Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- mitchell_vacant_chair [2026/02/27 02:04] – [War as a Rite of Passage] ccochra2
+++ mitchell_vacant_chair [2026/02/27 16:20] (current) – 199.111.65.11
@@ Line 22: / Line 22: @@
 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)
+Masculinity being changed in the Union Army was through the belief that only Northern men were able to reach manhood while Southern men were seen as childish and effeminate. Mitchell also uses specific Union soldiers as examples of how they viewed manhood and masculinity, Cyrus Boyd did not view anything besides war or violence as a way for boys to become men, compared to other ideas of sex, gambling, drinking and swearing could be seen as ways for boys to become men. (Sage Milton)
 ===== War and the Shift in Authority: Fathers to Sons =====
@@ Line 29: / Line 32: @@
 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
+During the Civil War, the language of paternalism was often assigned to the Union. This ideology reflects ideals of masculinity on both sides of the war, as well as changed the view that one side had of the other. Union soldiers valued their masculine discipline and self control, and Confederate soldiers valued strength and virility in their model of masculinity. This then affected the view Union soldiers had of Southerners, seeing them as rebellious children. (Tanner Gillikin)
 ===== Race in the Union Army =====
@@ Line 48: / Line 53: @@
 ==== The South as a Disobedient Child ====
 Certain metaphorical ways of discussing the Civil War in the North positioned the North as a schoolmaster using its army as a "rod" to discipline the South, which was portrayed as a disobedient child. In this metaphor, the South was characterized as highly emotional and irrational, much like a misbehaving child that must be taught a lesson and disciplined. This portrayal had highly gendered connotations, with the North aligning itself with manly adulthood, simultaneously denouncing the South as boyish and therefore unmanly. (Noah Rutkowski)
+The Union Army both femenized and infantalized the Confederates. They painted them as hysterical, emotional, and not in control. They did this as a way to boost up their own manliness while showing the South as less honorable and manly, thus weaker. Additionally, young men who came back from the war were far more comfortsble questioning the authority of their fathers as political opinions dramatically changed. -Caroline Cochran
+The creation of the childlike and disobedient child motif for the South, was a way to remove the manhood of the Confederates through using terms as irrational, hot-headed, and impulsive which the North viewed as feminine. Which is a direct contradiction to the "self-discipline" and very controlled view of manhood that Northern men had when they were in the Union army. (Sage Milton)
 ==== 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)
+In the wake of the Civil War, the process of Reunion was seen as a marriage of the North and South. This marriage is seen in the romance novels of the time, in which it became cliche for northern men to court the southern women from the dastardly hands of inappropriately masculine men. The anthropomorphization of the North and South often has a way of characterizing the South as female and the North as male. This likely helped in the cause of reunion in the North, as women are seen as inherently apolitical beings, and makes them overly loyal to their husbands. (Tanner Gillikin)