Showing posts with label manhood. Show all posts
Showing posts with label manhood. Show all posts

Tuesday, May 7, 2024

Book Review: Anatomy of a Duel: Secession, Civil War, and the Evolution of Kentucky Violence




By Stuart W. Sanders 
2023
University Press of Kentucky 

At first glance, using one duel taking place on one afternoon in an obscure Kentucky community to explore a state’s culture may sound like a challenging proposition, but Stuart Sanders tackled that idea and turned it into a fine book describing a key piece of nineteenth-century life in Kentucky. 

In this deeply researched book, involving many sources, Sanders, author of multiple books about Civil War Kentucky, as well as one about violence on a period steamboat, uses his experience and writing ability to craft a fascinating story about how the confrontation between William Casto and Union Colonel Leonidas Metcalf illustrates the importance of the code duello in Kentucky life. He, however, goes beyond just that confrontation to show why it happened and why it was a bit unusual for its time as change was slowly happening in the Bluegrass State as civil war approached.

As the book’s title so aptly says, this work is truly an anatomy (or dissection) of this one fight, showing how state (and southern) culture, combined with the Civil War (and the tensions that led to war), the background of the individuals involved, and the actions of Union leaders who were trying to keep Kentucky (and Kentuckians) out of the Confederacy, all somehow worked together over time to lead to this contest. It was not simply a case of two men suddenly becoming angry and immediately dueling. It was a process based on those factors that Sanders explores and describes in a very readable and enjoyable book.

This book is more than a story about the duel, even as that word in the title is the attention-grabber. The author discusses violence in Kentucky, particularly the art of dueling, and how the state's citizens and government accepted it as part of life, but also shows how that form of manhood and honor had started changing in the Civil War era, especially during and after the war. Violence and fighting remained an unfortunately large part of life in the Commonwealth, but the formality of duels, with strict rules, regulations, and traditions, gradually changed into more improvisational street fighting, including the use of concealed weapons. The book’s title refers to this as “evolution,” but a reasonable argument could contend that “de-evolution” would be just as or perhaps more appropriate.

This work also discussed how the culture of violence, including both dueling and the newer style of fighting, injured, or even changed, Kentucky’s reputation nationwide. The frequent violence, fighting, and murdering came to define the state in many eyes, transforming the state’s reputation from the land of Henry Clay, compromise, and a forward thinking educated people to an image of a backward and poor population that constantly resorted to physically harming or killing fellow citizens. 

This truly is a good perspective not only on dueling or violence, but on the state of Kentucky in the mid-nineteenth century, including how the population was split in supporting the Union or Confederate side (even in the same towns and counties) and how that division sometimes led to violence like in the Casto-Metcalfe duel.  It is a much bigger story than just that of one of one fight or of that style of combat.

For those who seek satisfaction from books they read, I believe this one will accept and meet your challenge. I enjoyed this read and certainly recommend it.


Saturday, April 23, 2011

Ruffianism in Cincinnati

The Covington Journal of April 20, 1861 is full of interesting articles in the aftermath of the firing on Fort Sumter, including a few about reactions and incidents in Cincinnati. (This was a weekly newspaper, and the April 12th bombardment happened too close to this papers deadline to be covered until the following week.) Here is one more of these articles.

Ruffianism
Affairs have come to a deplorable pass when acts of ruffianism are exultingly paraded in the columns of a newspaper as evidences of loyalty to the North.

This has been done by newspapers published in Cincinnati. We believe, however, that only the least offensive cases have been published. 


We are strictly within the bounds of truth in saying that it is at some risk of personal safety that a citizen of Kentucky now goes to Cincinnati for the purpose of transacting ordinary business. He may go there with a determination to express no opinion as to the cause of our national troubles; but if he happens to get into a crowd of anti-slavery fanatics his opinions are demanded in such a way that he cannot remain silent without debasing his manhood. No matter what his views, if they do not accord with the prevailing sentiment he is liable to be called a "d____d liar" or a "d____d traitor."


We have heard of several instances this week, in which Kentuckians, giving their views (moderate and conservative) in compliance with requests which could not be evaded, have been grossly insulted. 


It is well understood that the Cincinnati Enquirer, which was a true Union paper, has been compelled by threats of mob violence to take another chute.


On Tuesday last, ex-Senator Bright of Indiana stopped at the Spencer House. He was suspected of entertaining anti-Lincoln sentiments. A mob committee was appointed to conduct him out of Cincinnati. The committee went to the hotel for the purpose of executing the order, but Mr. Bright had left for the East, and thus avoided their tender of Black Republican hospitality.

---
It's interesting that they claim there were situations where a Kentucky man would lose his "manhood" if he elected to keep his opinions to himself; that's a good example of how "honor" was so important to many Southerners, or at least the image of being honorable. (Ironically, this same newspaper had an add that began: "Manhood, How Lost, How Restored." See my previous post about this ad in an earlier edition of this newspaper.)

It also is perhaps a bit ironic that Cincinnati eventually developed a reputation for having much support for the South, and the Enquirer did too, but I guess in the days when feelings on both sides were at their highest pitch, those pro-Southern leanings had not yet become evident.