“NO SACRIFICE IS TOO GREAT, SAVE THAT OF HONOR”: HONOR, DEATH, AND PSYCHOLOGICAL COMBAT TRAUMA IN THE AMERICAN CIVIL WAR By C2009 Debra J. Sheffer B. S. Central Missouri State University, 1981 M.A. Central Missouri State University, 1986 Submitted to the Department of History and the Faculty of the Graduate School of the University of Kansas in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Committee Members: _____________________________ (Dr. Theodore A. Wilson: chair) ______________________________ (Dr. Roger Spiller) ______________________________ (Dr. Jonathan Earle) ______________________________ (Dr. Paul Kelton) ______________________________ (Dr. Brent Steele) Date defended:_April 8, 2009______ The Dissertation Committee for Debra J. Sheffer certifies that this is the approved version of the following dissertation. “NO SACRIFICE IS TOO GREAT, SAVE THAT OF HONOR”: HONOR, DEATH, AND PSYCHOLOGICAL COMBAT TRAUMA IN THE AMERICAN CIVIL WAR Committee: ___________________________________ (Dr. Theodore A. Wilson: Chairperson) _________________________________ (Dr. Roger Spiller) _________________________________ (Dr. Jonathan Earle) _________________________________ (Dr. Paul Kelton) _________________________________ (Dr. Brent Steele) Date approved: _April 20, 2009_________ ii “NO SACRIFICE IS TOO GREAT, SAVE THAT OF HONOR”: HONOR, DEATH, AND PSYCHOLOGICAL COMBAT TRAUMA IN THE AMERICAN CIVIL WAR By Debra J. Sheffer Ph.D., University of Kansas, 2009 Submitted to the Department of History and the Faculty of the Graduate School of the University of Kansas in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Abstract Examination of honor culture and attitudes toward death and dying found in letters, diaries, and newspapers – from the colonial and revolutionary period through the Civil War era – strongly suggests that Civil War soldiers did not suffer from psychological combat trauma. Psychological combat trauma is as much a part of today’s war as uniforms and ammunition, but this was not the reality for Civil War Americans. The truth is that all wars are terrible for those who fight them, and physical stresses of battle have been part of warfare in every age. Twentieth-century ideas of the psychological effects of war differ vastly from those of the nineteenth century. Civil War battle offered potential for psychiatric trauma. Civil War soldiers, however, lived in a time of different expectations and beliefs about honor and death and dying. Expectations for psychiatric trauma for these soldiers did not exist. This dissertation uses research in honor culture, masculinity studies, and attitudes toward death and dying to illustrate the idea that nineteenth-century cultural ideals of honor and death reduced or prevented psychological consequences of combat in Civil War soldiers. iii Acknowledgments The list of people is long, and words are inadequate to serve as a thank you to some of the many who helped me with this project. Gratitude falls into two categories: thanks to those who provided valuable assistance; indebtedness to those who actually made the project possible. Many contributed to this project with assistance – and I know I will probably forget to mention some of them, for which I apologize. Library staffs at the University of Kansas, Carlisle, West Point, and the National Archives were patient and generous with their time and help in locating materials for me. Several people provided valuable feedback and input when reviewing my paper at conference presentations: Henry Gole, Ethan Rafuse, Derek Frisby – thank you all. Your comments strengthened my work. Professors, colleagues, and classmates at the University of Kansas, at West Point, and at Park University over the last few years have critiqued, commented, and supported my work. Many thanks go to John Jumara, Jason Palmer, Jennifer Weber, Karl Brooks, Karl Rubis, Lon Strauss, and Kristen Epps. Thanks are due to my law enforcement friends, who not only helped me to better understand the physiology of acute stress reactions as a result of deadly force encounters, but two of whom provided me personal experiences to use in the project. Jeffery Cowdrey, Leonard Hill, and Charles Huth have my thanks. iv Members of the B-Club have not only made valuable commentary upon my work over the years, but they have also provided a wonderful support system and friendship. John Curatola, Kevin Benson, Candy Ruff – thank you, thank you, thank you. You have been there for me in ways I hope I can repay. My committee members, of course, deserve many thanks. They have taken valuable time from their schedules to read and comment on my ideas and drafts. I thank Jonathan Earle, Brent Steele, and Paul Kelton for their time and work on my behalf. My project is much improved as a result. Two committee members are simply beyond thanking with mere words. Ted Wilson and Roger Spiller have been very generous with their time and effort. Roger not only guided my thinking about PTSD, but more than anyone, he made me think about thinking. Words are especially unsatisfactory to express my indebtedness to Ted Wilson. Like many others, adequate thanks would add an entire chapter to the project. He has been a constant source of strength, wisdom, support, guidance, and knowledge from our first contact. Without him, this project would not have happened. Thank you, Dr. Wilson. Four other people made this project possible, and without them, I would never have accomplished its completion. My mom helped me develop an incredible work ethic. My husband, Mike, and my kids, Colt and Taylor, have contributed time, patience, and labor to this project. They took on extra chores to free my time; they v gave up time with me so I could study and travel for research. Most importantly, they believed I could do this. This project belongs to all of us. Thank you. vi “NO SACRIFICE IS TOO GREAT, SAVE THAT OF HONOR”: HONOR, DEATH, AND PSYCHOLOGICAL COMBAT TRAUMA IN THE AMERICAN CIVIL WAR Table of Contents Title Page Acceptance Page ii Abstract iii Acknowledgements iv Table of Contents vii Introduction: A Tale of Two Cops 1 Chapter 1: War – the Father of All 23 Chapter 2: The Invention of Shell Shock 53 Chapter 3: Some Things Never Change – Combat Physiology 95 Chapter 4: Dying in the Face of Death 126 Chapter 5: That Thing Called Honor 173 Chapter 6: Manhood Calls for War 205 Chapter 7: Honor Calls for War 244 Conclusion: They Had It - They Had It Not 272 Bibliography 282 vii Introduction: A Tale of Two Cops “The theme of honor is a giant in the mighty band of concepts commonly invoked to justify or control human behaviour. It is a giant that can smother us if we are not careful in our study of it. It has entered into most amazingly wide employment.”1 Geoffrey Best Three men were experiencing acute stress reaction. Two veteran police officers faced an armed criminal they had arrested numerous times before. On each occasion during the confrontation, the gunman pointed his weapon at Lenny H., and the officers had their weapons drawn. With this fourth threat, Lenny’s partner, Gary T., pulled the trigger and killed the gunman. Though their department cleared the officers of any wrongdoing, legal battles with the dead man’s family ensued for nearly two years. Lenny’s partner committed suicide shortly after the incident. Once the legal battle ended, Lenny thought he could finally move on with his life and career. That was when the spiders appeared in his bed every night. He could not sleep. He did not believe his wife when she assured him the spiders did not exist. He underwent psychiatric therapy and counseling for over a year before he developed coping mechanisms to get him through his nightmares. Today, he seems fully recovered, but when he talks about the incident all those years ago, he always points 1 Geoffrey Best. Honour Among Men and Nations: Transformations of an Idea. The 1981 Joanne Goodman Lectures. Toronto, Buffalo, London: The University of Toronto Press, 1982, 6-7. 1 over his left shoulder when he mentions Gary. That’s where Gary was standing at the time of the shooting. Another officer, Jeff C., a twelve-year homicide veteran, shot and killed a criminal in the line of duty. His reaction was much different from those of Lenny and Gary. He did not react. He proceeded with life and career as usual. Today, he shrugs his shoulders and says he has had no adverse after-affects from the incident – no big deal. Lenny and Jeff do not know one another. I shared each one’s story with the other. Lenny thinks Jeff is doing a great job of putting up a brave front but thinks that Jeff is probably engaging in some compensatory behavior; if not, he will falter or even break some day. Jeff disagrees. He declares he is fine, and he has functioned normally in every way during the years since the incident. Lenny and Jeff are both highly-trained, experienced, veteran police officers who have conducted themselves well under fire many times. Yet their reactions to these incidents are nearly opposite. One of the differences in their experiences is that Lenny lost a brother officer to suicide as a result of the incident; Jeff did not. They each reacted acceptably and appropriately after the incident. The point of the illustration for our purposes is the debate surrounding Jeff’s behavior since the incident. Lenny is not the only one who expects Jeff to break or have negative psychological reactions to the experience. The possibility exists that Jeff will never experience negative psychological consequences as a result of the shooting incident. Those around him are reluctant to accept that possibility. Americans of the mid- 2 nineteenth-century and earlier would have expected Jeff to continue to function normally, as he has, with no ill effects from the experience.