Anybody a pre-Civil War historian?

[Alpo]

I've got a couple of questions, that popped up in a book I'm reading, and I'd like 'em answered by someone that actually knows, from scholarly research, and not by someone that got their info from old movies and reading Uncle Tom's Cabin?

 

I know there are several folks here that know about the Army, both North and South, and afterwards, in the West. But I got a couple of 1860 civilian questions.

[Hardpan Curmudgeon SASS #8967]

So Alpo... what's the question~?

[Utah Bob #35998]

So Alpo... what's the question~?

He dare not post it here lest some wise guy leads him astray.

Now who would do that?

[Subdeacon Joe]

He dare not post it here lest some wise guy leads him astray.

Now who would do that?

 

Not I!

 

But, since he hasn't asked the question, I'll give the all purpose answer:

 

42

[Red Gauntlet , SASS 60619]

I gladly issue authoritative pronouncements on all such matters!

[Badger Mountain Charlie SASS #43172]

Not only did I study the era in depth, I LIVED IT!

[Alpo]

Two questions from the same book.

 

This is May of 1860. One little girl asked the other one if she needed "to go to the toilet". Toilet was used for what you did first thing in the morning. Wash, comb your hair, brush your teeth, shave. That's why it's called a "toilet kit" or "toilet water". Neither of them have anything to do with ye olde porcelain throne. So, in that time frame, would evacuating your bowels be called, "going to the toilet". I could see saying, "Go to the privy" or "Go to the outhouse", but "toilet"? Upon receiving an affirmative answer, the two girls went out to the "women's patch of woods" (they were at a tent-meeting/revival), and each stood guard while the other took care of business.

 

The two girls were the plantation owner's kid and her personal slave. This was common. Give the new white baby a little black baby of his/her own, and they grow up together as playmates and companions, since neighbors were usually a far piece away. So the white girl said something, the black girl did not respond "right", the white girl pushed her, the black girl pushed back, and it ended up as a slapping match. After it's over, the black girl is worried, 'cause she scraped her knee and has blood on her skirt. "My Mama's gonna beat me". White girl says, "Who cares about your knee? Look at my nose."

 

Black girl looks and about has heart failure. "They're gonna kill me. Not only is your nose bleeding, but you've got a black eye." White girl says, "So? I did about the same damage to you". Black girl says, "You don't understand. Black child does NOT say no to a white child. Black child does NOT hit a white child. They are gonna kill me."

 

Now, aside from the word "black" (my understanding is "black" was an insult. She'd have said colored, or maybe nigra, but she wouldn't have said "black") I'm having trouble with the great fear.

 

Yes, if Scarlett O'Hara had a personal slave, who slapped her, then Mr. O'Hara would quite possibly turn her over to the overseer, for a little "touching up". But there's a big difference between a 17-year-old "grown woman" and a 8-year-old kid. Kids are expected to scrap. I can see her mama giving her a lickin', ("You know better than to hit Miss Susie, and if you don't, you do now"), but I don't see it going any farther.

[Red Gauntlet , SASS 60619]

There appear to be elements of anachronism in the prose.

 

For instance, back then they would have referred to a porcelain toilet as "the big white telephone."

[Utah Bob #35998]

Making your toilet was a phrase that covered the morning ritual of getting prepared to meet the day, including washing and grooming. "Going to the toilet' is definitely modern.

Depending on the slave owner the little girl could have been merely reprimanded or severely punished for not "knowing her place". Possibly even sold.

I don't have a problem with the use of the word black. There are contemporary works that would suggest it wasn't uncommon, but not as common as today.

[Subdeacon Joe]

From Wikipedia, and I did some cross checking too:

 

Through the 18th century, everywhere in the English-speaking world, these various uses centred around a lady's draped dressing-table remained dominant. In the 19th century, apparently first in the United States,[29] the word was adapted as a genteel euphemism for the room and the object as we know them now, perhaps following the French usage cabinet de toilette, much as powder-room may be coyly used today, and this has been linked to the introduction of public toilets, for example on railway trains, which required a plaque on the door. The original usages have become obsolete, and the table has become a dressing-table.

 

So it is quite possible that the usage in that book is correct.

 

From the dialog, I get the impression of little girls, maybe 7 or under, so there is a good chance that both would get some fundamental education.