Northern Honor vs. Southern Honor

United States, 1850

Great stuff … it sheds light on the 313Chris vs. Stonelifter feud.

Southern honor:

Welcome back to our series on manly honor. Today we tackle Southern honor in the 19 th century. Now, be prepared: this is and will be the longest post in the series by far. The complexity of traditional honor and its various cultural manifestations cannot possibly be underestimated, nor can the difficulty in distilling these complexities into an accessible, coherent narrative. We have done our best with that task so far, and here as well; however, understanding Southern honor requires a more in-depth exploration. We could have just sketched out the very basics, but truly grasping those basics necessitates an understanding of the framework which underlies them. Also, as we shall see, because the South’s culture of honor still influences that region today, it’s a good subject to become knowledgeable about if you want to understand the country. Plus, it’s just really interesting! …

Northern honor:

In our last post, I said that Northern and Southern honor would be covered in one article, 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 that emerged as a result of its creation – tensions that are still with us today. So if you haven’t read that post yet, I recommend doing so before jumping into this one….

This entry was posted in American North, American South, Culture. Bookmark the permalink.
  • Mosin Nagant

    The concern of the New Testament is with our eternal destinies primarily, rather than temporal affairs, while the Old Testament taken out of the context of the New appears to be concerned with the temporal only, and says nothing clearly about the eternal. The Talmudists misinterpret it without the New. The Gospel of the New Testament of Jesus Christ is the fulfillment, and the key to right interpretation of the Old Testament — and whole Bible is the foundation of Western civilisation.

  • http://svigor.wordpress.com Svigor

    Re: Old Testamentalism:

    Scripture ain’t “Old Testamentalism.”

    The Old Testament is to be interpreted in the light of the New Testament.

    The reverse is also true. The relevant text from the NT is “not a jot or tittle” of the old law will pass away.

    “Pulling quotes” from the Old out of the context of the New is not good. The Bible is neither a political science nor a biology text.

    Interpretation’s between a believer and his God.

  • Mosin Nagant

    Re: “Not a jot or tittle”:

    But in Christ we are made free from the curse of the Law. We may be talking past each other, Svigor, et al. The criticism of my NEW Testament quotation seems in error, because the New Testament does NOT teach “Universalism” and it still says what it says.

    Re: “Interpretation’s between a believer and his God.”

    Some interpretation is more or less accurate than other interpretation. Rightly or wrongly divided is a black or white issue.

  • Mosin Nagant

    Clarification of “it still says what it says”: I mean that the New Testament is what it is, not that the New Testament says what “”Universalism” says.

    Remember, this long digression began with the discussion of what is CHRISTIAN honour.

  • http://www.thewhitechrist.wordpress.com Fr. John+

    Mosin- the Law of God is not a curse to Covenant HOLDERS, only to Covenant BREAKERS.

    If Whites act as they should (covenant holders) the Law is righteous, holy, and good, and is the means to transform a society.

    The non-whites (merely by not being US) are covenant breakers predestinatedly. They will ALWAYS seek to destroy the Law of God, wherever it arises.

    That is why Jews, Blacks, mestizos, and Asians are not the White Man’s friend. They know they will never be us. They hate our laws (and all Western law is based on the Law of God) and want to revert back to some variant of a satanic law code that is merely a codified excuse for organized cruelty.

    Only a White Man’s law, in a White man’s world, can give a White Man’s civilization.
    Theonomy or chaos. It’s that simple. And any antinomian BS won’t do anyone any good, whether it comes from waffling Lutheran law, egalitarian gobbledygook, or Jewish talmudic racial supremacist law.

  • http://www.thewhitechrist.wordpress.com Fr. John+

    That’s why, as good as Michael Hill’s recent column may be-
    http://dixienet.org/rights/2012/a_fundamental_truth.php

    The Law of the People is a DEMONIC Law, when cut off from the only unchanging Law Word- the Law of God. That is why what Judge Roy Moore did with keeping the Ten Commandments up in his court room, made the Satanists go berserk. They HATE the law of God- all satanists do, whether they are Anton LaVey, or Billy Graham.

    For Graham is an operational satanist to give his allegiance to an antichrist State, known as Israel. He clearly (as do all dispensationalists) worships Satan (and his seed- Gen. 3:15) than Christ and His seed. [I John 3:2]

  • Mosin Nagant

    Fr John, I agree that the Law is good and right — when understood in light of the New Testament, which treats it differently than Talmud, but is still NOT antinomian.

    When you wrote “the Law is…the means to transform a society” you did not mean the Law in the sense of the Mosaic code that Peter said no one has ever been able to keep.

  • Lynda

    Historically Western jurisprudence was based upon the Apostolic Constitutions of the Western Patriarchate – Rome. Please reference the Magna Charta and the Declaration of Arbroath. Representative government was guaranteed by monarchy and these were not at liberty to rule according to their whims. They had to rule on the basis of Apostolic Law coming from the Church.

    Remember Henry’s famous divorce. He was not at liberty to claim supremacy over the laws of the Church under Magna Charta – signed by every bishop and abbot in England.

    We all know how that turned out.

    Usury would be an even better example. To get usury and Jew money trusts the monarchy and later the Parliamentarians claiming the supremacy had to overthrow both Church and state.