Southern Honor

[gem]

The antebellum period was a conglomeration of a myriad of factors both tangible and intangible.

In this video lecture Professor William Cooper examines the idea of honor in the Antebellum South.

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/304901-1

 

[diane]

Good video. Cooper wrote a really good bio of Jefferson Davis. The honor code sure explains some of his actions. Brian Steel Wills wrote his bio of Forrest from the pov of Southern honor - casts a whole different light on some things in his life, too. And Lee - a lot of times he's accused of being dishonorable by choosing his state and family over his nation, but when you look at that decision in light of honor code it is very different. There wasn't any other choice he could have made and looked at his reflection in the mirror again. The North had its honor code, too, but there sure seemed to be a lot more violence in the Southern version! Have you read "Mind of the South" by Cash?

 

[DanB]

Very interesting video. Thanks for sharing. Makes you think . . .

 

[truthckr]

Great video, thanks for posting the link.

 

[Lazy Bayou]

Excellent video. Thanks.

 

[diane]

One incident of a matter of honor was one that happened during Forrest's last Memphis raid. As the Confederates were leaving, the commander of the Illinois regiment, Col Starr, challenged Forrest to a one on one. Forrest immediately accepted and was coming forward for the fight when his men opened up and killed the colonel. They had no doubts the colonel was toast but they didn't want to take the chance of their general being killed, too, or disabled. Forrest wheeled on them, furious, and told them he had accepted a challenge and had wanted to give Starr a chance to die with honor. (He had no doubt about the outcome, either!)

 

[gem]

Good video. Cooper wrote a really good bio of Jefferson Davis. The honor code sure explains some of his actions. Brian Steel Wills wrote his bio of Forrest from the pov of Southern honor - casts a whole different light on some things in his life, too. And Lee - a lot of times he's accused of being dishonorable by choosing his state and family over his nation, but when you look at that decision in light of honor code it is very different. There wasn't any other choice he could have made and looked at his reflection in the mirror again. The North had its honor code, too, but there sure seemed to be a lot more violence in the Southern version! Have you read "Mind of the South" by Cash?

A question which arises naturally on the talk about Southern Honor is what part did honor code play in the South's secession.

Cooper does touch on this towards the end.

These are my thoughts on the subject.

I think there were Southerners who made their minds up either pro-secession or anti-secession and their decisions did not revolve around the honor code.

However, their were many southerners who were ambivalent about whether secession or preservation of the Union was the best course of action.

I think for many who were ambivalent the Southern honor code caused them to chose secession.

Thus, while the honor code is certainly not the whole puzzle its a piece of the puzzle and an important one to help understand certain people's actions in the antebellum south.

 

[diane]

A question which arises naturally on the talk about Southern Honor is what part did honor code play in the South's secession.

Cooper does touch on this towards the end.

These are my thoughts on the subject.

I think there were Southerners who made their minds up either pro-secession or anti-secession and their decisions did not revolve around the honor code.

However, their were many southerners who were ambivalent about whether secession or preservation of the Union was the best course of action.

I think for many who were ambivalent the Southern honor code caused them to chose secession.

Thus, while the honor code is certainly not the whole puzzle its a piece of the puzzle and an important one to help understand certain people's actions in the antebellum south.

I generally agree with you. I think this is a contributory facet to secession, though, that doesn't get much chat. Your thread on Sumner and Brooks touched on it. Honor was at the root of what Brooks did - when Sumner dissed his cousin he dissed every Brooks who ever lived and ever would live unless one of them did the honorable thing and chastised the bum for slandering the whole clan. Beating a guy who couldn't defend himself bloody doesn't look all that honorable - and wasn't - but Brooks was chastising someone he considered to be inferior as no gentleman would say such things. It gets complex! Then, with secession, we get to Jefferson Davis. Just before SC went out, he and Varina did a tour of New England and were mightily well received, even better than Lincoln had been. He did a lot of speaking and was popular. Davis was a Unionist clear up until Mississippi went out. Then that honor thing kicked in!

 

[dvrmte]

I enjoyed that! I'm reading a book that includes the Benjamin Perry vs Turner Bynum duel. They and many other prominent antebellum South Carolinians gave stump speeches at the militia mustering grounds less than a mile from where I live.

I'm not sure if Cooper goes into more details on the origins of the Southern code of honor in other lectures. It really should be called the Scots-Irish code of honor, because they brought it with them when they moved southward. It didn't originate in a slave society.

Much of what he stated gives further support to what Lacy K. Ford concludes in his book on southern radicalism. In at least South Carolina, the planters didn't have to push the yeoman towards war, the Scots-Irish yeoman had their notions of independence threatened and their honor insulted by some in the North. That's all it took.

I think Cooper's theory that the end of slavery ended duels, is reaching at best. Suffering defeat in the ACW(huge duel) and Reconstruction could be easily correlated with an already decreasing popularity in dueling.

 

[ole]

I generally agree with you. I think this is a contributory facet to secession, though, that doesn't get much chat. Your thread on Sumner and Brooks touched on it. Honor was at the root of what Brooks did - when Sumner dissed his cousin he dissed every Brooks who ever lived and ever would live unless one of them did the honorable thing and chastised the bum for slandering the whole clan. Beating a guy who couldn't defend himself bloody doesn't look all that honorable - and wasn't - but Brooks was chastising someone he considered to be inferior as no gentleman would say such things. It gets complex! Then, with secession, we get to Jefferson Davis. Just before SC went out, he and Varina did a tour of New England and were mightily well received, even better than Lincoln had been. He did a lot of speaking and was popular. Davis was a Unionist clear up until Mississippi went out. Then that honor thing kicked in!

There is no honor in the caning of Sumner. It was imaginary. Sumner's "insult" was little more than customary in the florid speaches of the time. Something else motivated it. And the idea that Sumner wasn't gentleman enough for an honorable challenge is bogus as well. Brooks was just too chicken-poop to brace Sumner directly. So he just snuck up on him and beat Sumner who had no opportunity to defend himself. So much for honor.

 

[diane]

I enjoyed that! I'm reading a book that includes the Benjamin Perry vs Turner Bynum duel. They and many other prominent antebellum South Carolinians gave stump speeches at the militia mustering grounds less than a mile from where I live.

I'm not sure if Cooper goes into more details on the origins of the Southern code of honor in other lectures. It really should be called the Scots-Irish code of honor, because they brought it with them when they moved southward. It didn't originate in a slave society.

Much of what he stated gives further support to what Lacy K. Ford concludes in his book on southern radicalism. In at least South Carolina, the planters didn't have to push the yeoman towards war, the Scots-Irish yeoman had their notions of independence threatened and their honor insulted by some in the North. That's all it took.

I think Cooper's theory that the end of slavery ended duels, is reaching at best. Suffering defeat in the ACW(huge duel) and Reconstruction could be easily correlated with an already decreasing popularity in dueling.

I have to disagree with Cooper on the end of slavery ending duels. Many, many Southerners came West and the duel morphed some but was essentially the same in spirit. High Noon! There were many shoot-em-ups out here based on the old honor code the Southerners came with. And back-shooting was not considered dishonorable, despite what they say in the westerns!

 

[Nathanb1]

There is no honor in the caning of Sumner. It was imaginary. Sumner's "insult" was little more than customary in the florid speaches of the time. Something else motivated it. And the idea that Sumner wasn't gentleman enough for an honorable challenge is bogus as well. Brooks was just too chicken-poop to brace Sumner directly. So he just snuck up on him and beat Sumner who had no opportunity to defend himself. So much for honor.

Ah, yes, we think so....but in accordance with the code, as Diane pointed out, there was no need to give warning, etc. to someone so far beneath you. Poop it may have been, but there's a reason Brooks got all those canes in the mail afterward. The code.

Why in heck do you folks think there were gunfights in the West after Reconstruction? LOL. Even Terry's wonderful Marcellus Pointer (I hope I come back reincarnated to meet up with him. Honestly. He is so cute) got in a gunfight in Dallas over a business deal. I'm betting some "honor" had something to do with it. (Well, actually, I KNOW it did.)

Heck, my great-granddad nearly started a war in Erath County over a debate on infant baptism. And I mean a shootin' war.

Put yourselves in the context of the times, as we history teacher say. It may seem silly to us....but....so were corsets and wearing high-necked nightgowns in the summer.

 

[Nathanb1]

I have to disagree with Cooper on the end of slavery ending duels. Many, many Southerners came West and the duel morphed some but was essentially the same in spirit. High Noon! There were many shoot-em-ups out here based on the old honor code the Southerners came with. And back-shooting was not considered dishonorable, despite what they say in the westerns!

Great minds think alike. Beat me.

 

[ole]

The "honor" that demands that one dies has always escaped me. I've never been mad enough to wish someone dead.

 

[ole]

Yes. It was what it was. And it was exceedingly silly.

 

[Nathanb1]

The "honor" that demands that one dies has always escaped me. I've never been mad enough to wish someone dead.

Nope. It escapes me, too. But I understand it and realize it was fact. Of course, no one has ever been shooting at me or called my family -- on the floor of Congress -- profane names. I might change my mind.

 

[gem]

There is no honor in the caning of Sumner. It was imaginary. Sumner's "insult" was little more than customary in the florid speaches of the time. Something else motivated it. And the idea that Sumner wasn't gentleman enough for an honorable challenge is bogus as well. Brooks was just too chicken-poop to brace Sumner directly. So he just snuck up on him and beat Sumner who had no opportunity to defend himself. So much for honor.

You make a good point. I understand that their are things that people can do that are so egregious that it may have compelled one to skip the duel and just go on the attack.

However, does a verbal lashing, regardless of how stern, rise to that level or was this just a matter of sentiments getting out of control which seemed to be a theme of the time both north and south.

 

[diane]

It does seem strange to us to kill somebody because he said your mama wears army shorts. But, when you think about how surrounded by death these people were, it begins to make sense. You surely must develop some sort of fatalism or acceptance of the fragility of existence, and with that the acceptance that all can be over quicker than quick. You go smell the magnolias on a lovely summer evening and the next evening the 'vapors' have six of your best friends toting you to the family graveyard. Honor, however, lasts beyond you. That is where you get 'death before dishonor'. Your name, reputation, your family's reputation - all that you are or will pass on - must be with honor intact.

 

[Nathanb1]

From Wikipedia, Sumner's "Crime Against Kansas" speech.....

Sumner then attacked authors of the Act, Senators Stephen A. Douglas of Illinois and Andrew Butler of South Carolina. He said:
"The senator from South Carolina has read many books of chivalry, and believes himself a chivalrous knight with sentiments of honor and courage. Of course he has chosen a mistress to whom he has made his vows, and who, though ugly to others, is always lovely to him; though polluted in the sight of the world, is chaste in his sight -- I mean the harlot, slavery. For her his tongue is always profuse in words. Let her be impeached in character, or any proposition made to shut her out from the extension of her wantonness, and no extravagance of manner or hardihood of assertion is then too great for this senator."
According to Hoffer (2010), "It is also important to note the sexual imagery that recurred throughout the oration, which was neither accidental nor without precedent. Abolitionists routinely accused slaveholders of maintaining slavery so that they could engage in forcible sexual relations with their slaves."[23] Sumner also attacked the honor of South Carolina, having alluded in his speech that the history of the state be "blotted out of existence..."[24] Douglas said to a colleague during the speech that "this **** fool Sumner is going to get himself shot by some other **** fool."[25]

Well, Mr. Douglas was wrong. Seeing as how he had that cane......

It's the Wigfall connection, folks.

 

[CSA Expat]

[quote="dvrmte, post: 601927, member: 2381"]I enjoyed that! I'm reading a book that includes the Benjamin Perry vs Turner Bynum duel. They and many other prominent antebellum South Carolinians gave stump speeches at the militia mustering grounds less than a mile from where I live.

I'm not sure if Cooper goes into more details on the origins of the Southern code of honor in other lectures. It really should be called the Scots-Irish code of honor, because they brought it with them when they moved southward. It didn't originate in a slave society.

Much of what he stated gives further support to what Lacy K. Ford concludes in his book on southern radicalism. In at least South Carolina, the planters didn't have to push the yeoman towards war, the Scots-Irish yeoman had their notions of independence threatened and their honor insulted by some in the North. That's all it took.

I think Cooper's theory that the end of slavery ended duels, is reaching at best. Suffering defeat in the ACW(huge duel) and Reconstruction could be easily correlated with an already decreasing popularity in dueling.[/quote] I have heard the argument put forth that the South is not much different from the remainder of the country. If one takes in account the concentration of Scots-Irish settelers in the South, you get a very different outcome in the dominant culture of the South. Personal honor means alot, in some cases the demand for satisfaction and the need for a second. For more on the contributions of the Scots-Irish in the South and America, might I suggest two books, the first one is The Scotch Irish, A Social History by James G. Leyburn, The University of North Carolina Press. The second book, Born Fighting How the Scots-Irish Shaped America by James Webb. Broadway Books.