Rape in the Civil War

Status
Not open for further replies.

5fish

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2019
Messages
10,626
Reaction score
4,544
Here a look...


Snip...

On March 12, 1864, in the midst of a bloody war which had long overflowed its thimble, Margaret Brooks was returning from her home near Memphis, Tennessee when her wagon broke down in Nonconnah Creek. Not long after her driver left to find help, three rambunctious New Jersey cavalrymen, all white, approached Brooks, demanding her money. She was then raped multiple times at gunpoint.

snip..

Throughout the Civil War around 400 men were prosecuted for sexual violence crimes against women such as the 24 year-old Margaret Brooks, calling into question the issues of sexism and racism in nineteenth century society. Historians will sometimes consider the American Civil War to be an anomaly among other wars because they claim the adversaries did not use widespread sexual violence as a battle tactic. However, cases of rape and assault against women, particularly African American and Southern, can still be found in unsettling numbers, littering the pages of the war’s history.

Snip...

Some women were able to confront their attackers and bring the crime to light on their own, such as Sarrah Beuford, who followed her assailant into his encampment; when he threatened to shoot her if she would not keep quiet, Beuford promptly reported him. Other cases, however, went unreported for a long time, implying that the number of rape and sexual assault cases during the Civil War is likely much higher than the number of those recorded. Ten-year-old America Pearman’s rape was not exposed until she was examined by an army doctor, who was able to determine that her hymen had been torn as a result of assault by a soldier

 

5fish

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2019
Messages
10,626
Reaction score
4,544
Here a ;little more...


snip...

Black women were in even more danger. Rape was one of the many horrors of slavery, though whites rarely recognized it as such. Interestingly, it was only in the context of war that Southern whites for the first time were forced to acknowledge the rape of black women. In the spring of 1863, John N. Williams of the 7th Tennessee Regiment wrote in his diary, “Heard from home. The Yankees has been through there. Seem to be their object to commit rape on every Negro woman they can find.” Many times, troops and ruffians raped black women while forcing white women to watch, a horrifying experience for all, and a proxy rape of white women. B. E. Harrison of Leesburg, Va., wrote a letter to President Abraham Lincoln complaining that federal troops had raped his “servant girl” in the presence of his wife. Gen. William Dwight reported, “Negro women were ravished in the presence of white women and children.” Just as the rape of white women implied that Southern men were unable to protect their mothers, wives and daughters, the rape of slave women told whites they could no longer protect their property.

snip...

Union military courts prosecuted at least 450 cases involving sexual crimes. In North Carolina during the spring of 1865, Pvt. James Preble “did by physical force and violence commit rape upon the person of one Miss Letitia Craft.” When Perry Holland of the 1st Missouri Infantry confessed to the rape of Julia Anderson, a white woman in Tennessee, he was sentenced to be shot, but his sentence was later commuted. Catherine Farmer, also of Tennessee, testified that Lt. Harvey John of the 49th Ohio Infantry dragged her into the bushes and told her he would kill her if she did not “give it to him.” He tore her dress, broke her hoops and “put his private parts into her,” for which he was sentenced to 10 years in prison. In Georgia, Albert Lane, part of Company B, in the 100th Regiment of Ohio Volunteers, was also sentenced to 10 years because he “did on or about the 11th day of July, 1864 … upon one Miss Louisa Dickerson … then and there forcibly and against her will, feloniously did ravish and carnally know her.”
 

Leftyhunter

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2020
Messages
1,303
Reaction score
302
There
The Atlantic magazine interview with author Kim Murphy about her book on the topic

is a lot of fascination with Union troops raping but none at all over the massive amount of rape commited by US troops in Mexico mostly by Southern men nor the massive amounts of rapes commited by US troops in France and Germany plus some in Italy.No doubt US troops raped Philpina women plus of course Korea and Vietnam.
Yes German troops raped Soviet women and Soviet troops raped German woman.
Rape and war go together always have and always will.
Interestingly enough one doesn't hear about Israeli troops raping Palestinian woman not to say it never happened.
US troops in the ACW may very well have raped less the Southern US troops in Mexico or the US Army in other conflicts so what's the big deal?
Leftyhunter
 

byron ed

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2020
Messages
873
Reaction score
296
Let's not dilute the the immediacy of what happened in the Civil War by comparison to what happened in other major wars.

The big deal is; it's too easy just to trivialize or distract that this is just "what happens in war"

The big deal is; to recognize and tabulate the extent of this kind of assault in our history for the purpose of moving it from "an interesting aside" into general context of historical study, in this case about the Civil War.

And lastly the big deal is; that women have a voice in our common history that has yet to fully express. This was an issue of real consequence in everyday life for women back then, which remains so for women today. In other words it's not just dusty old history.

One take-away from the article that made an impression on me was that a threat of kidnap, blackmail or even physical violence were yet considered "persuasion" legally, not reaching the level of assault because the women ultimately gave-in of her own volition. Inherently a woman (as often a woman-child) must demonstrate she was willing to die in defense of her honor before anything would be done about it. She must show signs of a serious physical beating or whatever before any charge would be levied against her assailant, and before the scars healed. Of course in the heat of war there was no authority to complain to in the first place, and on Southern plantations the only authority to complain to was the assailant himself.
 
Last edited:

Leftyhunter

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2020
Messages
1,303
Reaction score
302
Let's not dilute the the immediacy of what happened in the Civil War by comparison to what happened in other major wars.

The big deal is; it's too easy just to trivialize or distract that this is just "what happens in war"

The big deal is; to recognize and tabulate the extent of this kind of assault in our history for the purpose of moving it from "an interesting aside" into general context of historical study, in this case about the Civil War.

And lastly the big deal is; that women have a voice in our common history that has yet to fully express. This was an issue of real consequence in everyday life for women back then, which remains so for women today. In other words it's not just dusty old history.

One take-away from the article that made an impression on me was that a threat of kidnap, blackmail or even physical violence were yet considered "persuasion" legally, not reaching the level of assault because the women ultimately gave-in of her own volition. Inherently a woman (as often a woman-child) must demonstrate she was willing to die in defense of her honor before anything would be done about it. She must show signs of a serious physical beating or whatever before any charge would be levied against her assailant, and before the scars healed. Of course in the heat of war there was no authority to complain to in the first place, and on Southern plantations the only authority to complain to was the assailant himself.
No doubt it sucked to be a female in the Nineteenth Century and it really sucked to be in a war zone. There was an NPR radio article and of all the reported rapes in Louisville, Kentucky only five percent ended in convictions and that is with DNA technology. Point is rape didn't go away post ACW.
At the website that shall not be named Pro Confedrate posters tried to use a broad brush that all Union soldiers were brutes against delicate Southern women.
In reality sometimes the same woman who shamed their men into killing Yankees ended up in a not so great position underneath said Yankee's.
Soldiers rape and water is wet. It's not fair and it takes really good NCOs and officers to stop rape. The ACW wasn't the first war where American soldiers raped and sure wasn't the last one.
Rape is part of war it's tragic but both sides in a conflict don't really understand that if their soldiers cant protect the homeland their woman folk are fair game.
Leftyhunter
 
Last edited:

MattL

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2019
Messages
203
Reaction score
439
Black women were in even more danger. Rape was one of the many horrors of slavery, though whites rarely recognized it as such. Interestingly, it was only in the context of war that Southern whites for the first time were forced to acknowledge the rape of black women. In the spring of 1863, John N. Williams of the 7th Tennessee Regiment wrote in his diary, “Heard from home. The Yankees has been through there. Seem to be their object to commit rape on every Negro woman they can find.”
Interesting. Seemingly 200 years of Southerners raping slaves wasn't recognized as such, when Northerners did it then they saw it as rape.

Unfortunately women of the time had the short end of the stick pretty much wherever they were and black women doubly so.
 

diane

that gal
Joined
Mar 18, 2020
Messages
2,412
Reaction score
3,045
I believe there's more significance to the rape of personal slaves than has been put forth. Slavery was even more important to white women as evidence of their social status, prosperity and the good choice of a providing husband - many women brought slaves to the marriage as part of their dowry, or were given some upon wedding. Grant, for instance, owned one slave but his wife had four or five I believe from her father. Starting the marriage off with 'someone to do for you' was a status symbol. They became an important part of the family. Black Julia, Julia's personal servant and nanny, was devoted to her. This was a unique type of female bonding by people who had a lot in common despite the obvious barriers. Women took the emancipation of slaves harder than the men. Men lost income, women lost status. So, assaulting the female slave had psychological rape built into it.
 

Wehrkraftzersetzer

Hüter des Reinheitsgebotes
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
1,993
Reaction score
1,171
Napoleon made it illegal to accuse a French soldier of rape committed outside France

Inside France the police didn't even investigate (besides a powerful family was "harmed")
 
Last edited by a moderator:

byron ed

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2020
Messages
873
Reaction score
296
I believe there's more significance to the rape of personal slaves than has been put forth.
...by heritage white historians, that is. It's never been hard for former or descendant personal slaves to claim a lot of significance to it. There's a trend to re-establish the primacy of the African-American experience in the Antevellum and Civil War generally. Clearly there were three sides to the Civil War, not two.

...assaulting the female slave had psychological rape built into it.
...of course actual rape is of first significance to victims. I don't dispute that "psychological rape" is a real thing, but it's a post-modern concept, and then only in context. Who among us would be comfortable to claim something like "a quarter of all rapes were psychological"?
 
Last edited:

diane

that gal
Joined
Mar 18, 2020
Messages
2,412
Reaction score
3,045
Rape is part of war no matter who it is or where it is. Sometimes it is sanctioned and sometimes it isn't. But it has always been a psychological tool as well as a physical one.
 

byron ed

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2020
Messages
873
Reaction score
296
...The ACW wasn't the first war where American soldiers raped and sure wasn't the last one.
Rape is part of war it's tragic but both sides in a conflict don't really understand that if their soldiers cant protect the homeland their woman folk are fair game...
Rape is part of war no matter who it is or where it is...
Again, let's not dilute the the immediacy of what happened in the Civil War by comparison to what happened in other major wars.

To bring up that rape is just "what happens in war" distracts from the unique setting of what happened to African-American women in the Antebellum and Civil War period, and it borders on excuse for not giving the specific topic a more thorough analysis.
 

diane

that gal
Joined
Mar 18, 2020
Messages
2,412
Reaction score
3,045
Well, it's not 'just what happens in war' it's what happens in war. Death, doom, despair and pestilence just happens, too. Sherman may have been mild in saying "War is hell". War is one of the most primitive things we do and it never gets any less so.
 

byron ed

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2020
Messages
873
Reaction score
296
Well, it's not 'just what happens in war' it's what happens in war. Death, doom, despair and pestilence just happens...War is one of the most primitive things we do and it never gets any less...
To suppose this a general discussion on the horrors of war. Well ok, but I'm pretty certain everybody's already on the right side of that one (PTL!)

Per the OP, there were conditions for rape unique to the Civil War. Anything on that then?
 
Last edited:

byron ed

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2020
Messages
873
Reaction score
296
Rape is part of war no matter who it is or where it is...
Which is news to no one, but ok.

...Sometimes it is sanctioned and sometimes it isn't...
Again, news to to no one. Where are you going with that?

...But it has always been a psychological tool as well as a physical one.
Here's push back on that one. Rape is not always a psychological tool. Often there's no motive beyond the physical one.

We are all steeped in the contemporary victim rights' movement -- no need for a lecture on that -- but that actually espouses that there's always a psychological consequence for the victim (regardless of the attackers motive; of which there may be none beyond physical gratification). It's also to account the emotional impact of rape, which is usually the bigger thing.

But anyway yes, it's fair to apply contemporary insights about rape to the past history of it -- which I believe this author is doing.
 
Last edited:

MattL

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2019
Messages
203
Reaction score
439
Again, let's not dilute the the immediacy of what happened in the Civil War by comparison to what happened in other major wars.

To bring up that rape is just "what happens in war" distracts from the unique setting of what happened to African-American women in the Antebellum and Civil War period, and it borders on excuse for not giving the specific topic a more thorough analysis.
Any individual concept only makes sense in context. You can't with be both genuine in wanting to evaluate a topic and not evaluate the context in which that topic sits within. This says nothing about moral judgements on what is good, bad, excusable, inexcusable, etc. It's completely objective and neutral and essential.

Rape in the Civil War can only be validly evaluated in context of antebellum rape and war rape of the era. I think we all can agree that all rape is bad, period, and inexcusable period, and can move on to giving the topic and it's context a "thorough analysis" as you say.

To continue this context, I imagine the widespread knowledge of widespread white master rapings of their slaves certainly played a part in the consideration of white Union soldiers. Likewise we have a variety of accounts of wartime looting from fellow Southerners amongst each-other, I imagine that also translated to rapings, both of White and Black women.
 

MattL

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2019
Messages
203
Reaction score
439
Which is news to no one, but ok.



Again, news to to no one. Where are you going with that?



Here's push back on that one. Rape is not always a psychological tool. Often there's no motive beyond the physical one.

We are all steeped in the contemporary victim rights' movement -- no need for a lecture on that -- but that actually espouses that there's always a psychological consequence for the victim (regardless of the attackers motive; of which there may be none beyond physical gratification). It's also to account the emotional impact of rape, which is usually the bigger thing.

But anyway yes, it's fair to apply contemporary insights about rape to the past history of it -- which I believe this author is doing.

Victim's rights is nothing contemporary. Victim's always had rights, they just were violated and ignored with rare consideration (keeping in mind not all raping was without consequence, just a rarity).

Though on the topic of the psychological consequences. The already high levels of Black slave rape and White women rape in Southern society (and society in general in all the US at the time) combined with an assumed increase due to war time (though I guess we have to factor in so much of the male population off to war having an incidental reduction in certain type of rape) might have left an increased psychological impact on Southern women (Black or White) society.
 

MattL

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2019
Messages
203
Reaction score
439
I believe there's more significance to the rape of personal slaves than has been put forth. Slavery was even more important to white women as evidence of their social status, prosperity and the good choice of a providing husband - many women brought slaves to the marriage as part of their dowry, or were given some upon wedding. Grant, for instance, owned one slave but his wife had four or five I believe from her father. Starting the marriage off with 'someone to do for you' was a status symbol. They became an important part of the family. Black Julia, Julia's personal servant and nanny, was devoted to her. This was a unique type of female bonding by people who had a lot in common despite the obvious barriers. Women took the emancipation of slaves harder than the men. Men lost income, women lost status. So, assaulting the female slave had psychological rape built into it.
Very good and interesting points. I guess there are a lot of dynamics to this that I haven't considered before. Probably with a lot of different ones depending on the specific household. Such as the White women might have had psychological satisfaction from the rape of a husband raping a slave out of jealousy and/or anger for their husband doing it at all. Thinking if they chose the slave to sleep with instead of them the damage done to the slave might have satisfied them in vengeance. Also I guess there might have been reverse cases too. Many white women who didn't care or like their husband, not having much choice in the marriage often at the time, and might have been happy for their husband to focus their attentions elsewhere.

It definitely gets very complicated when you factor all the different aspects into cultural psychology.
 

diane

that gal
Joined
Mar 18, 2020
Messages
2,412
Reaction score
3,045
Well, Mr Byron ed, your author did well explaining why the rape statistics are lower than they should be - very hard to report it and then it's to be handled by an all male judiciary. If you're non-white in that day, nominal recourse and you're automatically considered to have complied with it by merely being of color. Yes, indeed, a soldier would get away with it that way a lot easier than with a white woman. There's where status comes in. Poor white women had just about the same options as non-white.

Once in a while the soldiers did not get away with it so easily. Forrest's men once came upon a half dozen Union soldiers engaged in this at a farm and killed every one of them. Period. It was duly reported to Union authorities and duly filed with no comments or further action. Custer did the same thing when he encountered two women running down the road toward him, pointing out their attackers, who were two of his own command. He nailed one with a hatchet, the other appears to have survived a pretty good thumping. No official report but credible eye witness account. It needs to be noted the victims in both these cases were white. If they had not been, likely nothing would have happened to the soldiers involved.

Invading armies everywhere have a psychological warfare more or less built into the species, one might say. We're taking all you have - and we mean ALL - and you can do nothing about it. We won - this proves it. Sherman was again right - you can't refine war.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top