|
Edited on Mon Jul-26-10 11:03 PM by happyslug
The Southern Murder rate is still the highest in the Country, not as high as it was prior to 1960, but high (Big cities NOW have the highest Murder rates as opposed to rural southern counties).
As to "Quakers" being "peaceful" while it is one of the cites I gave, even I disagree with that. The Quakers ran Pennsylvania in the 1700s (Till a election in the late 1750s when they lost power) had two policies, no violence (tied in with no war activities) AND land. With the "Long Walk" of 1735 the Quakers stole a huge track of lands from the Native Americans and then sold the land to the Scotch Irish then emigrating from Ireland. This theft of land was confirmed by the Iroquois (Who technically controlled the land, but it was land the Shawnee and Delaware lived on). All it did was bring tension to the Frontier, tension the Scotch Irish were the victim of after Washington's Defeat at the Battle of Fort Necessity in 1754. The Quakers refused to help the frontiersmen so they took Benjamin Franklin’s advice and formed themselves in "Associations" to protect themselves. These Militia units (NOT authorized by the Colony of Pennsylvania) were the main form of defense till after the election of 1758 where the voters of Pennsylvania kicked out the Quakers and voted to form a proper Militia. Thus my point is the Quakers were "Peaceful" but given a choice between money and peace they choose money even if it cost people their lives.
As to other "Peaceful" groups, lets be honest I am NOT discussing people who fight in a war. During the Colonial Period the best Militia in the World was the New England Militia. Unlike almost any other Militia it could hold itself up to regular troops. It was NOT as good as "Regulars" but just a step behind (Can be seen in the New England's Militia activity in the Battle of Concord and Lexington when they forced the British to retreat, in the Battle of Bunker hill, where they stood they ground till they ran out of Ammunition and again in the Battle of Saratoga where they were able to go toe to toe with the British with support of just a handful of American Regulars.
If you look to the South at the same time period, the Militia was simply incapable of such fighting. Unless supported by massive number of Regulars they were incapable of standing up to British Regulars. In they most successful action, the Battle of the Cowpens, General Morgan understood they weaknesses and decided to use them on the flacks of the enemy and leave his regulars hold the line while the Militia hit the British in the flack and destroyed Carleton's forces. Morgan told the Militia to fire twice and then to fall back. They only had to reload once to do so. The British seeing the Americans Retreat went after them. The American Regular forces had been held in the rear and retreated at the same time. When the Militia had passed them or went to the flacks as individuals, the regulars turned and fired. The Regulars had NEVER fired their weapons till then, thus were still loaded. It was a rule that one could NOT load a Muzzleloader on the march (American Riflemen could do so, but that is a different story). Thus the British were NOT expecting a barrage when the American turned and fired. This stopped their charge. At the same time the Militia had regrouped on their flacks and was tearing them apart with their fire. The Infantry had move so fast they outran their Cavalry (Which had also been contained by the Militia) so they were outflanked on both sides and facing American Regulars with bayonets in their front. The British attack crumbled and Carleton barely was able to escape (Almost none of his Soldiers did, including the Cavalry).
I bring these two stories up for Morgan had accepted the fact that the Southern Militia was NOT as good as the New England Militia (almost no militia was, and in many ways are not till this day, please note I do NOT view the US National Guard as Militia, they are reserve troops a different classification of troops invented in the early 1800s to replace the militia in Prussia when Prussia was permitted to keep a militia but NOT regular troops. That invention and its subsequent use is a different story).
The New England Militia, while still a militia (universal service, Uniform and weapons were to be supplied by the Militia member, part time drilling etc) drilled more the any other Militia in the World (In many ways the Prussia invention of "Reserves" was a reflection of how good the New England Militia was viewed in Europe, in effect Prussia adopted the policy that every man was in the Army, but on leave 11 months of the year just to get their reserves to be as good or better then the New England Militia, but Prussia also decided to arm, equip and supply such reserves, making them different then a Militia).
Now, one of the problems with a well-trained militia is that once the danger it was raised to fight no longer exists; the pressure to reduce the requirements of the Militia is great. Thus after the Native American threat was gone with the War of 1812, the New England Militia went into rapid decline. Disappearing for all practical purposes by the 1830s (No one could see why they needed to drill, so did not appear for drills and paid the fine for not appearing. The State came to rely on these fines and slowly reduced them so more citizens would pay them rather then show up for drill. After about 20 years the States abolished the fines and converted them to a head tax, some people would still show up for drill rather then pay the fine and the state wanted the money more then it wanted the militia trained).
The South on the other hand had always tied its Militia Duty with the Sheriff's Patrol. The Sheriff's Patrol was the duty of every free man (Free white man in the South) to serve as directed by the Sheriff generally one day a month. It was generally perform at a crossroads where the members of the Patrols would make sure no illegal activities were occurring. The main illegal activity people worried about in the South was a slave revolt (in the north it was thieves moving stolen goods, harder to prove so died out quicker in the North then the South). Given this function in the South, most crossroads would be "Patrolled" by the same group of men on the same day each month (A different group each day of the month). Since they had to watch for people and check any African-Americans paper work to make sure they were doing what their master wanted them to do, you had no time for actual training as militia members, but had a lot of time to beat up any African American who cross your path with the knowledge that you would NOT be punished for what ever you did (Including killing the Slave) for the county would assume payment for any "loss" (Death of a slave) provided you did not kill to many.
The Sheriff's Patrol thus had the affect of reducing the training and thus the effectiveness of Southern Militia. The Southern Militia Units would meet as often as the New England Militia but in smaller groups and while the Southern Militia could train in their ability to fight as individuals, the Southern Militia Units could NOT drill to fight as a member of a large company size or larger unit (as did the New England Militia of the Colonial Period). This reduced the Southern Militia's ability to stand up to a bayonet charge by British regulars. Morgan knew this and decided NOT to even try to get them to stand and fight. Morgan at Cowpens decided to use the Southern Militia as individuals and rely on Morgan's American Regulars when it came to a unit size action. Thus Morgan's comments to the Militia for two shots and two shots only. Morgan knew the Southern Militia could do that. Any more was requiring to much of the Southern Militia giving the limited training as compared to Regulars and the New England Militia. Once the Militia had fired they two shots, Morgan released them so they could fight as individuals. As individuals such Militia members would be effective on the flacks of the British Regulars provided Morgan stopped the British Regulars with Morgan's own American Regulars. It was the most effective use of the Southern Militia in a American Revolution Battle (The Virginia Militia can be viewed as being even more effective during the battle of Yorktown, but the Virginia Militia main role was to dig the trenches while French and American Regular stood guard, the trenches were the key to that siege and a very good use of the Virginia Militia).
Yes, I have gone to long on New England and Southern Militia of the 1770s and 1780s. My point is the two militias were formed on almost completely different lines and for completely different purposes. The New England Militia was a hard-hitting force capable of Regimental actions. The Southern Militia main purpose was a pool for the Sheriff's Patrol whose main purpose was to keep an eye on the slaves. Unlike the New England Militia, the Southern Militia survived till the US Civil War (And was the key to Southern Victories in the first year of the Civil War, unlike the North, which had left its Militia to all but disappear, the Southern Militia still existed and could be mobilized and once Mobilized trained quickly to fight on a regimental level. The North not only had to raise the troops, the North had to train them and then ship them South, thus the South's success in the first year of the Civil War, but its slow defeat afterward).
The Colonial New England Militia did NOT lend itself to individual violence. You fought as a member of a team. You trained to fight as a team member. If your team disappeared (for what ever reason) you had to team up with new team members and re-train as a new team. You trained at a Company (80 plus men), to operate as member of that company. You trained to move as one with the rest of your company AND then as company as part of a Regiment. Individual acts of violence did NOT help in either of these situations and thus not only discouraged but grounds to be court martialed.
On the other hand the Southern Militia acted as a pool for the Sheriff's Patrol (Unlike the Native Americans facing New England, most of the Native Americans of the South tended to be pro-British during the Colonial period, thus even in the Revolution the South did NOT need a militia as trained as did New England).
The Sheriff's patrol did encourage individual acts of violence. Small groups of four to ten men acted together to make sure anyone passing them had the right to do so. It was common for such patrols to terrorize any African American who passed by, just to "put them in their place". Training as a member of a company or regiment could NOT take place in these circumstances so when formed up at Company or Regimental level, they knew enough to look "Military" but NOT to fight as a member of a Company or Regiment. Given some minimal training they could work up to such level (As seen in the first year of the US Civil War) but that would take a month or so at a minimum, to long in much of the South during the Colonial period and during the Revolution.
Now Young males, told they can take what ever weapon they wanted and do what ever they wanted to people who pass by them, leads to acts of violence unless you have very strong social controls (And the South had none). Adding to this mix is that to a much higher degree then the North, the American South was settled by "Herders" more then "Farmers". One of the Characteristics between "Herders" and "Farmers" is how quick one can lose one's assets. Farmers only have to worry about someone moving in during harvest (or afterward) and taking the crop. The rest of the year Farmers can just back off and wait to see what happens (or join a Militia type unit whose aim is to drive the invaders away NOT to recover what they stole, but will try to do so if possible). Given this, farmers tend to lead more peaceful lives but are fully willing to join a higher echelon (Company or Regiment) to secure that peace. Remember the only time the farmers are truly valuable is during the harvest, once that is in and secure Farmers can then act as responsible members of a larger society. Furthermore since farmers tend to live on farms apart from each other it is hard for any invader to take all of the crops in an area. Thus farmers are able to adjust to a rapid loss for they still hold the land.
In disputes between neighbors as to who owns what land. With farmers it is possible to fix a taking by the wrong owner by switching who control the land back to the right person. Furthermore since farmers tend to live side-by-side they either learn to live together OR one or the other moves some place else (Generally one sells his land and buys lands someplace else to avoid the conflict).
On the other hands "Herders" tend to face a situation that if they abandon they herd to get help, whoever is attacking them will have time to take the herd and the herder will never see them again. The land the cattle or sheep is on is minor compared to the wealth in whatever the herder is herding (Which can include reindeer, goats, horses and camels). Thus one sees a tendency, among headers, to fight rather then to leave their herds and to seek help from others.
Furthermore in disputes between Neighbors, we are NOT discussing who controls what land, but who owns what cattle (or other animal). The person who takes the Cattle (or other animal) can deny he had the cattle or worse claim them as his after changing whatever marking the original owners had on the cattle (Rustling was NOT new when the American West was settled). This tends to increase the perceived "need" to hold one's ground if even neighbors threaten the herd. Thus violence among herders is common, even among herders in the same tribe, clan or even family.
People from Southern England, a land of farms, settled New England. New York had a huge number of such settlers but its main farmers were the Dutch. Pennsylvania and New Jersey best farmers tended to be German. In Pennsylvania in the 1700s (and afterward in what is now call the Mid-West) Scotch Irish on the Frontier would move with the Frontier, replaced by Germans. They were be a good bit of mixing of blood, but sooner or later the German farming outlook slowly replaced the Scot-Irish more herding social outlook (And both groups, in the US, were mainly farmers, they traditions, farming vs. herding is from the old Country and not even Ireland, for by the time the Scots hit Ireland most were farmers, the herding traditions date from the time they were in Scotland or northern England).
The South took a different route then New England and the Middle Colonies. The Scot-Irish were the main people on the Frontier (As they were in the North), but the people following them were the Plantation owners who tended to be Second sons of people from England. Unlike the Middle Colonies you did NOT have a group of really good general farmers in the South. The larger plantations quickly became tobacco plantations (And after 1796 and the invention of the Cotton Gin) cotton plantations. Slaves were imported in record numbers (Most slaves actually went to the West Indies, where they died like flies on the sugar plantations) to operate these plantations. The English made adjustments to maximize they profits on these plantations (One of the problems with the South is most of the Soil, unlike the Mid-West, was "rich" only do to the humus built up over thousands of years of forest growth, this permitted great crops for a few years then a rapid decline in production, characteristic of the South till they hit the "Black Belt" of very rich soil, which starts in the middle of Georgia and goes as far West as Arkansas, but only in the middle third of Georgia, Alabama and Mississippi, the rest of the south is marginal when compared to the "Black Belt" lands, productive till the soil was depleted).
Like the Middle Colonies you had a mixture of the Scot-Irish with the people following them, but in the south it tended to be English of second son stock. The Second Son stock always wanted to make a killing and then return home with more money they his older brother had been given when the older brother inherited all of the ancestry land. This mix, Second Sons and Scot-Irish combined with a fear of a slave revolt lead to a much higher rate of murder and violence in the South then in New England and the Middle Colonies (And later in the Mid West and even the true West). The key was the mix NOT any individual factor. When the South was "Reconstructed" after the Civil War the North tried to impose certain rules on the South, for example Public Education not only for the children of ex-slaves but even for the Children of poor whites. Some of these reforms survived the ending of Reconstruction (for example the Public School) but others failed (That African-Americans would have the same education and other rights of whites did NOT survive the ending of Reconstruction).
On the other hand the tendency for small groups of men to associated together continued, even as the Sheriff's Patrol was abolished. These small groups continued the traditions they ancestors had developed over the previous 200 years, when the patrol was at full activity. This included tendency to attack African Americans, to fight as individuals, to think in terms of military glory etc (This Military glory thinking existed in the South even during the period from 1870s till WWI when the main source of votes to cut Defense spending was from the South, the South remember the use of Federal Troops to occupy the South during Reconstruction and the efforts those troops did to protect African Americans from attacks by white Southerners, thus Southerners glorified the Military while cutting the Military budget during this time period i.e. from the Civil War till WWI).
Lynching remained a Southern Tradition (Every state had at least one lynching, but lynching was concentrated in the South, which also oppose any land proposed to end it, till the 1930s when one was finally passed, but even then it was not till 1948 that you have a year in American where no one was lynched). Lynching was just one way the traditions of the Southern Patrol survived reconstruction.
Furthermore the above movement of population was NOT even. Southerners settled southern Illinois and Indiana and parts of Ohio (And New Englanders settled on the Great Lakes of these same states while Middle States supplied most of the people who settled in between).
Western Pennsylvania had a huge influx from Virginia before the Germans moved in. Southern Whites and Blacks moved to Michigan in huge numbers starting in the 1920s as the Auto Industry looked for workers (And could no longer import them from Europe).
California was settled by New Englanders in the 1850s, but Southerners started to move into Southern California around 1900 (Southern California was also one of the few areas of the US Southwest that had a majority of Mexican population when annexed to the US in 1848, retaining a huge Mexican population till the mass movement from the South starting with the Completion of the Southern Pacific in the 1880s). In the American West you see a huge expansion of Southern frontier culture starting about the time of the Civil War, then a slow take over by Mid-West types afterward.
I give this example to show the above was NOT some smooth east-west movement. You had a lot of mixing, but at the same time the trend tends to hold, a much more violent South and a much more peaceful North if you look at violence in Society. If you want to look at war, the North can out do the South any day of the Week. Once organized and a goal is set, the North will do what is needed to achieve that goal (Which can be seen in the results of the Civil War), the issue is NOT one of an ability to wage war, but how much that society tolerate internal violence among its members. The North does NOT encourage such violence as much as the south. It may be the history of Slavery, it may be who settled the South (More likely a combination of both and other factors) but it exists. The difference is NOT as great as it was as late as the 1950s, but it still exists. Drugs and Poverty are major factors, but as pointed out elsewhere, while you see an increase in murders by non-relatives and friends in the rest of the Nation, you do NOT see that in the American South, mostly do to the fact how high the Murder rate is between relatives and friends in the South. Furthermore, except for a brief period in the early 1990s, Murder rates have been DROPPING nationally since the 1960s. This is during a period where Poverty, increased (starting with Reagan and his cuts on the Social Programs of this Nation), you see a steady decrease in Murder. When the Steel Mills of the Pittsburgh area all closed down in the early 1980s, you did NOT see an increase in Violence or Crimes in those Communities.
It is NOT poverty per se that leads to Violence and Murder, but how the society as a whole handles Violence and Murder. If it is NOT tolerated, it is NOT tolerated. And what I mean is NOT criminal sanctions; every state has those, but tolerance by other members of society. In the South, other members of Society are more willing to accept someone who will fight if he feels "dishonored" in any way. In the North, Northerners will tend to avoid such people, preferring someone who laughs off such "attack" on their honor. It is a major difference and one that explains the much higher Southern Murder Rate then any thing else and that rate is tied in with what I have written above.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
