What do you think?
Rate this book
What This Cruel War Was Over: Soldiers, Slavery, and the Civil War
A vivid, unprecedented account of why Union and Confederate soldiers identified slavery as the root of the war, how the conflict changed troops’ ideas about slavery, and what those changing ideas meant for the war and the nation.
Using soldiers’ letters, diaries, and regimental newspapers, Chandra Manning allows us to accompany soldiers—black and white, northern and southern—into camps and hospitals and on marches and battlefields to better understand their thoughts about what they were doing and why. Manning’s work reveals that Union soldiers, though evincing little sympathy for abolitionism before the war, were calling for emancipation by the second half of 1861, ahead of civilians, political leaders, and officers, and a full year before the Emancipation Proclamation. She recognizes Confederate soldiers’ primary focus on their own families, and explores how their beliefs about abolition—that it would endanger their loved ones, erase the privileges of white manhood, and destroy the very fabric of southern society—motivated even non-slaveholding Confederates to fight and compelled them to persevere through military catastrophes like Gettysburg and Atlanta, long after they grew to despise the Confederate government and disdain the southern citizenry. She makes clear that while white Union troops viewed preservation of the Union as essential to the legacy of the Revolution, over the course of the war many also came to think that in order to gain God’s favor, they and other white northerners must confront the racial prejudices that made them complicit in the sin of slavery. We see how the eventual consideration of the enlistment of black soldiers by the Confederacy eliminated any reason for many Confederate soldiers to fight; how, by 1865, black Union soldiers believed the forward racial strides made during the war would continue; and how white Union troops’ commitment to racial change, fluctuating with the progress of the war, created undreamt-of potential for change but failed to fulfill it.
An important and eye-opening addition to our understanding of the Civil War.
Using soldiers’ letters, diaries, and regimental newspapers, Chandra Manning allows us to accompany soldiers—black and white, northern and southern—into camps and hospitals and on marches and battlefields to better understand their thoughts about what they were doing and why. Manning’s work reveals that Union soldiers, though evincing little sympathy for abolitionism before the war, were calling for emancipation by the second half of 1861, ahead of civilians, political leaders, and officers, and a full year before the Emancipation Proclamation. She recognizes Confederate soldiers’ primary focus on their own families, and explores how their beliefs about abolition—that it would endanger their loved ones, erase the privileges of white manhood, and destroy the very fabric of southern society—motivated even non-slaveholding Confederates to fight and compelled them to persevere through military catastrophes like Gettysburg and Atlanta, long after they grew to despise the Confederate government and disdain the southern citizenry. She makes clear that while white Union troops viewed preservation of the Union as essential to the legacy of the Revolution, over the course of the war many also came to think that in order to gain God’s favor, they and other white northerners must confront the racial prejudices that made them complicit in the sin of slavery. We see how the eventual consideration of the enlistment of black soldiers by the Confederacy eliminated any reason for many Confederate soldiers to fight; how, by 1865, black Union soldiers believed the forward racial strides made during the war would continue; and how white Union troops’ commitment to racial change, fluctuating with the progress of the war, created undreamt-of potential for change but failed to fulfill it.
An important and eye-opening addition to our understanding of the Civil War.
368 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 2007
60 people are currently reading
983 people want to read
About the author
Chandra Manning
7 books9 followersChandra M. Manning is associate professor of history at Georgetown University.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 55 reviews
September 24, 2025
I love Manning's style: blunt but not preachy, detailed but not bogged down in minutia. That slavery was the cause of the war is only doubted by Neo-Confederates and older folks who grew up in the days when some called it the War Between the States. The question is, how did the soldiers interact with slavery?
The way soldiers saw slavery is complicated. Union soldiers were conflicted less on emancipation than on what it meant. Black soldiers were conflicted about serving a government that was often dismissive. Yet, her comments on Confederates are the most original. She contends that their goals were selfish, that is, to protect home, family, and the racial order that protected both. As the war hurt their families, and the Confederacy failed to live up to its ideals (unobtrusive government) and to protect family and slavery, the soldiers lost faith. Yet, the men fought on because they could not conceive a world without slavery. This is the cruelest testament I have yet read to the importance of imagination and creativity in politics. If one cannot conceive of a different world, then the nightmare of the collapsing Confederacy is inevitable.
The conclusion, however subtle, is that the difference between North and South went deeper than slavery. Religion, politics, and the nature of society were wholly different in each section. The case can be overstated. Certainly, localism was a strong current in the North. The war gave birth to renewed ideas on liberty and justice, but also nationalism. The degree to which the North fought for union and nation and its relation to slavery is now being justly debated, while questions of Confederate nationalism continue to be argued. I ultimately think nationalism was a strong current in both armies, but with limits. Southerners worried more about family, and Northerners were never quite the radical reformers of some fevered Neo-abolitionist minds. Both agreed that whatever nation would arise would be one for white men, and that explains why Reconstruction failed and segregation was allowed to happen. The real mystery is not that racial justice had its limits, but that historians keep pondering its possibilities despite a mountain of evidence about the North's racist attitudes. To be fair, though, racial equality was at a low ebb throughout the western world in the Victorian era. The American Civil War was among the last great liberation moments before that period bloomed.
The subtext of the book is, or at least the conclusion I drew was, that America is still a nation divided. The South is the home of political conservatism, racial prejudice, and a narrow, individualistic philosophy where government exists to allow access to wealth for white men. The North is the home of progressivism but also one with hard limits on change. As Manning notes, the Union soldiers came to universally embrace emancipation, but not equality. All in all, the Civil War becomes less a revolutionary moment and more a transformation, bloody and catastrophic, but largely unfinished one hundred years later. We are still picking up the pieces from "that cruel war." I might say nothing is finished, that we are still picking up the pieces from the fall of Rome, but there is with the Civil War an immediacy. We feel it in our bones that it is not over, and the coming years, I fear, may bear some bitter fruit.
UPDATE: With more research, I have serious doubts about slavery being the only or main cause. That is not to say it was not central, but I think the other two causes were a weak constitution and, more importantly, the success of the American Revolution, which made secession a tradition. Along with slavery, I see them as the three-headed monster that made some sort of Civil War or at least national breakup inevitable. And if not slavery (a big if), another reason would have come along. I increasingly think Confederate nationalism was weak and the cause of emancipation was not a major motivator for Federal forces. This has come after reading over 200 soldier letters in my research on Shiloh. I would still recommend this book, but I think, as usual, Gallagher's The Union War is more spot-on.
The way soldiers saw slavery is complicated. Union soldiers were conflicted less on emancipation than on what it meant. Black soldiers were conflicted about serving a government that was often dismissive. Yet, her comments on Confederates are the most original. She contends that their goals were selfish, that is, to protect home, family, and the racial order that protected both. As the war hurt their families, and the Confederacy failed to live up to its ideals (unobtrusive government) and to protect family and slavery, the soldiers lost faith. Yet, the men fought on because they could not conceive a world without slavery. This is the cruelest testament I have yet read to the importance of imagination and creativity in politics. If one cannot conceive of a different world, then the nightmare of the collapsing Confederacy is inevitable.
The conclusion, however subtle, is that the difference between North and South went deeper than slavery. Religion, politics, and the nature of society were wholly different in each section. The case can be overstated. Certainly, localism was a strong current in the North. The war gave birth to renewed ideas on liberty and justice, but also nationalism. The degree to which the North fought for union and nation and its relation to slavery is now being justly debated, while questions of Confederate nationalism continue to be argued. I ultimately think nationalism was a strong current in both armies, but with limits. Southerners worried more about family, and Northerners were never quite the radical reformers of some fevered Neo-abolitionist minds. Both agreed that whatever nation would arise would be one for white men, and that explains why Reconstruction failed and segregation was allowed to happen. The real mystery is not that racial justice had its limits, but that historians keep pondering its possibilities despite a mountain of evidence about the North's racist attitudes. To be fair, though, racial equality was at a low ebb throughout the western world in the Victorian era. The American Civil War was among the last great liberation moments before that period bloomed.
The subtext of the book is, or at least the conclusion I drew was, that America is still a nation divided. The South is the home of political conservatism, racial prejudice, and a narrow, individualistic philosophy where government exists to allow access to wealth for white men. The North is the home of progressivism but also one with hard limits on change. As Manning notes, the Union soldiers came to universally embrace emancipation, but not equality. All in all, the Civil War becomes less a revolutionary moment and more a transformation, bloody and catastrophic, but largely unfinished one hundred years later. We are still picking up the pieces from "that cruel war." I might say nothing is finished, that we are still picking up the pieces from the fall of Rome, but there is with the Civil War an immediacy. We feel it in our bones that it is not over, and the coming years, I fear, may bear some bitter fruit.
UPDATE: With more research, I have serious doubts about slavery being the only or main cause. That is not to say it was not central, but I think the other two causes were a weak constitution and, more importantly, the success of the American Revolution, which made secession a tradition. Along with slavery, I see them as the three-headed monster that made some sort of Civil War or at least national breakup inevitable. And if not slavery (a big if), another reason would have come along. I increasingly think Confederate nationalism was weak and the cause of emancipation was not a major motivator for Federal forces. This has come after reading over 200 soldier letters in my research on Shiloh. I would still recommend this book, but I think, as usual, Gallagher's The Union War is more spot-on.
June 18, 2008
This book is amazing! An account of civil war soldiers attitudes towards slavery and black people as tracked through their letters. A good balance of union confederate and african american soldiers nuanced stances, and a treasure trove of information for me in considering modern race issues with a historical point of view.
October 16, 2020
A well-written, well-researched and engaging work.
Manning uses personal writings from soldiers to examine their evolving attitudes toward slavery. She shows how many Confederate soldiers from the beginning viewed their struggle as a struggle to preserve slavery and how much they feared abolitionism.
Manning also describes how northern soldiers reacted when coming face-to-face with the realities of slavery as they advanced into Confederate territory. She also describes the racism of Union soldiers and how their own views evolved as the war went on (often ahead of public opinion, policymakers, and their commanders) and how it was affected by the performance of black Union troops, as well as how battlefield fortunes affected soldiers’ views on emancipation.
The narrative is clear, thorough and easy to follow, although some parts, like many books written by social historians, seem reductionist. An insightful, nuanced and enlightening work.
Manning uses personal writings from soldiers to examine their evolving attitudes toward slavery. She shows how many Confederate soldiers from the beginning viewed their struggle as a struggle to preserve slavery and how much they feared abolitionism.
Manning also describes how northern soldiers reacted when coming face-to-face with the realities of slavery as they advanced into Confederate territory. She also describes the racism of Union soldiers and how their own views evolved as the war went on (often ahead of public opinion, policymakers, and their commanders) and how it was affected by the performance of black Union troops, as well as how battlefield fortunes affected soldiers’ views on emancipation.
The narrative is clear, thorough and easy to follow, although some parts, like many books written by social historians, seem reductionist. An insightful, nuanced and enlightening work.
October 6, 2019
Do this actually was a pretty impressive survey of material but the way it was written brought down the stars, cuz it read like a really long monograph or college student paper
November 7, 2014
I really enjoyed this concise and engrossing book, even if the argument was a stretch. Manning contends that Civil War soldiers believed that slavery was at the heart of this conflict and was motivated them to sign up, fight, and persevere. Unlike other books about Civil War soldier motivations, Manning differentiates widely between Union white, Union black, and Confederate soldiers on the topic of slavery. She says that all three understood slavery to be the cause of the sectional conflict, but that they had dramatically different views on the importance of slavery and how to deal with it.
Black Union soldiers saw slavery as the raison d'etre of the war and fought to bring about abolition, the assertion of black manhood and citizenship, and equal rights. Union soldiers became progressively more anti-slavery throughout the course of the war as they realized that slavery lay at the heart of the Southern social and economic system. Striking at slavery through emancipation was crucial for winning the war and achieving the main Union goal of saving the Union. Union soldiers also increasingly came to believe that slavery was morally wrong and corrupting and that in order for the Union to be worth saving, slavery could not be part of it. Finally, many soldiers believed that the Civil War was God's punishment for the national (not just Southern) sin of slavery and that it had to be purged with blood if the US was to retake its place as God's chosen nation. Overall, Manning's account of Union soldiers portrays them as abolitionists-at-arms who developed more racially progressive views than the average population because of their experiences in the war.
Confederate soldiers come across in the exact opposite way. Manning contends that they saw the Union assault as an attempt to upend the social order, putting blacks and Northerners on top and abusing Southerners. Their hyperbolic fears seem shockingly genuine. They fought to uphold a social and racial order in which slavery was an indispensable piece if not the cornerstone. They believed that Union without slavery was not worth staying in and continued to fight in order to avoid that nightmare scenario. Even non-slaveholders benefitted from slavery in material and ideological ways. Their rights and freedoms as white men was largely confirmed by their superiority over blacks, and abolition would threaten this hallowed position. Confederate cruelty towards black Union soldiers was largely a result of their desire to attack the living embodiments of an overturned racial and social order. Manning criticizes Confederate soldiers as imperfect nationalists. They fought the war in order to protect the "rights" and welfare of their families first, their states second, and their "nation" third, which meant that they were extremely resentful of the CSA's encroachments into everyday life for the purpose of supporting the war.
Manning's argument is fascinating and enlightening, but she probably makes slavery a little too central to the motivations of soldiers. Saying that slavery was THE motivation is simply too strong, given the diverse and often non-ideological motivations on both sides. Nevertheless, she has convinced me that slavery was not only the cause of the Civil War, but that the people in the war understood the conflict that way and were often personally motivated to defend or destroy that institution.
Black Union soldiers saw slavery as the raison d'etre of the war and fought to bring about abolition, the assertion of black manhood and citizenship, and equal rights. Union soldiers became progressively more anti-slavery throughout the course of the war as they realized that slavery lay at the heart of the Southern social and economic system. Striking at slavery through emancipation was crucial for winning the war and achieving the main Union goal of saving the Union. Union soldiers also increasingly came to believe that slavery was morally wrong and corrupting and that in order for the Union to be worth saving, slavery could not be part of it. Finally, many soldiers believed that the Civil War was God's punishment for the national (not just Southern) sin of slavery and that it had to be purged with blood if the US was to retake its place as God's chosen nation. Overall, Manning's account of Union soldiers portrays them as abolitionists-at-arms who developed more racially progressive views than the average population because of their experiences in the war.
Confederate soldiers come across in the exact opposite way. Manning contends that they saw the Union assault as an attempt to upend the social order, putting blacks and Northerners on top and abusing Southerners. Their hyperbolic fears seem shockingly genuine. They fought to uphold a social and racial order in which slavery was an indispensable piece if not the cornerstone. They believed that Union without slavery was not worth staying in and continued to fight in order to avoid that nightmare scenario. Even non-slaveholders benefitted from slavery in material and ideological ways. Their rights and freedoms as white men was largely confirmed by their superiority over blacks, and abolition would threaten this hallowed position. Confederate cruelty towards black Union soldiers was largely a result of their desire to attack the living embodiments of an overturned racial and social order. Manning criticizes Confederate soldiers as imperfect nationalists. They fought the war in order to protect the "rights" and welfare of their families first, their states second, and their "nation" third, which meant that they were extremely resentful of the CSA's encroachments into everyday life for the purpose of supporting the war.
Manning's argument is fascinating and enlightening, but she probably makes slavery a little too central to the motivations of soldiers. Saying that slavery was THE motivation is simply too strong, given the diverse and often non-ideological motivations on both sides. Nevertheless, she has convinced me that slavery was not only the cause of the Civil War, but that the people in the war understood the conflict that way and were often personally motivated to defend or destroy that institution.
May 19, 2011
As a record of profound social change, this book is terrific. Manning's commendable research has brought to light the changing thoughts of Civil War soldiers, Black and White, Union and Confederate, about the causes of the war. Her sources are engrossing, lively, often hilarious. I assume she's picked out the best quotes from a lot of rather humdrum letters, camp newspapers, and so on, but I still had a sense of the great wealth of nineteenth-century American rhetoric underlying what she's raised up.
This is definitely a supplemental text. Have some other Civil War knowledge from the standard sources under your belt before you pick this one up. From them, you'll learn how generals talked. From this one, you'll hear from the privates. It's an eye-opener and a real pleasure. Manning's exposition didn't bowl me over, but it didn't need to: Her sources, quite rightly, do most of the talking.
My favorite point: Lincoln's formulations in his major public writings and speeches were very much in line with what his army was saying. Manning says the army mourned him as the only leader who truly understood them. There's something geistlich going on there that deserves further attention.
This is definitely a supplemental text. Have some other Civil War knowledge from the standard sources under your belt before you pick this one up. From them, you'll learn how generals talked. From this one, you'll hear from the privates. It's an eye-opener and a real pleasure. Manning's exposition didn't bowl me over, but it didn't need to: Her sources, quite rightly, do most of the talking.
My favorite point: Lincoln's formulations in his major public writings and speeches were very much in line with what his army was saying. Manning says the army mourned him as the only leader who truly understood them. There's something geistlich going on there that deserves further attention.
February 4, 2017
I have often wondered about how people could support and even fight for slavery. Using letters written by Civil War soldiers, white and black, north and south, she has constructed a moving picture of changing attitudes towards slavery over the four years of the war. Remarkably she manages to keep this three sided narrative rolling, so that I could not stop reading. The highlight of the book are the many quotes from soldiers' letters. Her thesis that the war was about slavery will be disputed by some, but I found her presentation convincing. The most interesting part of the book was her answer to the question of why non-slaveholding white men fought and died for the Confederacy. For me, at least, it seemed that her answer cast an interesting light on political events of 2016.
July 26, 2008
An entirely engaging addition to the growing literature regarding the perceptions and motivations of Civil War soliders, mostly enlisted men, both federal and confederate. Manning establishes the centrality of slavery as the focus of motives/war aims in the minds of men who actually fought. Highly recommended. Great bibliography.
July 15, 2011
Manning's scholarly work is a reasoned, well-balanced examination of what ordinary soldiers thought about the relationship between slavery and the American Civil War. Using Union and Conferate primary sources, she demonstrates slavery--not abstract arguments such as state's rights or republican government--was the focus of soldiers' view of the war. The book enhances our understanding of why slavery mattered to the Confederate rank and file, the majority of whom owned no slaves, as well as illustrates how enlisted Union troops became a "critical link" betwwen government policy makers and slaves.
July 23, 2018
Oddly enough, there are still people today who deny what the American Civil War was about.
The answer has been, and always will be, one word: slavery.
There is nothing in history that affords us to glance away at the foundation of slavery and its role in starting the war, and there is nothing--NOTHING!--noble about the war started to protect slavery, and nothing--NOTHING!--noble about a single person who fought this war or who fought to protect slavery.
Looking at history requires us to do so with a clear eye.
This is a book for that.
The answer has been, and always will be, one word: slavery.
There is nothing in history that affords us to glance away at the foundation of slavery and its role in starting the war, and there is nothing--NOTHING!--noble about the war started to protect slavery, and nothing--NOTHING!--noble about a single person who fought this war or who fought to protect slavery.
Looking at history requires us to do so with a clear eye.
This is a book for that.
August 15, 2015
Every student of American history should read this well researched and well written book. Anyone who wants to argue Lost Cause myth after reading this either didn't read it, is lying or in complete denial. Every page is well documented relying on the letters and journals of Civil War soldiers. Excellent book!
June 3, 2020
Perhaps the best single volume survey of the Civil War and slavery I have read. I think Manning’s contention that every soldier’s driving motive came down to slavery is impossible to verify. However, the reasons she gives for why non-slaveholding southerners would see the “peculiar institution” as worth defending and upholding were particularly intriguing.
November 11, 2017
I’m such a sexist that I didn’t think that a woman could write a “great” Civil War book. well...
October 3, 2018
Incredibly informative. It revealed to me much I didn't know about the Civil War. That said, it was so dense and academic that it became quite tiring for me to get through.
November 12, 2019
NICE BOOK.
February 8, 2017
Setting out with the clear intention to settle once and for all the matter of what the War Between the States was "about," Dr. Chandra Manning in What this Cruel War Was Over manages instead to put forth one of the most poorly researched, illogically argued, and horrendously written tracts on the subject yet produced. From its tenuous premise to its tepid execution to its terrible style, What This Cruel War Was Over leaves readers wishing for only one thing: for it to be over.
Dr. Manning opens by claiming that not only was the War Between the States "about" slavery, it was about slavery not as an "abstract concept" or a "philosophical metaphor" but as a physical reality: she thus feels secure in completely eliding all subsequent discourse on slavery, be it in regards to slavery as an economic, racial, prejudice, social, Constitutional, religious, et al. issue, into one discreet concept. The result is that no substantive distinction is made between the countless nuances that have made this issue of slavery in this conflict so difficult to pin down. Rather than approach these nuances head on, Dr. Manning is content to pretend that all references to slavery exist within the same social, economic, and political sphere, reducing a complex issue to a bland generalization.
This propensity for generalization is par for the course in this book, however, as Dr. Manning seems incapable of putting forth any argument that isn't extracted to the extreme. Northerners were guided by a progressive, universalist patriotism; Southerners were concerned only with their own families; blacks envisioned the War as a stepping stone to total human liberty; these sorts of gross exaggerations appear everywhere in Dr. Manning's work and one wonders if she labors under the assumption that every component of human history is black and white.
While these generalizations leave most of Dr. Manning's arguments moot, they do the greatest disservice to the men whose letters and diaries she has picked over for the occasional choice quote. While Dr. Manning crows over having read hundreds of primary documents, actual citation in this book consists of little more than a smattering of words per source, often with heavy editorializing by Dr. Manning herself; the reader is fortunate if Dr. Manning opts to provide a complete sentence, as she seems to favor cropping out a few words and phrases and piecing them together in quotations herself. The result is a presentation of primary sources totally devoid of context or substance - Dr. Manning rarely discusses the social, political, or economic status of the sources of these quotes and is often content to say merely that the statement was made by "A soldier from Connecticut" or some such vague identifier. The result is that is impossible to grasp the circumstances in which these opinions were actually expressed, and while Dr. Manning sets out that she developed a sophisticated and objective methodology for determining what each of these primary sources was "about," she offers no detailed explanation of how she made this determination, and provides no actual source in anything remotely resembling its entirety.
And while Dr. Manning could at least dress up her poor ideas with a charming argument, her writing is sterile and bland and tends to be as redundant as it is reductive. She has also felt the need to pad her primary points with extraneous discussions of gender roles, political disputes, and wartime policies, taking up space which she could otherwise have utilized for providing more context for her primary sources. Having learned in the "Acknowledgements" that this book was originally Dr. Manning's thesis, one can't help but wonder about the new academic standards at Harvard.
I cannot in good faith recommend this book to anyone, unless one wished to photograph the Primary Sources section of the bibliography to find a list of resources for one's own work. Those interested in first-hand accounts of the causes between the War Between the States would be better served reading collections of soldiers' letters in their entirety; if one insists upon an anthology, James McPheron's For Cause and Comrades, for all of its own faults, is at the very least better written.
Dr. Manning opens by claiming that not only was the War Between the States "about" slavery, it was about slavery not as an "abstract concept" or a "philosophical metaphor" but as a physical reality: she thus feels secure in completely eliding all subsequent discourse on slavery, be it in regards to slavery as an economic, racial, prejudice, social, Constitutional, religious, et al. issue, into one discreet concept. The result is that no substantive distinction is made between the countless nuances that have made this issue of slavery in this conflict so difficult to pin down. Rather than approach these nuances head on, Dr. Manning is content to pretend that all references to slavery exist within the same social, economic, and political sphere, reducing a complex issue to a bland generalization.
This propensity for generalization is par for the course in this book, however, as Dr. Manning seems incapable of putting forth any argument that isn't extracted to the extreme. Northerners were guided by a progressive, universalist patriotism; Southerners were concerned only with their own families; blacks envisioned the War as a stepping stone to total human liberty; these sorts of gross exaggerations appear everywhere in Dr. Manning's work and one wonders if she labors under the assumption that every component of human history is black and white.
While these generalizations leave most of Dr. Manning's arguments moot, they do the greatest disservice to the men whose letters and diaries she has picked over for the occasional choice quote. While Dr. Manning crows over having read hundreds of primary documents, actual citation in this book consists of little more than a smattering of words per source, often with heavy editorializing by Dr. Manning herself; the reader is fortunate if Dr. Manning opts to provide a complete sentence, as she seems to favor cropping out a few words and phrases and piecing them together in quotations herself. The result is a presentation of primary sources totally devoid of context or substance - Dr. Manning rarely discusses the social, political, or economic status of the sources of these quotes and is often content to say merely that the statement was made by "A soldier from Connecticut" or some such vague identifier. The result is that is impossible to grasp the circumstances in which these opinions were actually expressed, and while Dr. Manning sets out that she developed a sophisticated and objective methodology for determining what each of these primary sources was "about," she offers no detailed explanation of how she made this determination, and provides no actual source in anything remotely resembling its entirety.
And while Dr. Manning could at least dress up her poor ideas with a charming argument, her writing is sterile and bland and tends to be as redundant as it is reductive. She has also felt the need to pad her primary points with extraneous discussions of gender roles, political disputes, and wartime policies, taking up space which she could otherwise have utilized for providing more context for her primary sources. Having learned in the "Acknowledgements" that this book was originally Dr. Manning's thesis, one can't help but wonder about the new academic standards at Harvard.
I cannot in good faith recommend this book to anyone, unless one wished to photograph the Primary Sources section of the bibliography to find a list of resources for one's own work. Those interested in first-hand accounts of the causes between the War Between the States would be better served reading collections of soldiers' letters in their entirety; if one insists upon an anthology, James McPheron's For Cause and Comrades, for all of its own faults, is at the very least better written.
July 27, 2022
p. 21: "And no matter which side of the divide a Civil War soldier stood on, he knew that the heart of the threat, and the reason that the war came, was the other side's stance of slavery. From the first to last, slavery defined the soldiers' war among both Union and Confederate troops, though how it did so would change over time."
p. 29: "Secession, the Confederacy, and the war were about securing a government that would do what government was supposed to do: promote white liberty, advance white families' best interests, and protect slavery."
p. 34: "[S]lavery appears in the Bible, which meant it must be part of God's divine order."
p. 38: "So intrinsic was slavery to southern life and culture, pervading everything from white men's individual identities to safety to the structure of society, that many white Southerners simply could not imagine its absence."
p. 47: "[S]ince slavery caused the war, it would take the elimination of slavery to win the war."
p. 57: "Even prohibition passed with little sustained comment from Confederate troops, while civilians often welcomed the liquor ban as a way of controlling rowdy soldiers."
p. 67: "Rather than elevating men to glory, it whipped them back and forth between the extremes of boredom and terror."
p. 80: "Slavery .... continued to to define the war."
p. 95: "African American soldiers had served in early conflicts such as the Revolution and the War of 1812, but they had been barred from the Mexican War, which was the conflict freshest in American memory when the Civil War broke out."
p. 102: "In October 1862, the Confederate Congress modified the conscription law by exempting one white owner or overseer for every farm or plantation containing twenty or more slaves."
p. 138: "The most powerful motivator remained Confederate troops' certainty that they must fight to prevent the abolition of slavery, the worst of all possible disasters that could befall southern white men and their families."
p. 141: "Since God controlled the outcome of the war, all would be well eventually, because God was certain to side with the Confederates."
p. 157: "I am for liberty--but not for equality--nor fraternity--except in the limited sense."
p. 160: "About one of every twelve white Union troops died of disease, while among black Union soldiers the rate approximated one out of five."
p. 163: White and black Unions soldiers were paid differently.
p. 170: Al Pierson soldiers fought to protect their homes from all comers, including other Confederates.
p. 172: "Because they could not imagine that the South, their families, or even their own identities as white men could be safe in the absence of slavery, most Confederate troops responded to 1864's preview of a world without a slavery-enforced racial hierarchy not by questioning chattel bondage, but by clinging desperately to it, and to a war to defend it."
p. 193: "The potential for a radically different United States existed in the waning days of the Civil War, even while consensus on that subject did not."
p. 194: "Genuine freedom, in the view of many black soldiers, also required full citizenship, which meant, among other things, equal treatment in the public sphere."
p. 194: "In June 1863, Congress legislated equal pay for black and white soldiers, and in late 1864 and 1865, black soldiers finally began to receive their equal wages."
p. 204-5: "Whatever else Richmond or the war itself might destroy, as long as it could get free from the Union, the Confederacy would preserve black slavery, the institution that white southern men regarded as vital to their liberties, material interests, families' welfare, womenfolk's virtue, and individual identities as men."
p. 221: "Taken together, the vividness of the vision and its eventual fading challenge historians to investigate more rigorously exactly how the United States could in the crucible of war create such vast potential for change and then, in the end, fail to fulfill it."
April 17, 2023
One of the best books about the Civil War that I’ve ever read.
Meticulously researched and brilliantly organized. Manning made the unique choice to scour not only letters and diary entries from rank and file soldiers, but also regiment and brigade newsletters and newspapers that the fighting men printed themselves. The result is an intimate look at the pattern of thought held by white northern soldiers, black northern soldiers, and white southern soldiers through the course of the war. Manning goes to great pains to share the breadth of opinions from soldier opinions on important issues, while still giving a clear idea about what the majority of men on either side thought about the institution of slavery and the prospect of emancipation or abolition at a given point in time. The result is an incredibly readable and illuminating volume that convincingly answers the implied lofty question in the book title, “What This Cruel War Was Over.”
The answer is already apparent to anyone who has spent serious time studying the Civil War era, but the journey to that answer provided by Manning in this book is poignant and mind-expanding whether you’ve seriously studied the American Civil War or not.
Meticulously researched and brilliantly organized. Manning made the unique choice to scour not only letters and diary entries from rank and file soldiers, but also regiment and brigade newsletters and newspapers that the fighting men printed themselves. The result is an intimate look at the pattern of thought held by white northern soldiers, black northern soldiers, and white southern soldiers through the course of the war. Manning goes to great pains to share the breadth of opinions from soldier opinions on important issues, while still giving a clear idea about what the majority of men on either side thought about the institution of slavery and the prospect of emancipation or abolition at a given point in time. The result is an incredibly readable and illuminating volume that convincingly answers the implied lofty question in the book title, “What This Cruel War Was Over.”
The answer is already apparent to anyone who has spent serious time studying the Civil War era, but the journey to that answer provided by Manning in this book is poignant and mind-expanding whether you’ve seriously studied the American Civil War or not.
November 13, 2018
Decent.
Would've liked more content from primary documents and less editorializing the minimal quotes included. Academic writing plagued by black-or-white fallacious thinking when it came to intentions of Union whites, Confederate whites, and blacks in the war. She covered herself, as many historians do, by continuously copping out with phrases like "this was not unanimous" or "not all Union troops thought this way" while presenting primary sources only supporting one overarching viewpoint. Of course people aren't unanimous in anything.
I still recommend those curious about the Civil War to read this, but with caution. It's worth a lot more to read the actual letters exchanged between soldiers and their families for full context.
Would've liked more content from primary documents and less editorializing the minimal quotes included. Academic writing plagued by black-or-white fallacious thinking when it came to intentions of Union whites, Confederate whites, and blacks in the war. She covered herself, as many historians do, by continuously copping out with phrases like "this was not unanimous" or "not all Union troops thought this way" while presenting primary sources only supporting one overarching viewpoint. Of course people aren't unanimous in anything.
I still recommend those curious about the Civil War to read this, but with caution. It's worth a lot more to read the actual letters exchanged between soldiers and their families for full context.
September 18, 2024
extremely thorough but still readable (I am by no means a historian or academic and found it to be a great "leisure" read), and absolutely puts to bed the question of whether the civil war was about slavery from top to bottom.
the optimism about the possibility of racial equality toward the end of the war is almost painful to read with the benefit of hindsight. I believe 100% her conclusion that the jim crow era was by no means inevitable, and am now curious to read more about how and why reconstruction failed/was abandoned.
it's also an excellent cautionary tale that a fierce desire to protect one's loved ones can easily be corrupted when not paired with a conscious awareness the way that desire is tied into a web of relationships encompassing all of humanity, and that we have to look beyond our own family to the very real, concrete responsibility we have for *everyone.*
the optimism about the possibility of racial equality toward the end of the war is almost painful to read with the benefit of hindsight. I believe 100% her conclusion that the jim crow era was by no means inevitable, and am now curious to read more about how and why reconstruction failed/was abandoned.
it's also an excellent cautionary tale that a fierce desire to protect one's loved ones can easily be corrupted when not paired with a conscious awareness the way that desire is tied into a web of relationships encompassing all of humanity, and that we have to look beyond our own family to the very real, concrete responsibility we have for *everyone.*
January 14, 2019
This is a splendid survey of the respective and changing attitudes of both sides towards the peculiar institution. It is also in my opinion the best analysis of the Southern world view as it related to the war and of course slavery. If you accept the premise (as I do) that our political impasse today is substantially a re-hashing of the differing cultural values of 1861, then this is your book. It is also a marvelous summation of the changing attitude of Federal soldiers towards slavery and the issue of race.
July 15, 2023
would highly suggest this to anyone interested in the Civil war or US history! Manning provides a distinctive perspective on the Civil War by shifting the focus from politicians, legislative actions, and military officers to the mindset of ordinary soldiers. She takes an inclusive approach by integrating the perspectives of white Confederate soldiers, white Union soldiers, and black Union soldiers to present a comprehensive narrative.
July 24, 2022
Answer: slavery.
The book was longer than it needed to be.
Interesting points made: the Union soldiers absolutely loved them some Lincoln, damn near all of them voted for him.
Although most of them were quite prejudiced, Union soldiers were appalled to see the reality of slavery in the south when they marched through.
Louisiana almost became a free state.
The book was longer than it needed to be.
Interesting points made: the Union soldiers absolutely loved them some Lincoln, damn near all of them voted for him.
Although most of them were quite prejudiced, Union soldiers were appalled to see the reality of slavery in the south when they marched through.
Louisiana almost became a free state.
January 11, 2018
A thorough book with fresh insights. She is very forceful (and a bit repetitive) in her argument, directly addressing others’ interpretations (which is unusual in what I read). She makes a strong argument about the war, slavery, and particularly the soldiers’ ideas on these two things.
April 10, 2018
Slavery. It was over slavery. This is a vital book, revealing with force and clarity how U. S. soldiers and rebels alike understood, as far back as 1861, what was at stake in the War of the Rebellion.
May 10, 2024
I learned quite a bit from this book, especially about ordinary soldiers’ views on the war and slavery. However, it was quite dry at times and following the hundreds of different soldiers throughout the book made it hard to follow
August 7, 2024
The debate over why the Civil War happened has always been bullshit, just a silly culture thing. But since this book has been published, there is just no excuse. We know why the Civil War happened. We know what this cruel war was over.
February 21, 2025
This is a fantastically well researched book that allows the soldiers on the ground to speak for themselves. Manning leaves no doubt that those who fought in the U.S. Civil War had no doubt that the war was being waged to determine the place of slavery in the United States.
October 3, 2025
Ich habe am Anfang befürchtet, das Buch würde mich irgendwann langweilen, am Ende hat es mich, je länger es ging, immer mehr gepackt, so plastisch und präzise waren die Beschreibungen von Ansichten und Gedanken der Soldaten im amerikanischen Bürgerkrieg.
November 3, 2017
An excellent examination of what the soldier’s themselves thought about the war as they fought it. It was not over “States rights” that they slaughtered one another for several years.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 55 reviews