This is a great question. I have some thoughts (short thread).

1. I don’t think Civil War historians have been explicit about working in this mode.

But anyone who sees soldiers as embodied participants in warfare is engaging in feminist military history. https://twitter.com/jalane_schmidt/status/1265967615308161025

2. This entails seeing soldiers not just as numbers or members of units moved around on the battlefield.

It means examining the ways they think about themselves as soldiers, how they relate to the men and women in their lives, and how this creates power dynamics of warfare.

3. It also means paying closer attention to bodies at war - disease, desire, mental health, etc.

This requires, I think, a broader view of what constitutes "military history" and what sources we use to do this work.

An example: Joe Beilein's article on the "guerrilla shirts" - the clothing that women made for their husbands engaging in guerrilla warfare - is a great example of expanding both the notion of the battlefield and sources (material culture) to engage in feminist military history.

I stop here - but I would love to know what some of my colleagues think: @JGiesberg @PeterCarmicha15 @ljgordon106 @susannahjural @DrJen_Murray @AMRiotto