of slavery through a spiritual lens, instead of being viewed as a political rationale for the soldiers to fight in the war. More so, this ‘moderate’ perspective of political conflict is also evident in the way that Union soldiers became more acclimated to the idea of a moral cause during the war, as they increasingly encountered recently liberated African-Americans in the theater of combat: New York private Haven Putnam also conceded the need for a “social revolution” (Manning 219). This aspect of the moral fiber of social interactions amongst Union soldiers illustrates Manning’s argument that the war was fought for moral reasons, and not the revisionist aspects of amorality that proposed the act of secession and the economy were the causal factors in this conflict. This is why I agree with Manning’s assessment of the moral issue of slavery that was generated before and during the Civil War, which reflect an