Actual History Of Violence In the Old West by out2theblack

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Actual History Of Violence In the Old West

POSTED BY: OUT2THEBLACK
UPDATED: Tuesday, October 5, 2010 15:27
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 1005
PAGE 1 of 1

Monday, October 4, 2010 7:06 PM

...is not consistent with the wholly-weird myths propogated by media moguls.

The Culture of Violence in the American West: Myth versus Reality

By Thomas J. DiLorenzo

This article appeared in the Fall 2010 issue of The Independent Review

"...Contrary to popular perception, the Old West was much more peaceful than American cities are today. The real culture of violence on the frontier during the latter half of the nineteenth century sprang from the U.S. government’s policies toward the Plains Indians."

http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?a=803

The Not-So-Wild, Wild West

"...In a thorough review of the “West was violent” literature, Bruce Benson (1998) discovered that many historians simply assume that violence was pervasive—even more so than in modern-day America—and then theorize about its likely causes. In addition, some authors assume that the West was very violent and then assert, as Joe Franz does, that “American violence today reflects our frontier heritage” (Franz 1969, qtd. in Benson 1998, 98). Thus, an allegedly violent and stateless society of the nineteenth century is blamed for at least some of the violence in the United States today.

In a book-length survey of the “West was violent” literature, historian Roger McGrath echoes Benson’s skepticism about this theory when he writes that “the frontier-was-violent authors are not, for the most part, attempting to prove that the frontier was violent. Rather, they assume that it was violent and then proffer explanations for that alleged violence” (1984, 270).

In contrast, an alternative literature based on actual history concludes that the civil society of the American West in the nineteenth century was not very violent. Eugene Hollon writes that the western frontier “was a far more civilized, more peaceful and safer place than American society today” (1974, x). Terry Anderson and P. J. Hill affirm that although “[t]he West . . . is perceived as a place of great chaos, with little respect for property or life,” their research “indicates that this was not the case; property rights were protected and civil order prevailed. Private agencies provided the necessary basis for an orderly society in which property was protected and conflicts were resolved” (1979, 10).

What were these private protective agencies? They were not governments because they did not have a legal monopoly on keeping order. Instead, they included such organizations as land clubs, cattlemen’s associations, mining camps, and wagon trains.

So-called land clubs were organizations established by settlers before the U.S. government even surveyed the land, let alone started to sell it or give it away. Because disputes over land titles are inevitable, the land clubs adopted their own constitutions, laying out the “laws” that would define and protect property rights in land (Anderson and Hill 1979, 15). They administered land claims, protected them from outsiders, and arbitrated disputes. Social ostracism was used effectively against those who violated the rules. Establishing property rights in this way minimized disputes—and violence.

The wagon trains that transported thousands of people to the California gold fields and other parts of the West usually established their own constitutions before setting out. These constitutions often included detailed judicial systems. As a consequence, writes Benson, “[t]here were few instances of violence on the wagon trains even when food became extremely scarce and starvation threatened. When crimes against persons or their property were committed, the judicial system . . . would take effect” (1998, 102). Ostracism and threats of banishment from the group, instead of threats of violence, were usually sufficient to correct rule breakers’ behavior.

Dozens of movies have portrayed the nineteenth-century mining camps in the West as hot beds of anarchy and violence, but John Umbeck discovered that, beginning in 1848, the miners began forming contracts with one another to restrain their own behavior (1981, 51). There was no government authority in California at the time, apart from a few military posts. The miners’ contracts established property rights in land (and in any gold found on the land) that the miners themselves enforced. Miners who did not accept the rules the majority adopted were free to mine elsewhere or to set up their own contractual arrangements with other miners. The rules that were adopted were often consequently established with unanimous consent (Anderson and Hill 1979, 19). As long as a miner abided by the rules, the other miners defended his rights under the community contract. If he did not abide by the agreed-on rules, his claim would be regarded as “open to any [claim] jumpers” (Umbeck 1981, 53).

The mining camps hired “enforcement specialists”—justices of the peace and arbitrators—and developed an extensive body of property and criminal law. As a result, there was very little violence and theft. The fact that the miners were usually armed also helps to explain why crime was relatively infrequent. Benson concludes, “The contractual system of law effectively generated cooperation rather than conflict, and on those occasions when conflict arose it was, by and large, effectively quelled through nonviolent means” (1998, 105).

When government bureaucrats failed to police cattle rustling effectively, ranchers established cattlemen’s associations that drew up their own constitutions and hired private “protection agencies” that were often staffed by expert gunmen. This action deterred cattle rustling. Some of these “gunmen” did “drift in and out of a life of crime,” write Anderson and Hill (1979, 18), but they were usually dealt with by the cattlemen’s associations and never created any kind of large-scale criminal organization, as some have predicted would occur under a regime of private law enforcement.

In sum, this work by Benson, Anderson and Hill, Umbeck, and others challenges with solid historical research the claims made by the “West was violent” authors. The civil society of the American West in the nineteenth century was much more peaceful than American cities are today, and the evidence suggests that in fact the Old West was not a very violent place at all. History also reveals that the expanded presence of the U.S. government was the real cause of a culture of violence in the American West. If there is anything to the idea that a nineteenth-century culture of violence on the American frontier is the genesis of much of the violence in the United States today, the main source of that culture is therefore government, not civil society.

The Real Cause of Violence in the American West

The real culture of violence in the American West of the latter half of the nineteenth century sprang from the U.S. government’s policies toward the Plains Indians. It is untrue that white European settlers were always at war with Indians, as popular folklore contends. After all, Indians assisted the Pilgrims and celebrated the first Thanksgiving with them; John Smith married Pocahontas; a white man (mostly Scots, with some Cherokee), John Ross, was the chief of the Cherokees of Tennessee and North Carolina; and there was always a great deal of trade with Indians, as opposed to violence. As Jennifer Roback has written, “Europeans generally acknowledged that the Indians retained possessory rights to their lands. More important, the English recognized the advantage of being on friendly terms with the Indians. Trade with the Indians, especially the fur trade, was profitable. War was costly” (1992, 9). Trade and cooperation with the Indians were much more common than conflict and violence during the first half of the nineteenth century.

Terry Anderson and Fred McChesney relate how Thomas Jefferson found that during his time negotiation was the Europeans’ predominant means of acquiring land from Indians (1994, 56). By the twentieth century, some $800 million had been paid for Indian lands. These authors also argue that various factors can alter the incentives for trade, as opposed to waging a war of conquest as a means of acquiring land. One of the most important factors is the existence of a standing army, as opposed to militias, which were used in the American West prior to the War Between the States. On this point, Anderson and McChesney quote Adam Smith, who wrote that “‘n a militia, the character of the labourer, artificer, or tradesman, predominates over that of the soldier: in a standing army, that of the soldier predominates over every other character.’” (1994, 52). A standing army, according to Anderson and McChesney, “creates a class of professional soldiers whose personal welfare increases with warfare, even if fighting is a negative-sum act for the population as a whole” (52).

The change from militia to a standing army took place in the American West immediately upon the conclusion of the War Between the States. The result, say Anderson and McChesney, was that white settlers and railroad corporations were able to socialize the costs of stealing Indian lands by using violence supplied by the U.S. Army. On their own, they were much more likely to negotiate peacefully. Thus, “raid” replaced “trade” in white–Indian relations. Congress even voted in 1871 not to ratify any more Indian treaties, effectively announcing that it no longer sought peaceful relations with the Plains Indians.

Anderson and McChesney do not consider why a standing army replaced militias in 1865, but the reason is not difficult to discern. One has only to read the official pronouncements of the soldiers and political figures who launched a campaign of extermination against the Plains Indians"...

Download the full article , PDF File
http://www.independent.org/pdf/tir/tir_15_02_4_dilorenzo.pdf

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 4, 2010 7:43 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Ayep, Dilorenzo knows his stuff - too bad he's been discounted and blackballed for daring to impinge on the 'holy legacy of lincoln' and show that monster up for the evil scumbag he was...

Thing is, that whole possibility of gettin shot thing, well, it does have a deterrent effect - but you know what works even better ?

Raise the difficulty, see, criminals are as a rule kinda lazy, unless they're totally desperate, or egged on by a populace conditioned to go immediately submissive when threatened with force (ours is, but that's a by-product of the powers that be wanting us to be their bitch), generally if you made it difficult to perform the crime to the point where it's more effort than it's worth, they give it a miss.

The second factor there, that's a big problem now that simply WASN'T back then - criminals did not have the expectation of instant meek submission the moment a weapon was displayed, these days, it's their bread and butter, they count on it, depend on it, to the point where even an incompetent, unarmed geek generally cleans their clock cause the moment they meet any resistance whatever they go into mental lockup.

Against those.. act first, act fast.

Other problem is we HAVE made people desperate, so desperate that they're willing to risk it all, and go down in a blaze of glory cause death is preferable to their miserable life, cause instead of there being enough to go around if you could just get your hands on it, grow it, what have you, these days the asshats at the top own every fucking thing, and even planting your own garden could get you a visit from the SWAT team.
http://www.theagitator.com/2009/10/05/federal-swat-raid-over-orchids/

Sooner or later, the starving peons are gonna torch the ivory halls of the lords over that, this is what always happen, cause for all our pretended social advancement, it's just a pretty gloss over the same old story.

The west was "free" and generally safe, and decent, cause the politicians and lawmakers and suchlike weren't out there to screw it up, and when they did get there, that's when it got bad, real bad... look at the history of the UMWA for some examples.

Also, if that fascinates you, O2B, you might try watching Deadwood.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 5, 2010 6:11 AM

PIRATENEWS

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!

By far the most violent perpetraitor has always been Uncle Scam.

That tells you all you need to know about who the enemy is.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 5, 2010 3:20 PM

DREAMTROVE

I concur.

It's been my experience in reading history that societies which represent a viable alternative to the domination of the day are always demonized by the mouthpieces of power. In this case, the old west represents a libertarian society as a functional alternative, and really at relative peace with the native population. The major conflicts were direct military campaigns ordered from washington, which can more or less be divided into a few military campaigns:
1.French and indian war
2.The revolutionary war, with british indian allies
3. Washington's wars (Sullivan's raids et al)
4. The Indian removal act (much more than just the trail of tears, Jackson-Van Buren)
5. The Sioux wars (the union's continuation of the civil war.)

Similarly, religious and economic systems of old are often demonized even if they are more equitable than our own. Before the decay into serfdom, Feudalism was a system in which anyone could rent property, land or business, in exchange for a flat 15% tax on their yield. Compared to this, the system we actually have is far closer to slavery.

Ah well, c'est la vie. Anyway, thanks for the info.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 5, 2010 3:27 PM

CHRISISALL

Yep,

I have met the enemy....

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE