Southern Honor

[lakertaker]

Death before dishonor is not dead. The urban gangs defend their colors with zeal with heroic expeditions called "drive-by's." Guess it's all part of the fatalistic sense of their existence, and life becomes cheap. There's also the axiom, "When your only tool is a hammer, all problems become nails."

 

[Drew]

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

Wow. Thank you, Gem, for posting this. I haven't made it throught the whole thing (site keeps crashing), but I've tried to express some of these concepts on this forum and have had my head knocked in. I especially appreciate Cooper's discussion of the "two dimensions," internal, one's own sense of honor, and external - community acceptence of one's honor. The latter is critically important - without it, the result is shame. I don't know if he said so, but it's really important to grasp. That "honor is an empty/hollow concept" today is a very sad observation and I'm not sure I agree.

It was a very serious business at my house as a kid, that is for sure. Dueling, nah, but conducting yourself honestly, oh you bet. I vividly remember my mother pointing her finger at me, wrist up and glaring, head slightly cocked, "Drew, on your word of honor?" This was the point of no return. If I gave it and it didn't pan out, well, I'd be typing this from a shallow grave. It is ingrained in me to this day and I will not give my "word" with respect to an uncertain outcome, but often my "word" that I will try my best. The distinction is important if you grew up with this stuff.

 

[Drew]

Death before dishonor is not dead. The urban gangs defend their colors with zeal with heroic expeditions called "drive-by's."

Not sure if you're being sarcastic here, LT, but a drive-by shooting is the very definition of cowardice, really. Nothing heroic, let alone "honorable" about it, in any sense of the word.

 

[lakertaker]

Not sure if you're being sarcastic here, LT, but a drive-by shooting is the very definition of cowardice, really. Nothing heroic, let alone "honorable" about it, in any sense of the word.

Totally agree with you, Drew.

 

[CSA Expat]

Totally agree with you, Drew.

I second that!!

 

[Drew]

Totally agree with you, Drew.

 

[bama46]

Wow. Thank you, Gem, for posting this. I haven't made it throught the whole thing (site keeps crashing), but I've tried to express some of these concepts on this forum and have had my head knocked in. I especially appreciate Cooper's discussion of the "two dimensions," internal, one's own sense of honor, and external - community acceptence of one's honor. The latter is critically important - without it, the result is shame. I don't know if he said so, but it's really important to grasp. That "honor is an empty/hollow concept" today is a very sad observation and I'm not sure I agree.

It was a very serious business at my house as a kid, that is for sure. Dueling, nah, but conducting yourself honestly, oh you bet. I vividly remember my mother pointing her finger at me, wrist up and glaring, head slightly cocked, "Drew, on your word of honor?" This was the point of no return. If I gave it and it didn't pan out, well, I'd be typing this from a shallow grave. It is ingrained in me to this day and I will not give my "word" with respect to an uncertain outcome, but often my "word" that I will try my best. The distinction is important if you grew up with this stuff.

To this day, one of the harshest things a favorite aunt will say to someone is "I am ashamed of you" or "have you no shame?"

 

[bama46]

Not sure if you're being sarcastic here, LT, but a drive-by shooting is the very definition of cowardice, really. Nothing heroic, let alone "honorable" about it, in any sense of the word.

In our eyes, yes... in their eyes and their "society", I am not so sure

 

[gem]

In our eyes, yes... in their eyes and their "society", I am not so sure

You bring up a good point.

The common theme in both situations is that someone's ego and sense of honor is hurt enough that it makes them want to kill and this is acceptable behavior in each respective society.

Could a drive by be considered an equivalent act to the caning of Sumner?

 

[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?

why was there less violence in the honor code in the North?

 

[ole]

why was there less violence in the honor code in the North?

Have no idea. Not sure there was less, but it seemed so. Possible killing seemed less important than a round of fisticuffs behind the barn.

 

[Drew]

In our eyes, yes... in their eyes and their "society", I am not so sure​

You bring up a good point.

The common theme in both situations is that someone's ego and sense of honor is hurt enough that it makes them want to kill and this is acceptable behavior in each respective society.

Could a drive by be considered an equivalent act to the caning of Sumner?

No, on both counts. I, for one, refuse to allow anyone to re-define our language to the point where "honor" and "cowardice" are compatible. They are not. Perspective and/or experience is irrelevant and that, frankly, is what has got us into all kinds of trouble. Allowing any group in our society to exit social norms and redifine our language to suit their own terms is outrageous. "Honor" and "respect" are easily found in the dictionary. Violence perpetrated and justified outside of these definintions is indicative of contemporary pathology, period.

Wanting to kill due perceived slight is bad enough, but the dueling described in the video has NOTHING in common with business conflict or "disrespect" felt by those who would ambush a defenseless adversary in a way the ensures their own safety, survival and escape. This is cowardice. Look at the video again and think about it.

Sumner was confronted by his adversary, one to one, and did not face lethal force projected from a safe distance. Surprised, he may have been. Many of his colleagues present were not. Not the same as a drive by, sorry.

 

[diane]

why was there less violence in the honor code in the North?

That's a good question. Hope somebody has a good answer because I don't! Imho, though, it had to do with the type of society that developed in the South. The wealthy planters - and not all of them were by a long shot - often had a lot of time to do things like riding and hunting and upper crust occupations because somebody else was putting food on the table. If you have slaves to do for you, you can develop a bit of an attitude. Mary Chesnut noted with some satisfaction that her father-in-law was having to vacate his home because it was in the path of Sherman as he swung through South Carolina. She said this old man, who was almost 90, had never heard the word 'no' in his life. He was sophisticated, genial, well-liked in his circle but inside of that was an iron fist. He ruled supreme not only his own bailiwick but everybody's around him. No white man poorer than himself dared cross him. So, you have a feudal lord-peasant relationship. It wasn't as bad as in Europe - a farmer sick of being around the 'lord of the manor' could sell out and go elsewhere although that meant leaving a lot of kin and hometown things behind. This developing social division was why Sherman's soldiers would find the family silver sitting on the daughter's dresser. Why, nobody would violate the sanctity of the planter's daughter's bedroom! Now, somebody like Forrest, who didn't come from that sort of breeding, it was an entirely different matter. He, too, operated on the Southern code and no one had better even vaguely suggest he was less than honorable but there was also the frontier code underneath that. That one was real simple - survival. Many times survival depended on simply who was the biggest and baddest character in the vicinity. That was usually Forrest! It's a little hard to remember that large parts of Tennessee and Mississippi and other parts of the Deep South were still frontier at that time.

 

[gem]

No, on both counts. I, for one, refuse to allow anyone to re-define our language to the point where "honor" and "cowardice" are compatible. They are not. Perspective and/or experience is irrelevant and that, frankly, is what has got us into all kinds of trouble. Allowing any group in our society to exit social norms and redifine our language to suit their own terms is outrageous. "Honor" and "respect" are easily found in the dictionary. Violence perpetrated and justified outside of these definintions is indicative of contemporary pathology, period.

Wanting to kill due perceived slight is bad enough, but the dueling described in the video has NOTHING in common with business conflict or "disrespect" felt by those who would ambush a defenseless adversary in a way the ensures their own safety, survival and escape. This is cowardice. Look at the video again and think about it.

Sumner was confronted by his adversary, one to one, and did not face lethal force projected from a safe distance. Surprised, he may have been. Many of his colleagues present were not. Not the same as a drive by, sorry.

the southern honor code has no exact parallel in today's society.

only vague connections.

 

[Sagebrush]

In light of the carange brought about in part by the South's code of honor, there may be something to be said about "Discretion being the better part of valor."

 

[Drew]

why was there less violence in the honor code in the North?

Who says so? BTW, 'dueling' was not exactly going on daily in the South, for God's Sake.

 

[ole]

It would seem that a willingness to kill or be killed was the southern honor we are talking about. I don't buy that as I think it an exaggeration of what was southern honor. That some might think it was .... Eh. There is very little realism in there.

 

[gem]

what we are really talking about is a system of honor which placed great emphasis on how an individual acted and how the individuals actions fit into the community and 'rules' of society. Both components were necessary to have honor.

Duels were the extreme when an individuals honor was perceived to be violated. Duels took place but were not common relatively speaking.

I think the main thing the duel indicates is how far some were willing to go to preserve honor in its two-fold character: how the individual viewed himself and how society viewed the individual.

There is some benefit as a developing society to have such a code as it would certainly make someone think twice before doing something bad to someone.

Another point worth making, In a way one would be less apt to question their inner voice if that inner voice did not conform with society. That's one way which Northerners and Southerners differed. Northerners were more apt to question society, Southerns less apt so as to not create dishonor.

 

[Drew]

Northerners were more apt to question society, Southerns less apt so as to not create dishonor.

Sort of, Gem. With outward, community scrutiny of ones motives or "honor," there was not much of an outlet to question where "the group" was going, in terms of war, or slavery. You also said, "There is some benefit as a developing society to have such a code as it would certainly make someone think twice before doing something bad to someone."

This works, today, too, if you ask me. Look at the Japanese. Heck, if one of 'em makes a serious mistake that impacts the larger community, they commit suicide. Extreme, sure, but this is "shame" at work. In our country, today, we all point to some childhood indignatinon - I was treated badly at Christmas! So what I did is explicable and OK.

There's a book, entitled, "In Defense of Shame," written by an American. Google it and have a look. Food for thought.

 

[gem]

Sort of, Gem. With outward, community scrutiny of ones motives or "honor," there was not much of an outlet to question where "the group" was going, in terms of war, or slavery. You also said, "There is some benefit as a developing society to have such a code as it would certainly make someone think twice before doing something bad to someone."

This works, today, too, if you ask me. Look at the Japanese. Heck, if one of 'em makes a serious mistake that impacts the larger community, they commit suicide. Extreme, sure, but this is "shame" at work. In our country, today, we all point to some childhood indignatinon - I was treated badly at Christmas! So what I did is explicable and OK.

There's a book, entitled, "In Defense of Shame," written by an American. Google it and have a look. Food for thought.

a lot of people are not aware about how the honor code played an important role in leading many people to make certain decisions.