art ofmanliness.com
/>code-of-honor-in-the-american-north/?
utm_source=Daily+Subscribers&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=1bfe072aeb-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN
Manly Honor Part IV — The Gentlemen and the
Roughs: The Collision of Two Honor Codes in
the American North
by Brett & Kate McKay on November 12, 2012 · 12 comments
in A Man's Life
Welcome back to our series on manly honor.
In our last post, I said that Northern and Southern honor would be covered in one art icle, and that
future posts would be shorter. Neither turned out to be true. Well, this one is a little shorter, but
we’re giving Northern and Southern honor their own posts – there’s just too much interesting stuff
to cover. And as all my projections have been wrong thus far, I will refrain from making any more
moving forward. Just come along for the ride!
An exploration of honor in the American North during the 19
th
century offers a fascinating
framework from which to build on and expand many of the concepts we discussed in our post on
Victorian England’s Stoic-Christian honor code, while also digging into the tensions t hat emerged
Victorian England’s Stoic-Christian honor code, while also digging into the tensions t hat emerged
as a result of its creation – tensions t hat are still with us today. So if you haven’t read that post
yet, I recommend doing so before jumping into this one.
The Stoic-Christian Honor Code in the American North
The Middle and Upper Classes: The Honor of Gentlemen
The North experienced many of the same economic, geographic, and social changes – the rise of
industrialization, increased mobilit y and urbanization, the spread of evangelical Christianity (which
took the f orm of the Second Great Awakening in the US) — that had shaped Vict orian England.
So t his region of the country unsurprisingly experienced a very similar shift in their ideal of honor.
Because of the unique nature of the American landscape, the various component parts which
made up the new Stoic-Christian honor code in the North were emphasized and de-emphasized in
different ways than they were across the pond.

gentlemen – a history of immoral and lazy
behavior could follow a man via letter and
gossip and close doors of social and business
opportunity. But in a social, economic, and
geographic landscape that was increasingly
dependent on impersonal relationships, and in
which the chief virtue was self-restraint, the
need to physically retaliate against anyone
who impugned your honor began to seem silly;
un-manly, in fact. Who cared what ot her
people thought of you? A man could simply
point to the fruits of his labors to rebut a critic.
Gentlemen began to assert a self-worth that
was less dependent on t he opinions of others
and more focused on the contents of his conscience. In turn, dueling greatly fell out of favor in the
North (although it did not die out altogether), and while a Northern gent leman was still prepared to
at least have a fist f ight when insulted, he could decide to walk away and still retain his sense of
honor. It became a matter of honor to resort to violence only under extreme provocation – the
point at which the insult and harassment reached a point that the gentleman could say with a clear
conscience that he had “no choice” in fighting back (a subjective standard, of course, that varied
from man t o man).
Yet despite these slight differences in emphasis and acceleration, the Northern code of honor was
very much like that of Victorian England: a standard predicated on civility, piety, morality, Stoicism,
and hard work. The watchword of Northern honor, as it was for the English, was self-restraint. This
was the virtue that tied the others together; the man who had mastered himself had the discipline
to consider how his actions affected others, the will to resist the temptations of sin, the power to
control his emotions, and the ability to set aside frivolous distractions and work hard to get ahead.
Self-restraint gave a man the defining quality of Northern honor: “coolness.” A Northern gentleman
was to be cool in personal and physical confrontations; he didn’t give in to extreme emotions,
could laugh off the insults of others, and never caused a scene. A Northern man who suffered a

through the climbing of the economic ladder. More well-off gentlemen thought it was t he latter;
because a central tenet of the Stoic-Christian honor code was its democratic nature – that any
man who so willed it could, at least hypothetically, cultivate its traits – men who refused to do so
were shamed, and seen as despicable.
While there was debate
Physical culture was a point of contention f or gentlemen. Some thought it
too working class and vulgar, while others believed working out at a
gymnasium was an excellent way to release the masculine energies a man
was restraining in other areas, while also building up more discipline at the
same time. Boxing was a particularly debated pastime. Some though it too
violent f or gentlemen to partake in or watch, and it was banned in many
states. Other gentlemen thought it was a healthy way to keep oneself f rom
becoming too sof t and ref ined.
While there was debate
among adherents to the
Stoic-Christian honor
code as to whether
things like drinking,
swearing, gambling, and
fighting were compatible
with true manliness,
there were plenty of
men in every class who
enjoyed such things,
and felt they were,
along with a little
scrapping and hazing,
good for manly
camaraderie. But even
gentlemen who indulged

dependent on the virtuous
manhood of its citizens. That
virtue originally centered on
civic-mindedness and
involvement — having a true
stake in society — and the
ability to set aside selfish
concerns for the common
good, and had evolved to
include other virtues as well,
like moral character and
economic independence.
Gentlemen thus saw the
roughs as dishonorable
because they believed their
economic dependence, lack
of education, and penchant
for savagery and vice could
lead, ultimately, to the failure
of the republic.
With this great divide between the two honor groups, the gentlemen and the roughs did not of t en
interact, and fairly inhabited two different universes. That would all change, cause great conflict ,
and widen the divide even further when they were forced to serve together during the Civil War.
The Gentlemen and the Roughs During the Civil War
The North’s two competing ideas of manhood – one undomesticated and primal, the other
restrained and moral — came into direct conflict during the course of the Civil War.
When t he war first broke out, volunteers made up the Army’s ranks — men driven by a sense of
honor and duty to fight f or the Union. Well-educated gentlemanly elites from New England’s
middle and upper classes signed on to lead regiments largely composed of men from a similar
socio-economic background.

were court-martialed for the use of
profanity during the war, in violation of
the 83
rd
Article of War requiring conduct appropriate to one’s status as an “officer and a gentleman.”)
On the ot her hand, you had men who cheekily formed anti-temperance societies, that pledged “to
destroy (by drinking) all the liquor they could get,” and created anti-moralizing clubs like “The
Independent Order of Trumps,” whose bylaws proclaimed that members would always act with
decorum, and then added: “drinking, eating, smoking and chewing will be considered decorum.” The
Trumps “resolved t o acquit ourselves like men, and other things.”
A Clash of Manhoods in the Union Army
The two groups eyed each other warily. Each had absorbed the American ideal of all men being
Soldiers in the Union Army not only f ought the South, but each other as well.
See here f or a not so uncommon story about one company getting into a
“bench clearing” brawl with another.
created equal, and each wanted their manhood to be recognized by the other. But the gentlemen
thought the roughs were brutes, and the roughs thought the gentlemen were ef f ete; neither
would acknowledge the other’s respective code of honor. This tension, understandably, would
often compromise t he unity of Northern regiments.
As aforementioned, the strength and vitality of the American republic had, since its founding, been
linked to the virtuous manhood of its cit izens. The North believed it would win the war because of
the superior character of its citizens. Thus, the roughs’ unapologetic revelry in vice and
licentiousness was seen by gentlemen as draining vit al virility from the Union effort.
What had been more of an abstract concern before the war crystallized into a more immediate
worry during it; gentleman commanders felt that the roughs’ drinking and lack of discipline
prevented them from becoming effective soldiers, and thus compromised the chances of Northern
victory on the battlefield. Adherent s to the Stoic-Christian honor code believed moral courage and
physical courage were linked, and that without the former, the roughs would have to be physically
compelled to fight and would drag the Union army down with them.
In a way they were right.

that submitting themselves to their officers – whom they often referred to as the “shoulder-strap
gentry” — resulted in a loss of manhood. They believed status had to be earned through
competition, but many of their commanders had gotten their positions through influence and
family connections. Their code of honor did not allow t hem to let another man falsely claim status
and thus domination, and they would have loved to have brought their elit e officers down a peg.
But they were frustratingly forbidden f rom est ablishing their honor in the way they desired — by
having a physical throwdown. They would often tell an officer whom they felt was lording their
authority over them t hat if it weren’t for his shoulder straps, he would have given the man a
merciless pummeling. For example, Union soldier John Clute told his Captain, Daniel Link, “If you will
lay off your shoulder straps I will give you a damn good whipping.” Another soldier told an officer,
“All that saved you was your shoulder straps, if you hadn’t them on, I would whip you in a minute.”
Sometimes privates couldn’t control this urge to physically lash out; striking a superior officer was
in fact the second-most common offense during the war.
Enlisted men also sometimes joined together in rebellion against officers they felt abused their
authority; 2,764 men were charged with exciting, causing, or joining in a munity during the war. And
these numbers greatly underestimate the true number of such cases, as the majorit y were likely
given an immediate punishment or tried with a regimental or field-officer courts-martial.
Rough soldiers also resisted t he authority of their gentlemen officers in less violent ways. They
were slow to obey orders, talked back when they received them, refused to salute, and would yell
and even make farting noises when their officers tried to talk. Complete desert ion was also quit e
common.
For their part, officers
were not above using
violence themselves in
order to compel
obedience from their
men. As Lorien Foote
writes, “Because army
regulations sanct ioned
the use of physical

The gentlemen and the
roughs represent extremes
on a spectrum of
manliness, and there were
plenty of men whose
codes of honor fell
somewhere between them.
All classes agreed on the
necessity of physical
courage to manhood. And
outside the roughs, there
was general agreement
about the importance of
good character – being
honest, hardworking,
resolute, and respectful to
others. But beyond that
was a gray area. Some men believed that t hings like strict purit y, temperance, and proper manners
were important parts of the code, while others enjoyed swearing, drinking, fighting, and oat-
sowing in moderation, and didn’t feel such indulgences compromised t heir honor, or even their
designation as gentlemen.
The reason I wanted to flesh out the subject of Northern honor in the 19
th
century is t hat the
question as to where to draw the line on the spectrum of manliness is still very much with us today.
In fact, I get a front row seat to it with the feedback we get on our posts. “How to dress with
style? Real men don’t care about how they look!” “How to field dress a squirrel? Real men don’t kill
innocent animals. Do more about style!” “Gambling? That’s immoral! Real men never gamble!”
“Etiquette? Real men do whatever they want to do!” “A real man saves himself for marriage.” “A
man should be able to have sex with whoever he wants to, as much as he wants.” “Swearing is

4. Exercises for Gentlemen Giveaway