Agrarian Doubts: The Southern Agrarians of the 1920s

This segment of Agrarian Doubts is the culmination of our historical trip through the American South that forged a mix of cultural and political concerns into Southern Conservatism.   While it is my intention to shift our focus back to Great Britain’s agrarian tradition in the future, we may yet again poke our heads into this region of the world.

Many would assume that given the trajectory of this series, the Civil War would have been the next topic to be covered.   However, for our purposes it is what happened after the Civil War that matters more.   Or rather, how the Civil War was remembered and memorialized by those who lost the struggle.

It may come as a surprise to some readers but during the 1920s when America was in the midst of unbridled economic prosperity – Southern Agrarianism found a voice once again.   Or rather it found 12 voices.   These men were not planters or farmers or soldiers.  They were in fact a collection of novelists, writers, and poets based out of Vanderbilt University, who joined together to create a manifesto entitled I’ll Take My Stand: The South and the Agrarian Tradition.

The primary concern of these writers was the growing industrialization of the South during the 1920s-30s.  In their view, modern industrial capitalism was a dehumanizing force.   This line of argument may have some resonance for the followers of Karl Marx, which is ironic given that the Southern Agrarians in a sense condemned both Communism and Capitalism as being Anti-Conservative.   To quote a passage from the Introduction of I’ll Take My Stand:

We look upon the Communist menace as a menace indeed, but not as a Red one; because it is simply according to the blind drift of our industrial development to expect in America at last much the same economic system as that imposed upon Russia in 1917.

In place of the option of choosing either materialistic system, these intellectuals offered up the Antebellum agricultural model as the panacea and future of the South.

Their critics found that the Southern Agrarians understanding of their heritage was a bit too…..sentimental.

Take the issue of farming for instance.   The essayist Andrew Lytle had written that “The farm is not a place to grow wealthy; it is a place to grow corn.”     While these sentiments may be shared by our modern day Green and Organic food movements, economists and historians will be quick to point out that agriculture tends to bend away from subsistence farming toward cash crops.   After all, we cannot forget that cotton was king in the Pre-Civil War South.   The labor intensive nature of Cotton farming necessitated the use of slaves.   The sale of cotton to Great Britain was also an important source of revenue for the aristocratic south.

Another Southern Agrarian and well-noted 20th century modernist writer Allen Tate attempted to live out the principles he advocated for.   It is however, much easier to write about the joys of farming than to actually perform its duties.   From what I gather, Mr. Tate had to hire a family to do the farm work.   And it is no small point of irony, that Mr. Tate could only acquire his farm with the help of his brother…. who happened to be a successful banker.

It could be argued that the Southern Agrarians were constructing their worldviews from within the set of beliefs dubbed by social scientists and historians as the Lost Cause of the South.     I believe this quotation from Wikipedia best summarizes this phenomenon:

The Legend of the Lost Cause began as mostly a literary expression of the despair of a bitter, defeated people over a lost identity. It was a landscape dotted with figures drawn mainly out of the past: the chivalric planter; the magnolia-scented Southern belle; the good, gray Confederate veteran, once a knight of the field and saddle; and obliging old Uncle Remus. All these, while quickly enveloped in a golden haze, became very real to the people of the South, who found the symbols useful in the reconstituting of their shattered civilization. They perpetuated the ideals of the Old South and brought a sense of comfort to the New.

-Yale Professor Roland Osterweis

This mytho-narrative arc perpetuated a few inaccuracies – the race relations between the African Americans and Caucasians in the Old South being a primary issue.

Several historians and writers have explored the idea of the Lost Cause of the South and came upon a fascinating conclusion – that this was all about national reconciliation.

The historian David Blight for instance noted a particularly intriguing trope in postwar fiction.   A young, materialistic, and utterly rich Yankee man marries impoverished but spiritual Southern bride.   He represents the power of industrialization and its brutality when unchained.  She represents the chivalry and honor of a time long gone.   Perhaps her social graces will be a civilizing influence on the young man.

Perceptive readers may notice similar themes brought up in a previous blog post, Agrarian Doubts: Sir Walter Scott and Trans-Atlantic Conservative Romanticism.

————————————————————————-

The legacy of the Southern Agrarians is rather mixed.   Their “leader,” the scholar-poet John Crowe Ransom, grew disenchanted with the movement and publicly repudiated it in 1945.

I find an irony at my expense in remarking that the judgment just delivered by the Declaration of Potsdam against the German people is that they shall return to an agrarian economy. Once I should have thought there could have been no greater happiness for a people, but now I have no difficulty in seeing it for what it is meant to be: a heavy punishment. Technically it might be said to be an inhuman punishment, in the case where the people in the natural course of things have left the garden far behind.

The question, then, is this: of what value could the Nashville group’s thesis be to a people who had “left the garden far behind”? Would their argument serve no better purpose than to offer up ironies concerning a road not taken? Once the garden has been left behind, does the idealistic contemplation of it, even in art, become much more than a symptom of a neurotic urge to escape what lies ahead of the garden?

One of his colleagues Robert Penn Warren, the first poet laureate of the United States, eventually joined the civil rights movement and supported a variety of progressive causes -because- of his belief in agrarianism.

And for a certain few, the enthusiasm for the agrarian way of life has never died. Stark Young‘s cousin, Stephen Clay McGehee, actually runs a website called The Southern Agrarian – http://www.southernagrarian.com/.   It is as one may expect – a website that touches on the practicalities of farming, southern culture, honoring the heroes and legacy of the Civil War, and religion.

 

 

Agrarian Doubts: Nullification Crisis and Sovereignty

In previous posts in the Agrarian Doubts series, we’ve noted the key platforms of the Jeffersonian Democrats understanding of the ideal American Republic.   To list a few ideas:

1.  The Yeoman Farmer as an Exemplar of Virtue.
2. A Suspicion of Expertise and Specialization.
3. A dislike of concentrations of wealth and people, ie: Cities.
4. Industrialization and Banking are disruptive societal forces.
5. An Expansionistic Policy toward the West.
6. A favoritism of Direct Democracy for all civic positions, including judges.

The populist flavor of these ideas cannot be overlooked.  And as populist issues they have been featured as critical pieces of modern ideologies found on the Left and the Right in the 20th century.   After all, the Maoist version of Communism would be just as  accepting of many of the propositions stated above.

With the exception of the 6th point, many of these ideas were championed by the old Southern Aristocracy as part of a common agricultural world view.  The internal logic that supports these issues was a respect for local tradition and social hierarchy colored by a romantic outlook on the agrarian way of life.

The political manifestation of these concerns and sentiments became a preoccupation with the notion of States Rights versus the Federalist (and later on the American Whig) Party’s attempts to create a much stronger central government that favored industrial economic interests.

This is a tension that existed right at the founding of the United States of America.   Those in support of individual states retaining their sovereignty challenged policies by the central government at every turn.   We saw this in Jefferson and Madison’s support of the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of 1798 as a counter to the Federal government’s attempt to limit free speech and the immigration of European radicals via the Alien and Sedition Acts.    What the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions essentially stated was that the individual states had the right to nullify legislation within their own boundaries when the Federal government passes a law that exceeds its stated powers.

We see this debate occurring again over the Missouri Compromise of 1820.   The Compromise dictated that new additions to the Union must be made in twos – 1 slave state and 1 free labor state in order to maintain the balance of power in Congress.  John Taylor of Caroline wrote one of his infamous passionate pamphlets against this compromise, on the basis that the Federal government was essentially deciding on the particular labor laws of the state – a power that should only be reserved for the state governments alone.

And even when the Jeffersonian Democrats were initiating the purchase of the Louisiana Territories from Napoleonic France, Southern politicians like John Randolph of Roanoke would come to regret the actions of the party as it wasn’t clear if the President of the United States had the authority to make that purchase.  This would lead to opposition against the acquisition of Florida from the Spanish crown a few years later.

The question over the nature of sovereignty and which political body had the right to arbitrate when a law exceeded the powers of a government almost came to a head during the Nullification Crisis of 1832.    Prior to 1832, a number of tariffs were instituted to prevent European and British manufactured goods from driving Northern Industrialists out of business.  The effect of the tariffs on the South, especially the Tariff of Abominations of 1828, would result in Southerners paying higher prices for manufactured goods and having their source of income via the cotton trade with Great Britain reduced.

South Carolina would not stand for this.   The state government would go on to challenge Andrew Jackson’s administration on the matter by invoking the sovereignty of the states argument.   South Carolina would go on to outlaw the tariff and build an army to defend itself.    Jackson would not take this laying down however, and pushed the Force Bill through Congress which allowed the Federal government to retaliate against a nullifying state like South Carolina.  It took all the skill of Kentucky Senator Henry Clay to broker a compromise that did not end in bloodshed.

 

Incidentally, Andrew Jackson’s own Vice-President John C. Calhoun was a secret supporter of the Carolina cause and would go on to be a strong proponent for the nullification theory.

Calhoun elaborated his views on government in a treatise known as The Disquisition on Government.  In this work, Calhoun makes a critical distinction in how voting majorities exist.

A numerical majority is merely the will of the more numerous amount of citizens imposing their views on the minority group.  As such, an absolute majority will always prevail over minority interests.  It is interesting to note that Calhoun’s conception matches the Tyranny of the Majority concept that classical liberal philosopher John Stuart Mill would warn against many years later.

A concurrent majority would require a compromise between the interests of the majority and minority groups.   It would be in effect, a unanimous decision of all major interests within a community.

It should be noted that Calhoun’s idea of a minority does not correlate well with our modern conception of the word.   What he was concerned about were in essence vested interests and privileges held by a propertied minority.

Calhoun also had a negative view on one of the founding principles delineated by the Declaration of Independence.  In his mind, man was not born free and equal.   Liberties enjoyed by the people were not a natural right, but rather granted by participation within a well-governed society.     He was in effect rejecting the contract theory of government (Federal Power) in favor of the compact theory (State Sovereignty).

Agrarian Doubts: States Rights and the Old South

In my last post, I had mentioned the career of the chief systematizer of Jeffersonian Democracy, John Taylor of Caroline.   I had briefly summarized his commitment to the idea of the United States as an agrarian farmer’s republic and how this blended well with his positive stance on states rights.

Southern support of States Rights and a strict interpretation of the Constitution is rooted in a conviction that to protect the Southern way of life, limitations must be placed on the Federal government.   In their eyes an “artificial capitalist sect,” following Alexander Hamilton’s financial modernization plan, had set their sights on disturbing the delicate balance between state and federal governments in order to favor their own economic interests.

Joining John Taylor in his struggle was the celebrated Virginian congressman and orator, John Randolph of Roanoke.

To call John Randolph eccentric would be a massive understatement.   John strongly identified himself as an “old school” Southern plantation aristocrat.  He often rode around the Virginian countryside in a venerable English stagecoach drawn by six horses.   And like every Southern gentleman, John Randolph was quick to defend his honor in duels when he felt his dignity had been violated.  He actually undertook a duel against the venerable Kentucky statesman Henry Clay – thankfully both survived the ordeal.   John also assaulted another congressman, Willis Alston, in what is described by historians as a pitched battle of thrown tableware and bloody canes.

John Randolph’s aristocratic behavior also extended into his politics which can be summarized as – “I am an Aristocrat.   I love Liberty.  I hate Equality.”  By the word Equality, Randolph is showing a disdain for democracy.   One of his speeches further elaborated as to the reason why:

That all men are born free and equal, I can never assent to, for the best of all reasons, for it is not true.   If there is an animal on earth to which equality does not apply-that is not born free-it is man; he is born in a state of the most abject want and a state of perfect helplessness and ignorance.

Or to put it plainly – the conditions of each man is unequal and government should be left in the hands of better men.   In his view, the traditional patriarchal society of Virginia led by its elites was conducive to holding society together and creating stability.  The major threat to this stability was, in his view, the Federal Government and those who sought to expand its powers.

It is for this reason that John Randolph became a supporter of another long standing American opinion invoked by figures such as Calvin Coolidge – the Government that does nothing is the best kind of government that can exist.  However, like John Taylor, he acknowledged that there were forces that promoted an activist government for both financial and ideological gain.

This led John Randolph to form a faction within Jefferson’s Democratic-Republican Party, known as the Old Republicans, who sought to stick to the “Principles of ’98.”   These principles refer to the Kentucky and Virginian Resolutions of 1798, written by James Madison and Thomas Jefferson in protests against the Alien and Sedition Acts.

Without going into too much detail about the specifics of the situation, this “stand-off” articulated two viewpoints:

1. Alexander Hamilton/The Federalists = Judicial Review by the Supreme Court determines whether the actions of Congress can be deemed Unconstitutional.
2. Jefferson + Madison/The Democratic-Republicans = Individual States can determines the constitutionality of the actions of the central government and can refuse to enforce laws (ie: nullification).

When asked to summarize the principles of Old Republicans faction, Randolph had this to say:

“love of peace, hatred of offensive war, jealousy of the state governments toward the general government; a dread of standing armies; a loathing of public debts, taxes, and excises; tenderness for the liberty of the citizen; jealousy, Argus-eyed jealousy of the patronage of the President.”

Randolph’s support of aristocratic culture and old-style republicanism led him into rather interesting political decisions:

1.  Although against Slavery, Randolph deemed it a necessity for the survival of Virginia.    The ironic thing about this, was that John Randolph was a founder of the American Colonization Society, which transported freed slaves back to Africa to form the nation we now know as Liberia.   He even freed his own slaves at the time of his death.
2. Although incredibly popular with the common voter due to his oratorical skills, he opposed the abolition of primogeniture and entail in support of the Virginian aristocracy.    Or to put it in his own words: “The old families of Virginia will form connections with low people, and sink into the mass of overseers’ sons and daughters”
3. Finally, even though he was an ardent supporter of President Jefferson’s deal to buy the Louisiana Territories from the French, he came to the conclusion that he had violated his own principles.   It was unclear if President Jefferson had the power under the Constitution to make that purchase.     Randolph also feared that an expanding nation would be unable to sustain a common loyalty and interest.

 

 

 

 

Agrarian Doubts: Industry vs. The Yeoman Farmer

Before I get started on this bit of the “Agrarian Doubts” series, I wanted to remind my gentle readers of a pointed fact:  Not until the 1950s with the advent of William F. Buckley’s National Review, could it ever be said that there was such a thing as a “Conservative movement” within the United States.   This is unlike the case in Great Britain, where the Tory party has more or less since its inception represented Anglo-American conservative values.

This will sound strange to modern ears, since in our current environment to be a Republican is to be some type of Conservative and to be a Democrat is to be some type of liberal.     However, this wasn’t always the case.   You had liberal and conservative philosophies, sometimes with a distinct regional character, mixed into the agenda of political parties that were divided on other issues.

Such is the situation with Jeffersonian Democracy in the American South.  On the one hand, Thomas Jefferson is often claimed by modern day Democrats as one of their own given the lineage of the party.   This may also have to do with the fact that Jefferson’s personal beliefs on religion, science, and political freedom is compatible with modern liberal politics in a way that say… Andrew Jackson’s views are not.

One of the issues that can be considered a strain of Southern Conservatism supported by Jefferson’s party would be the concern for the yeoman farmer.    Jefferson’s political inheritors in the South often chaffed at the Federalists party’s attempt to give power to a centralized government and to diversify the economy in aid to Northern industrialists.

Like their landed gentry cousins in Great Britain, the Southern plantation owner viewed himself as an aristocrat and brooked no interference in his traditional way of life.   In their mindset, the United States was first and foremost a farmer’s republic.   Following Jefferson’s own views, many southerners believed that farmers were intrinsically more virtuous than city dwellers.

This a rather ancient opinion, older than the United States, older than Great Britain.   It is an opinion that is even older than Christianity in the West.   One need only look back at the historical experiences of both the Roman Republic and Athenian Democracy to see its roots.     Up until the modern era, there has always been a kind of social distrust of merchants who didn’t make a living working off the land.

This opinion isn’t even limited to Western culture, as China, Japan, and Korea traditionally placed merchants at the bottom of the Confucian social hierarchy.

And where do merchants congregate?   Where does the use of money to make even more money occur?

It happens in Cities where the excess of wealth gives rise to other jobs that are also not connected to the land.   This concentration of people also comes with an increase of crime and vice in the locality.

Such was the opinion of many southerners, especially intellectuals like John Taylor of Caroline, Virginia.   Taylor wrote a kind of encomium to the wonders of rural life in his rather dense work known as the Arator.  The Arator is a collection of philosophical, practical, and political essays on the nature of agriculture.   In one line on the act of farming, Taylor waxes poetic saying that in farming:

the practice of every moral virtue is amply remunerated in this world, whilst it is also the best surety for attaining blessings of the next.

Or to put it plainly – Farming makes life better and it will secure your afterlife as well.

Predictably, Taylor contrasted the bucolic nature of rural life against the forces of industrialization –  “the stock jobbers, the banks, the paper money party, the tariff-supported manufacturers.”   These corrupt industrialists would be the undoing of the virtue necessary to maintain the landowner society that is the republic.  Invoking an ancient theme as old as Rome itself, without civic virtue there would be no way for a republic to safeguard its political independence and freedom.

John Taylor’s adversary in the Federalist camp was the renowned Alexander Hamilton.    Hamilton’s goal was to essentially turn the United States into an industrial and commercial power to rival any European nation.     To accomplish task, Hamilton would pursue every avenue possible by advocating for a strong central government, creating reliable financial institutions such as the Bank of the United States, and even advocating for industrial espionage against Great Britain.

If Alexander Hamilton wanted to push America into an industrial future, Taylor would seek the opposite.  He made a very familiar argument:  if people gather more into cities, they will be susceptible to luxury and vice.  This will cause the erosion of virtue and manly independence and bring about a decline of the Republic.  

As such, Taylor became an implacable opponent of infrastructure projects such as the building of canals and roads which would contribute toward the industrialization of the nation.   He also was a strong supporter of the States Rights movement, seeking to curtail the power of a seemingly dictatorial central government in order to protect the Southern farmer’s way of life from capitalist tyranny.