Civil War History - Secession and PoliticsWas it Slavery, or was it States Rights? Perhaps it was the election of Lincoln? What were the real reasons for Southern Secession and what were the political issues in this time of war? Find your answers here in the Secession and Politics Disussion.
Interesting thread.
A thought: Honor is a public demonstration. Your honor is judged, not by yourself, but by others. It becomes part of your identity; how you are identified by others. The code of honor is a social code.
Thus a man doesn't run away despite his fear, because he doesn't want to be SEEN as a coward by his mess mates. Like all social codes there is a utility to it: troops fight harder, and even civilians in their daily life often have a sense of honor, which they call "professionalism" a sense of what is requried of them to be worthy.
Duty is what society or a nation or any larger group requires of an individual. Sherman's march to the sea wasn't "honorable" in the standards of the day, even to Sherman, but it was his duty to do his utmost to win the war, and his campaign across Georgia was the best way to do it. Robert E. Lee was roundly condemned for insisting his men dig in before the 7 days battle: fighting from holes wasn't honorable.
Men who went to war in 1861 had a sense of honor: true manhood meant military service, they would be ashamed to stay at home. They felt a sense of duty: their country required this service of them, the army and their role in it required specific duties.
Honor, among aristocrats, was restricted to aristocrats, the code of honor was an acknowledgement of a society of equals. In the sense that Southerners felt their honor insulted by criticism by abolitionists(not part of their society of equals) and that it led them to provocative actions like the gag rule, or their sense of superiority over northern mudsills led them to misread the military realities, honor led to the war.
Interesting thread.
A thought: Honor is a public demonstration. Your honor is judged, not by yourself, but by others. It becomes part of your identity; how you are identified by others. The code of honor is a social code.
Thus a man doesn't run away despite his fear, because he doesn't want to be SEEN as a coward by his mess mates. Like all social codes there is a utility to it: troops fight harder, and even civilians in their daily life often have a sense of honor, which they call "professionalism" a sense of what is requried of them to be worthy.
Duty is what society or a nation or any larger group requires of an individual. Sherman's march to the sea wasn't "honorable" in the standards of the day, even to Sherman, but it was his duty to do his utmost to win the war, and his campaign across Georgia was the best way to do it. Robert E. Lee was roundly condemned for insisting his men dig in before the 7 days battle: fighting from holes wasn't honorable.
Men who went to war in 1861 had a sense of honor: true manhood meant military service, they would be ashamed to stay at home. They felt a sense of duty: their country required this service of them, the army and their role in it required specific duties.
Honor, among aristocrats, was restricted to aristocrats, the code of honor was an acknowledgement of a society of equals. In the sense that Southerners felt their honor insulted by criticism by abolitionists(not part of their society of equals) and that it led them to provocative actions like the gag rule, or their sense of superiority over northern mudsills led them to misread the military realities, honor led to the war.
Well written, Matthew. I believe honor was the chief culprit in causing this fracas to last nearly four years. Congress should have prevented it. Not much help from the Congress; nothing has changed.
__________________ Ancestors in US Army: 13th TN Cav; 10th TN Cav; 3rd NC Inf
Ancestors in CSA Army: 48th VA; 63rd VA, 5th NC Cav; 37th NC
Wife and Grandson's CSA: 15th AL, 51st GA, 41st TN; 36th TN; GA Mil 1197 Dist
They tell me that I am a 'first family' of Virginia, suh!
This and a couple of dollars will get you a glass of beer.
ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
This and a couple of dollars will get you a glass of beer.
ole
Sort of like Duty and Honor?
If one's state is telling him to do something, how then could the invading yankees hold that against the Confederate citizens?
If Lincoln and his collectivists couldn't keep the nation together, why blame John Q Publick for following after the South when they left the Union?
And don't give me this schmarmy pat yanked-up blow-hard response about "They didn't leave the Union" and "The Confederacy never existed"...
It was real enough for Southerners for four years, whether they wanted it, or not! Kind of like when we left Britain. 1/3 for it. 1/3 against it. 1/3 undecided...
Wasn't it TREASON to follow the North, if the South seceded, and you lived in the South? Siding with other states against your home state?
What would the Yankees have done after the Hartford Convention, had the 15 Yank states told Jefferson to
shove his Original Confederacy of Sovereign states?
What would have been Treason, then? Stay with the Southerners in the Union, and betray your home state?
Oh, wait! Jefferson would not have attacked anyone! I forgot for a moment. Secession is only illegal after it has been illegalized AFTER THE CIVIL WAR. Lincoln invaded
because he needed to pretend like his United States of America was the same one as before, so he used the word PRESERVE. But in his newly-formed empire, with everything suspended and war-powers dominant... doesn't seem like the same country at all!
And when you consider that ALL CONSERVATIVES, North or South, have not only left the building, but have been absolutely banned from speaking in print, or returning again unless it is through surrender!
No, definitely not the same country, any more! PRESERVED?
Interesting thread.
A thought: Honor is a public demonstration. Your honor is judged, not by yourself, but by others. It becomes part of your identity; how you are identified by others. The code of honor is a social code.
Thus a man doesn't run away despite his fear, because he doesn't want to be SEEN as a coward by his mess mates. Like all social codes there is a utility to it: troops fight harder, and even civilians in their daily life often have a sense of honor, which they call "professionalism" a sense of what is requried of them to be worthy.
Duty is what society or a nation or any larger group requires of an individual. Sherman's march to the sea wasn't "honorable" in the standards of the day, even to Sherman, but it was his duty to do his utmost to win the war, and his campaign across Georgia was the best way to do it. Robert E. Lee was roundly condemned for insisting his men dig in before the 7 days battle: fighting from holes wasn't honorable.
Men who went to war in 1861 had a sense of honor: true manhood meant military service, they would be ashamed to stay at home. They felt a sense of duty: their country required this service of them, the army and their role in it required specific duties.
Honor, among aristocrats, was restricted to aristocrats, the code of honor was an acknowledgement of a society of equals. In the sense that Southerners felt their honor insulted by criticism by abolitionists(not part of their society of equals) and that it led them to provocative actions like the gag rule, or their sense of superiority over northern mudsills led them to misread the military realities, honor led to the war.
I am going to go existential on you here, and show you the
Pavlovian response in 'Honor" as you defined it. Clearly such thinking can be unravelled rather logically, but you are possibly the victim of the 4th grade history teacher, and the National Park Service! (When the tea goes in the harbor, it becomes criminal fanaticism, not 'patriotism'! It is a crime, nothing noble. Done in the dark, and in disguise, trying to blame the Indians by the costume? Larceny like that? Nothing honorable in it!).
(Don't feel bad; I used to believe it, myself...)
Honor is a public demonstration. But if we extrapolate that to its natural end, then we are really more afraid of being seen as cowards than we are of being killed in battle.
Thus, what others think is more important than my life, and so I am obedient to their society because I am afraid of defying convention. Thus, I risk death in order to be able to face what they think of me...
This is not honor. This is a gross lack of self-esteem! 'True manhood' is a mythological conditioned response. Real men would envision dying in an attempt to destroy the
thing making them go to war in the first instance, and reject the social order which produced this insanity.
Or, rather, this is one of the key ingredients in mass-hysteria patriotism. The Japanese got a good many kamikazi pilots this way...
And Oscar Wilde was right. Patriotism is the one and only virtue of the vicious.
Southerners went to war because they were being attacked. Their homeland was being invaded, and their
families threatened...
And the 'total-warfare' yankee, who could not win through the rules of 'honor' warfare, proved the Southerner absolutely right.
To defend one's family is honorable. To save your wife and children is sound logic because you are preserving your immortality, and if you are made of good stock, and genes, you want to do this thing.
To defend one's neighbors is also honorable...
You are honorable because you have WORTH, a VALUE. Not because you possessed a fear of being seen as afraid.
Honor has about 50 Thesaurus definitions. Not one of those says "did it because I was more afraid of the bad press..."
Real honor exists oblivious to the consequences, and certainly could care less about public opinion!
Fear of the press and the public is the psychosis of the politician, not the mark of a hero!
This and a couple of dollars will get you a glass of beer.
ole
I'd be honored to buy a pint of pale ale for a fellow descendent of the Virgina Militia and Yorktown! I'd buy a whole barrell of beer. I'd consider it my duty!
I'd be honored to buy a pint of pale ale for a fellow descendent of the Virgina Militia and Yorktown! I'd buy a whole barrell of beer. I'd consider it my duty!
Huuzzzaah!
I'll have to look it up, but I think Master Henry got an annual pension of $18.00 for his services to Virginia during the British Invasion.
I would be honored to accept a pulled pint, sir!
"I'll lift up a glass in his honor, take a drink with Old Rosin' the Beau!"
I'm reaching back into the dark ages for this, but I seem to recall contrasting
North and South by saying the Puritan North was a culture of guilt, while the
Cavalier South was a culture of shame.
The Puritans believed that one's motives were as important as one's actions in defining someone as sinful. If you were what they called a "smooth" or "civil" man, that is, one who does good because he thinks it will gain an advantage, rather than prompted by your good nature, you sinned. Thusly they often looked inward to examine why they were acting
as they were. If they conformed to society but felt they were doing wrong, they felt guilt. This sense of individuality, of moral action the result of inward reflection, instead of being determined by society, gave the Puritans the psychological space to act in a non conformist way.
The Cavalier, anglican South of the other hand, believed in works, and free will. The person chose to perform good or evil acts, and was judged accordingly, both by God, but also on earth. You might feel unworthy impulses, but a good person would ultimately choose good actions, and it was never too late to change. But the person didn't define right and wrong, God and/or his priestly representatives did, and they felt shame when they were observed choosing wrongly.
Personally, I think that religion both North and South, was diverse, and plenty of Northerners experienced shame, and plenty of Southerners experienced guilt.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
