Produced by Suzanne Shell and PG Distributed Proofreaders
THE NEW SOUTH
A CHRONICLE OF SOCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL EVOLUTION
BY HOLLAND THOMPSON
1919
[Illustration]
CONTENTS
I. THE BACKGROUND
II. THE CONFEDERATE SOLDIER TAKES CHARGE
III. THE REVOLT OF THE COMMON MAN
IV. THE FARMER AND THE LAND
V. INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT
VI. LABOR CONDITIONS
VII. THE PROBLEM OF BLACK AND WHITE
VIII. EDUCATIONAL PROGRESS
IX. THE SOUTH OF TODAY
THE REPUDIATION OF STATE DEBTS
BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTE
INDEX
THE NEW SOUTH
CHAPTER I
THE BACKGROUND
The South of today is not the South of 1860 or even of 1865. There is a
New South, though not perhaps in the sense usually understood, for no
expression has been more often misused in superficial discussion. Men
have written as if the phrase indicated a new land and a new
civilization, utterly unlike anything that had existed before and
involving a sharp break with the history and the traditions of the past.
Nothing could be more untrue. Peoples do not in one generation or in two
rid themselves entirely of characteristics which have been developing
for centuries.
There is a New South, but it is a logical development from the Old
South. The civilization of the South today has not been imposed from
without but has been an evolution from within, though influenced by the
policy of the National Government. The Civil War changed the whole
organization of Southern society, it is true, but it did not modify its
essential attributes, to quote the ablest of the carpetbaggers, Albion
W. Tourgée. Reconstruction strengthened existing prejudices and created
new bitterness, but the attempt failed to make of South Carolina another
Massachusetts. The people resisted stubbornly, desperately, and in the
end successfully, every attempt to impose upon them alien institutions.
The story of Reconstruction has been told elsewhere.[1] A combination of
two ideas--high-minded altruism and a vindictive desire to humiliate a
proud people for partisan advantage--wrought mischief which has not been
repaired in nearly half a century. It is to be doubted, however, whether
Reconstruction actually changed in any essential point the beliefs of
the South. Left to itself, the South would not, after the War, have
given the vote to the negro. When left to itself still later, it took
the ballot away. The South would not normally have accepted the negro as
a social equal. The attempt to force the barrier between the races by
legislation with the aid of bayonets failed. Without the taste of power
during the Reconstruction period, the black South would not have
demanded so much and the determination of the white South to dominate
would not perhaps have been expressed so bitterly; but in any case the
white South would have dominated.
[Footnote 1: See _The Sequel of Appomattox_, by Walter Lynwood Fleming
(in _The Chronicles of America_).]
Economic and industrial development was hindered by Reconstruction. Men
of vision had seen before the War that the South must become more nearly
self-sufficient; and the results of the conflict had emphasized this
idea. The South believed, and believes yet, that it was defeated by the
blockade and not by military force. According to this theory, the North
won because the South could not manufacture goods for its needs, because
it did not possess ships to bring in goods from abroad, and because it
could not build a navy to defend its ports. Today it is clear that the
South never had a chance to win, so long as the will to conquer was firm
in the North. As soon as the War was over, the demand for greater
industrial development made itself felt and gained in strength when
Reconstruction came; but during that period the people had to devote all
their energies to living day by day, hoping for strength to endure.
When property was being confiscated under the forms of law, only to be
squandered by irresponsible legislators, there was little incentive to
remake the industrial system, and the ventures of the Reconstruction
government into industrial affairs were not encouraging. Farm property
in the South--and little was left except farm property after the
War--depreciated in value enormously in the decade following 1860.
Grimly, sullenly, the white man of the South fought again to secure
domination, this time, however, of his own section only and not of the
nation. When this had been achieved, a large portion of the population
was overcome by that deadly apathy so often remarked by travelers who
ventured to visit the land as they would have visited Africa. The white
South wished only to be let alone.
During this apathetic period there was some talk of the natural
resources of the South; but there was little attempt on the part of
Southerners to utilize these resources. There was talk of interesting
foreign capital, but little effective work was done to secure such
capital. Many men feared the new problems which such development might
bring in its train, while others, more numerous, were merely
indifferent or lukewarm. Many of those who vaguely wished for a change
did not know how to set about realizing their desires. The few men who
really worked to stimulate a quicker economic life about 1880 had a
thankless and apparently a hopeless task.
Yet one must be careful not to write of the South as if it were a single
country, inhabited by a homogeneous people. Historians and publicists
have spoken, and continue to speak, of "Southern opinion" and of the
"Southern attitude" as if these could be definitely weighed and
measured. No one who really knows the whole South could be guilty of
such a mistake. The first difficulty is to determine the limits of the
South. The census classification of States is open to objection.
Delaware, Maryland, and West Virginia are included in the South, and so
is Kentucky. Missouri is excluded, but a place is made for the new State
of Oklahoma. As to Delaware and Maryland, there may be a difference of
opinion, though it is difficult to justify the inclusion of the former.
West Virginia is certainly not Southern, socially, politically, or
economically. Kentucky is doubtful, and it is difficult to see why
Missouri should be excluded from any list which includes Kentucky.
Oklahoma is difficult to classify. But, at any rate the South is a
large country, with a great variety of soil, climate, and population. As
the crow flies, the distance from Richmond to Memphis, in an adjoining
State, is greater than from Richmond to Bangor, Maine. From Richmond to
Galveston is farther than from Richmond to Omaha or Duluth. Atlanta is
usually considered to be far down in the South, and yet the distance
from Atlanta to Boston or Minneapolis is less than to El Paso. Again,
New Orleans is nearer to Cincinnati than to Raleigh.
There were, moreover, many racial strains in the South. The Scotch-Irish
of the Piedmont in the Carolinas had, and have yet, little in common
with the French of Louisiana. The lowlander of South Carolina and the
hill men of Arkansas differed in more than economic condition. Even in
the same State, different sections were not in entire accord. In
Virginia and the Carolinas, for example, economic conditions and
traditions--and traditions are yet a power in the South--differed
greatly in different sections.
As the years passed, apathy began to disappear in some parts of the
South. Wiser men recognized that the old had gone never to return. Men
began to face the inevitable. Instead of brooding upon their
grievances, they adjusted themselves, more or less successfully, to the
new economic and social order, and by acting in harmony with it found
that progress was not so impossible as they had supposed. White planters
found that the net returns from their farms on which they themselves had
labored were greater than when a larger force of negroes had been
employed; shrewd men began to put their scanty savings together to take
advantage of convenient water power. Securing the bare necessities of
life was no longer a difficult problem for every one. Men began to find
pleasure in activity rather than in mere passivity or obstruction.
Somehow, somewhere, sometime, a new hopefulness was born and this new
spirit--evidence of new life--became embodied in "the New South." The
expression is said to have been used first by General Adam Badeau when
stationed in South Carolina, but the New South of which he spoke was not
the New South as it is understood today. Many others have used the term
loosely to signify any change in economic or social conditions which
they had discovered. The first man to use the expression in a way which
sent it vibrating through the whole nation was Henry W. Grady, the
gifted editor of the _Atlanta Constitution_. In a speech made in 1886
by invitation of the New England Society of New York City, he took for
his theme "the New South" and delivered an oration which, judged by its
effects, had some of the marks of greatness. "The South," he said, "has
nothing for which to apologize. She believes that the late struggle
between the States was war and not rebellion, revolution and not
conspiracy." He went on, however, to express the feeling that the
outcome had been for the best, and painted a picture of the new spirit
of the South, a trifle enthusiastic perhaps, but still recognizable.
Today a New South may be said to be everywhere apparent. The Old South
still exists in nooks and corners of many States, it is true: there are
communities, counties, groups of counties, which cling to the old ideas.
In the hearts of thousands of men and women the Old South is enshrined,
and there is no room for the new; but the South as a whole is a New
South, marked by a spirit of hopefulness, a belief in the future, and a
desire to take a fuller part in the life of the nation. To trace the
development of the new spirit and to discuss its manifestations is the
purpose of this book.