The Gentlemen and the Roughs: The Collision of Two Honor Codes in the American North

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.

For example, the “gentility” part of the Victorian honor code – an emphasis on education,
decorum, manners, style, and above all, “taste” – did not enjoy that same widespread popularity on
these shores. For some, a focus on refinement and formal rules of conduct, no matter how
nominally democratized, smacked too much of the European aristocracy they had only recently
won independence from. Zealous converts t o evangelical Christ ianity f ound the standards of
gentility overly materialistic and worldly. There were also men who thought real manhood required
a degree of rough coarseness, and found such refinement effeminate and contrary to the rugged
nature of the country, and even its democratic spirit; some worried that outward polish might hide
a man’s inner rotten nature, allowing him to get ahead over a man who looked a little rough, but
whose heart was true.
On the flip side, t he ideal of the self-made man was never as celebrated as it was in America. In a
nation of newcomers who were freed from tradition and inhabited a land of great opportunity, the
ethic of pulling yourself up by your bootstraps became practically synonymous with the American
spirit, and still is. Even at the turn of the 19
th
century the country already had real-world success
stories like Benjamin Franklin t o look to, exemplars of the promise that any man who adopted the
values of industry, thrift, self-sufficiency, and integrity could rise in the world as far as he wished.
For this reason, the virtues and character trait s connected with economic success played an even
larger role in the North’s code of honor.
The middle and upper classes’ emphasis on
earning status through virtuously-won wealth,
coupled with the even greater mobility in the
North than in England (Americans have been
famous for relocating for the sake of
opportunity since the country was settled),
and the American penchant for individuality
and independence, pushed the evolution of
honor from public to private even faster in the
States. Public reputation still mattered to

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

lapse in his self-restraint and failed to be cool would often say he had “forgotten his manhood,” or
had been “unmanned” by the incident.
The Northern variety of the Stoic-Christian honor code also paralleled its English counterpart in
that it was adopted by both the middle and upper classes, but did not reach very far down into the
working class. Those on the lowest rung of the socio-economic ladder in the Nort h — who more
upper-class gentleman referred to as “the roughs” — had an honor culture too, but it was very
different t han that of their well-heeled brethren.
The Working Class: The Honor of Roughs
Honor for the roughs was very
much like the primal honor of
ancient times – centered on
physical prowess and strength,
and proven through physical
feats and plenty of fighting.
The austere self-control of
the upper classes was
disdained, and camaraderie
was built through unchecked
aggression, boisterous noise,
rowdy behavior, heavy
drinking, and licentious
indulgence. In place of the
middle-class emphasis on
sentimentality and sincerity,
roughs engaged in constant
mocking, teasing, and what one contemporary called “relentless sarcasm.”
Roughs were always challenging and testing each other and getting into brawls to prove who was
stronger and more “game.” Honor was premised on never letting another man dominate you. At a
great remove from the white-collar work of the expanding middle class, roughs earned honor and
status through the giving and receiving of pain, as they were either unable or unwilling to acquire it

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

in such “vices” scorned
the roughs, for they did
not balance such
activit ies with more
civilized and refined
qualities. As Lorien
Foote put it, many
Northerners believed
that true manliness
“combined the ‘soft’ virtues of womanhood with the ‘hard’ virtues of manliness.” Or as a writer
from the time argued, “Always with the highest courage there lives a great pity and tenderness.
The brave man is always sof t-hearted. The highest manhood dwells with the highest
womanhood.” A man was to be both brave and moral, strong and kind, stoic in crisis and
affectionate at home. As civilizat ion had progressed, the markers of manliness had shifted f rom
those that most harkened to the savage – strength and aggression – to those that set a man
apart from his primitive origins – a shift from more biological traits to those which required higher
cognitive power, reason, and willpower to earn. Thus, because of the roughs’ lack of tenderness,
constant need to fight, and unchecked aggression, gentlemen saw them as degenerate, immoral
brutes whose lack of self-restraint made them little higher than the beasts – and unworthy of the
designation of honor, and, the title of man.
From the founding of the
That middle and upper class gentlemen not only rejected the working
class as equals, but as f ellow men too, can be seen in cartoons of
the time which of ten depicted the Irish as apes.
From the founding of the
country, American leaders
had argued that the strength
and vitality of the nation –
this new experiment in
democracy– was directly

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.

But once the draft was enacted in 1862, the Army was flooded with conscripts — 2/3 of which
were immigrants — who came from the lowest tier of Northern society (well-off men who were
drafted could pay for a substitute – again invariably a man from the working class — to serve for
them). The Army’s ranks were greatly diversified, creating a common scenario where ref ined,
morally upright middle and upper class gentlemen had command over an enlisted group of hard-
drinking, oft-fighting, working-class roughs.
A clash in codes of honor arose. You
had one company of men sitting
quietly at temperance society
meetings or scripture study, and
another going off to drink and wench
and brawl, and then coming back to
bust up the temperance meeting and
pour mule urine on the teetotalers. On
the one hand you had 17-year-old
chaps like Charlie Brandegee, who was
aghast at the amount of prof anity in
the army, and wrote to his father: “I
have not used any form of swearing
since my arrival, although I have it on
every side. There are 100 men in this
co. on an average each man uses 25
oaths [swear words] a day — 2500
oaths a day! I have always protested
against prof ane language and think
there is less swearing in our tent than
in any other. Whenever anybody
commences to swear the rest sing out
‘English language, English language in
this tent.’” (Interesting fact: 5,223 men

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.

The roughs’ honor code
of aggression and
physical prowess was
suited to the battles of
primit ive man – when
war parties consisted of
a group of equal peers,
the fighting could be
flexible, impromptu, and
hand-to-hand, battles
were infrequent and
short-lived, and the
reason for fighting was
the protection of the
tribe and the defense of
kin.
The Civil War, on the
other hand, was a
modern battle that bore little resemblance to the primal skirmishes of old. Men served in a strict
hierarchy, stood in organized battle lines to face increasingly mechanized and impersonal
weapons, and fought not for the immediate protection of kin, but for abstract principles of union,
democracy, and patriotism. In this new type of war a soldier had to be able to obey orders from a
superior, fight out of duty, and have the self-control — the “coolness” — to hold the line as
cannon fire ripped through the ranks. Unfettered aggression, a plus for primal man, now had to be
corralled through proper channels.
A man also had to be in battle-mode not simply for days, but for years — living away from family in
spart an camp life. In such conditions, raw courage became less important in earning honor than a
man’s ability to bear suffering.
Unsurprisingly t hen, the roughs rebelled against such demands, and saw little in the war that
benefited themselves. They were reluctant to give up t he equality of their honor group, and felt

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

coercion from officers
when inferiors disobeyed
lawful orders…Officers
grabbed, hit, kicked, and
pulled swords on
recalcitrant enlist ed men.”
Some elite officers shot
disobedient men outright, and some regiments established the position of “file closer,” whose job it
was to hold the ranks during battle by shooting or bayoneting any soldier who straggled or tried to
flee from cowardice.
Conclusion
At the end of the War Between the Stat es, the North had bested the South, while in the battle
between two competing codes of honor and manliness, the gentlemen had triumphed over the
roughs. Having already ascended prior to the war, the Stoic-Christian honor code consolidated its
status as the North’s cultural ideal. Those in the middle and upper classes believed, as Foote
writes, that “The men who had truly saved t he Union…were its gentlemen, men with domestic
virtues, moral character, and proper manners.” They had pulled out the victory, despite the dangers
the roughs had posed – men whose lack of discipline and indulgence in vice had, Stoic-Christian
gentlemen believed, threatened the st rengt h of the Union Army, and in turn, the future of the
whole nation.
But it’s important to point
Things like drinking, and even playing cards were gray areas among those
who aspired to be gentlemen. Some embraced such vices in moderation,
while others thought it was honorable to abstain entirely.
But it’s important to point
out that the above
discussion represents a
simplification of the issues
surrounding honor in the
North during this period.

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

manly!” “No it’s not!” “What does it mean to be a man? A real man doesn’t think about it. Do more
practical stuff.” “Your philosophical posts are the most important. You should do more of them.”
The heart of the debate both for the 19
th
century man and for today’s, is whether manhood, and
thus the honor code of men, should be based on primal, biological t raits or in our capacity for
higher virtues. The first type of manhood is made up of instinct, aggression, virility, violence,
higher virtues. The first type of manhood is made up of instinct, aggression, virility, violence,
strengt h, and the need to earn status through physical prowess and martial courage — the
essential traits that all men shared anciently, and transcend culture and time. Here manhood is
defined as what is unique from womanhood. The second type roots manhood in the abilit y to
overcome lower urges and master self – the cultivation of the higher traits of mind and character
that separate man from beast, and man from boy. The type of manhood one ascribes to
influences one’s view of what is good for men; as Foote puts it: “Within this complex discourse,
some men feared that excessive civilization produced weak, decadent, and ef f eminat e men, while
others warned that those who had not developed civilized restraint and refinement were savage
boys rather than fully developed men.”
No matter how messy, the possibilit y of combining the virile traits of essential manhood with the
moral virtues has been explored since ancient Greece, and is a tradition we continue today, and will
explore more in the last post in this series. But for now, next up is a look at Southern honor.
______________
Sources:
The Gentlemen and the Roughs by Lorien Foote (A fascinating read)
Tagged as: honor
Related Posts
1. Manly Honor: Part III — The Victorian Era and the Development of the
Stoic-Christian Code of Honor
2. Manly Honor: Part I — What Is Honor?
3. Manly Honor: Part II — The Decline of Traditonal Honor in the West,
Ancient Greece to the Romantic Period

4. Exercises for Gentlemen Giveaway