From the Bookshelf of Easley Library Bookworms…

The Strange Career of Jim Crow

C. Vann Woodward,

William S. McFeely (Afterword)

Find A Copy At

Libraries

Group Discussions About This Book

No group discussions for this book yet.

What Members Thought

Mar 12, 2008 Werner rated it liked it

Shelves: history

Yale professor Comer Vann Woodward was one of the most prominent U.S. academic historians of his generation to specialize in the history of the American South (as his father-in-law, Avery Craven, had been in the preceding generation). This relatively short book (just 220 pages of actual text in this edition) is one of many that he authored, but it's perhaps the best known and most significant. It originated as a series of lectures delivered at the Univ. of Virginia in 1954, then published in boo Yale professor Comer Vann Woodward was one of the most prominent U.S. academic historians of his generation to specialize in the history of the American South (as his father-in-law, Avery Craven, had been in the preceding generation). This relatively short book (just 220 pages of actual text in this edition) is one of many that he authored, but it's perhaps the best known and most significant. It originated as a series of lectures delivered at the Univ. of Virginia in 1954, then published in book form in 1955. (That original edition went through some successive revisions, as noted below.) His subject here is black-white relations in the South, beginning with Reconstruction (and with some reference to ante-bellum conditions), but concentrating particularly on the evolution and perpetuation of the “Jim Crow” regime of de jure segregation and black disenfrachisement, down to his own present.

In the rising national debate that developed, in the 20 years following World War II, over the Jim Crow regime (and having been born in 1952, I recall that debate from personal memory!), a key argument of Jim Crow apologists was that the whole system was an ingrained part of white Southern consciousness and tradition going back to very origins of Southern society in colonial times; that black suffrage and the presence of blacks in “white” venues had always been unthinkable (barring the short aberration of the Reconstruction regime, imposed from outside), and that this attitude was absolutely ineradicable for all time. Woodward's contribution in this book (and it was an enormously important and valuable one) to that debate was to demonstrate beyond any shadow of doubt that this particular argument was a total fallacy. While many people in that era believed it, having never experienced any other system in their own lifetimes, it actually rested on a massive case of historical amnesia. Even though white racism was a persistent factor in Southern history, the whole Jim Crow regime and the peculiar conditions it spawned began to be erected only in the 1890s (and was opposed then by many white Southerners). The history that Woodward recovers, and the faithful portrait of Southern society that Gwen Bristow paints in the novels of her Plantation Trilogy, helpfully illuminate each other (and I'm glad to have read both). This knowledge also helps greatly in understanding political developments since 1955.

A crucial backdrop for understanding the argument of this book (and one that Woodward doesn't introduce in detail; he just presupposes it, and frequently reflects it) is that from very early in ante-bellum times on down, while nearly all Southern whites viewed blacks as inferior Others, it was the poor whites who not only did not benefit from the presence of an exploited black population, but actually suffered directly because of it. The availability of slave labor meant that the employers with the largest labor needs didn't hire free labor. That was true not only in the agricultural sector that greatly dominated the Southern economy, but in any area of unskilled non-agricultural labor. This was also a big factor in concentrating land ownership in the hands of a relatively small caste of wealthy planters; they could farm cheaply on a scale that brought a lot of wealth into their coffers, and ensured that they could outbid any poor white would-be landowners for the most productive land. So the slavery system had the effect of increasing poor white unemployment, depressing poor white wages when they were employed, and hampering their ability to engage in very prosperous farming. Even though most of them were illiterate, poor whites were generally well aware of this, and for that reason tended to be unsympathetic to slavery and slave owners.

However, that attitude did not translate into sympathy for enslaved blacks. On the contrary, they were generally blamed for simply existing, as much as if they had volunteered to be slaves. Indeed, as ridiculous as we can recognize this claim to be, poor white spokespersons not infrequently seriously maintained that slave owners and slaves were engaged together in a “conspiracy” to keep poor whites down. With this attitude rampant in the poor white community, that sector became the stronghold of actual fear, hatred and jealousy towards blacks, with a concomitant desire to hurt and demean them. (Given that the living conditions of enslaved blacks were, by our standards, abysmally bad, jealousy might seem an odd emotion in that connection; but the living standards of most poor whites were even worse, and the slaves actually usually enjoyed a greater degree of economic security than poor whites did.) In contrast, the members of the planter aristocracy, though they subscribed to convenient racist theories that justified exploiting blacks, generally did not view them with actual malevolent hatred, and often held a paternalistic attitude toward them. They also typically viewed the poor white community with contempt and disdain, as worthless “trash” and “crackers” who were poor because they were too stupid and inferior to be anything else, and that view tended to percolate down to their slaves. The black community was well aware of the poor white attitude; and not surprisingly responded to it with answering fear, hatred and disdain; so the prospects for Southern racial harmony by 1865 were poor.

That said, in the antebellum South, the conditions of rural slavery made de jure racial segregation mostly irrelevant and impractical, and even in Southern cities it was relatively rare. Segregation by custom was more pervasive, but not as much so as it would be from the 1890s on, and not as much so as it was, ironically, in the North; and residential segregation didn't exist at all. Reconstruction brought about a temporary political equality of the races, elimination of such segregation laws as then existed, and some relaxation of customary barriers; blacks generally didn't push the envelope, but what relaxation there was accomplished without significant friction. The restoration of white rule, completed by 1877, was spearheaded by the planter aristocracy, who used appeals to white supremacy to get poor white cooperation; but once back in power, they tended to play the role of protectors of blacks against the excesses of the white underclass. As long as blacks voted Democrat rather than Republican, the aristocrats had no objection to their voting. Blacks continued to hold public offices (usually minor), to serve as police officers, and to enjoy a much greater degree of accommodation in public facilities, transportation, and retail establishments than they would later.

By the late 1880s and early 1890s, though, Southern poor whites came under crushing conditions of economic hardship, exacerbated by the elitist Democrats' alliance with both Northern and local banking, industrial and railroad interests, and general support for “haves” as opposed to “have nots.” This ultimately produced the revolt of the Populist party, which was led by radical poor whites, but which initially sought to make common cause with poor blacks. Both Democrats and Populists tried to enlist black voter support for their tickets; but the former had better success (though often attained by fraud or coercion); while at the same time they tried to discredit the Populists among the poor whites by attacking the Populist's racial progressivism, and eventually resorted to outright anti-Populist violence to largely suppress that party. Black electoral support for the aristocracy tended to eliminate whatever poor white support there had been for black suffrage; while the racist rhetoric and resort to violence by the aristocrats discredited their moral authority, already waning in the face of the increasing economic suffering of the poor whites. Beginning in Mississippi in 1890, and spreading across the South in the ensuing decade, the Democratic party itself came under the leadership of men willing to embrace the Populist economic agenda, but to couple it with black disenfranchisement, Jim Crow legislation, and a campaign of degradation and violent intimidation of blacks; and by and large, the white Populists were willing to buy into this. Thus the Jim Crow South was born, and alternatives were largely forgotten.

Woodward presents all of this in much more detail, drawing on primary sources to do so (though he doesn't use footnotes here). I think the edition I read was the second, 1965 one, but the one in front of me is the 1974 third edition. There, he tried to “update” the book by discussing the history of American black-white relations nationwide since the end of legally-mandated segregation. IMO, that was a mistake, which simply watered down the focus and particular message of the original edition. But that focus and message is a significant contribution to American historical scholarship, shedding light on a particular aspect of our history that had been relegated to a dark and forgotten corner. ...more

24 likes · Like · see review

Group Home Bookshelf Discussions

Photos Videos

Send invite Members Polls