History 326 Readings Wiki

You've loaded an old revision of the document! If you save it, you will create a new version with this data.

====== The Vacant Chair: The Northern Soldier Leaves Home By: Reid Mitchell ======

===== War as a Rite of Passage =====

In the reading, it is claimed that becoming a solider was seen as a right of passage for becoming a man and these masculine attitudes in the military were further expressed by the north's view of the south as an unmanly, child-like, and non-disciplined portion of the country for breaking off so hastily and that they were a manly and disciplined force ready to fight the effeminate region. Furthermore in the union army, the reading claims, soldiers had dueling ideas of masculinity. One being the ability to enjoy masculine vices like gambling and prostitutes and the other being self control as they thought a man should have in a disciplined union army. (Henry Prior)

Cyrus Boyds ideals of becoming a man is residing temptations like gambling drinking whoring and gaining a sense of self discipline while you're in the military so that it can then be used later. The idea that being in the military is a right of passage for young boys coming of age. (Tea Aliu)

the hardening process- witnessing and coping with death (also not having a huge reaction to it) further reaffirming a boys masculinity. the more comfortable with death, the more hardened as a man. The understanding that men aren't feminized by being hardened, they are simply inhuman. (Tea Aliu)

===== Masculinity in the Union Army =====

Apparent reversal of the masculine ideal between wartime and peace. Women upset that their husbands "won't shed a tear" when they miss their families when showing that kind of restraint makes them a man in the eyes of other soldiers. If a man shows emotion during the war, he is a detriment to his own masculinity as a soldier. But not showing emotions during peace time meant that they were cold people and hardened in a way that didn't constitute them as men. (Tea Aliu)

The Civil War conditioned soldiers and pushed the transition from boy to man to soldier and created connections between manhood, masculinity, and military duty. Many soldiers were young adults in their early twenties and experienced adulthood during their time in the service. The relationship between war and manhood is portrayed when these young men see civilian life as effeminate and make the decision to join the military as a means to prove their masculinity. They saw becoming a soldier as stepping into adulthood where identity and gender roles are shaped. This transition into manhood through war encourages the narrative that masculinity is tied to duty, patriotism, and courage which can all be practiced through becoming a soldier. (Reiley Gibson)

Going to war was envisioned as a transformation into manhood only for Northern men. Their manly virtues were praised, while Southern soldiers were emasculated or initialized; the Southern cause and Southern soldiers were too emotional, irrational, and savage. Northern soldiers, however, were held up as models of masculine self-control. They were brave under fire and willing to give their all for the Union - the reward for their service would be well in line with the masculinity prescribed by the North: a wife and a home of their own. (Nick Thodal)

===== War and the Shift in Authority: Fathers to Sons =====

One of the most interesting points made was that "the war shifted moral authority from fathers to sons." Mitchell discusses the way in which boyhood became manhood within a military context that allowed for soldiers to question authority through their earned manhood.They began to question what soldiers were owed as they were no longer boys.It was also interesting that this meant these men were advocating for greater governmental authority in the war, even acknowledging that it would lead to a greater loss of life. (Hannah Covin)

Discussing the concept of authority in the Civil War North, Mitchell emphasizes a certain shift in the evaluation of the Founding Fathers during and after the Civil War. He argues that Thomas Jefferson was excluded from the canon of respected founders due to his political legacy - particularly his association with states’ rights, his status as a slaveholder, and his deep connection to the South. Simultaneously, this tendency elevated figures from the Federalist movement, such as Alexander Hamilton, who endorsed a strong central government and, by extension, a Northern understanding of authority. These examples demonstrate an interesting case of national reevaluation of a shared historical and ideological legacy under the pressure of the Civil War. - Nikolai Kotkov

===== Race in the Union Army =====

The fourth chapter focused on how race functioned during the Civil War era. I thought it was interesting how the author explored this topic through the lens of Thomas Wentworth Higginson, an avid abolitionist who led a volunteer Black army regiment. The sections about self-control and autonomy resonated most with me since Higginson combined his first-hand experience of manhood with his perception of what his Black soldiers experienced to craft an interesting argument. Higginson framed masculinity as an idea that would often be falsely achieved through going to war, by immature men, while also out of reach for many soldiers. Although autonomy and self-control are hallmarks of social constructs regarding masculinity, Higginson discussed how war acted as an attestation of manhood for some soldiers. Overall, this chapter was intriguing and showed the dualities of war. (Allisya Smith)

In the context of debates regarding African American masculinity, Mitchell's detailed analysis of the views of Northern Army officer Higginson indicates a complex relationship between the ideas of race and gender in the Civil War North. On the one hand, Higginson appears to have been a particularly progressive man who advocated for the abolition of slavery, associated himself with feminism, and led a regiment of Black soldiers. On the other hand, his views on the nature of soldiers (both Black and white) were deeply embedded in the paternalistic system of racial relationships in mid-nineteenth-century America. Higginson framed his attitude toward his soldiers as an act of philoprogenitiveness (love of one's offspring), thereby treating his subordinates as children. According to Mitchell, such a patriarchal position was fundamental to the Northern discourse of authority understood as paternity. - Nikolai Kotkov

===== Familial Understandings of the War =====

Americans during the Civil War, as they had since the country's founding, often saw power structures within the government as analogous to familial relations of authority. The government, as the father of the people, was to be given respect and obeyed, yet citizens could also be protected and cared for by the government. (Cameron Spivy)

==== Fathers and "Boys" in the Union Army ====

==== The South as a Disobedient Child ====

==== Reunification as Marriage ====

A significant amount of post-war media characterized the reunification of the Union as one similar to marriage. This was generally done in the favor of the North, who was portrayed as the husband. This trope appeared in fiction, often with a Union soldier marrying a Southern woman, who was, through her feminine loyalty, converted to understand the world in the "correct" way. This familial understanding of reunification, however, even as it might contain ideas about discipline, was ultimately underlied by the assumption of eventual forgiveness based on mutual love. Mitchell points out that this likely smoothed the path to the Southern states regaining full rights and control at the end of Reconstruction. The familial relationship between the North and South could be reconciled, but newly freed Black Americans weren't really considered part of the family. (Cameron Spivy)

Edit summary

Note: By editing this page you agree to license your content under the following license: CC Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International