What do you think?
Rate this book
A History of the South #9
Origins of the New South, 1877–1913: A History of the South
?
901 pages, Kindle Edition
First published January 1, 1951
28 people are currently reading
617 people want to read
About the author
C. Vann Woodward
37 books55 followersComer Vann Woodward was an American historian who focused primarily on the American South and race relations.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 22 of 22 reviews
December 10, 2017
The dominant characteristic of academic American history books is that they will always explain brilliantly how and why something happened usually omitting to say what it is that happened. Thus in C. Vann Woodward's stellar , of which C. Vann Woodward's "Origins of the New South", there is a brilliant description of the manoeuvring of the Southern Populists in favour of William Jennings Bryan for 1896 Democratic presidential nomination. Woodward however does not actually state that Bryan did in fact get the nomination because this was a detail that the reader should have known. Similarly, Woodward does not bother to tell that the reader that Bryan would be soundly defeated by the Republican McKinley in the actual presidential election again for the reason that the reader would be aware this. I have no idea how someone who did not grow up in the US can ever learn anything about US history.
This much said for someone who already knows the basic historical facts of the era, the "Origins of the New South" is a wonderful piece of analysis. The book covers the period from 1877 when the Federal Army withdrew from the Confederate States that had fought the against the union the civil war to 1913 when Woodrow Wilson would become the first Southern president to win the US Presidential election following the Civil War.
Woodward examines all the issues that still interest the general reader. He describes how the White Southerners regained control of the government and stripped Afro-Americans of their voting rights. He relates how many Southern States repudiated the debts contracted during the Reconstruction (i.e. the period when the Northern Army occupied the South) and the campaign to make government honest. He tells how funding for education was slashed , how subsidies to Railroads increased, how river transportation declined, how industrialization in the South lagged far behind the North and how the majority of Blacks remained illiterate while white illiteracy actually increased. He reviews how the failure to found agricultural banks led to the increased focus on cotton production and rural poverty. He deplores how the Populist movement failed with its objectives to make small farmers wealthier and to improve the conditions of blacks.
Woodward provides a wonderful synthesis of the historical literature that was available on the US South at the end of WWII. I found the book highly engaging and delightful to read. Unfortunately I have read very little of the scholarly literature on the South that has appeared over the forty years that have elapsed since I left university. It is possible then that this book is badly out of date. From what I have read however it is my impression that historians are still arguing over the same issues with respect to the South as they were in Woodward's time. While the terms being used have evolved with our standards of political correctness, I am not sure that the consensus opinion among academics on the US South has greatly changed since Woodward wrote the "Origins of the New South" which is still an excellent introduction to the topic.
This much said for someone who already knows the basic historical facts of the era, the "Origins of the New South" is a wonderful piece of analysis. The book covers the period from 1877 when the Federal Army withdrew from the Confederate States that had fought the against the union the civil war to 1913 when Woodrow Wilson would become the first Southern president to win the US Presidential election following the Civil War.
Woodward examines all the issues that still interest the general reader. He describes how the White Southerners regained control of the government and stripped Afro-Americans of their voting rights. He relates how many Southern States repudiated the debts contracted during the Reconstruction (i.e. the period when the Northern Army occupied the South) and the campaign to make government honest. He tells how funding for education was slashed , how subsidies to Railroads increased, how river transportation declined, how industrialization in the South lagged far behind the North and how the majority of Blacks remained illiterate while white illiteracy actually increased. He reviews how the failure to found agricultural banks led to the increased focus on cotton production and rural poverty. He deplores how the Populist movement failed with its objectives to make small farmers wealthier and to improve the conditions of blacks.
Woodward provides a wonderful synthesis of the historical literature that was available on the US South at the end of WWII. I found the book highly engaging and delightful to read. Unfortunately I have read very little of the scholarly literature on the South that has appeared over the forty years that have elapsed since I left university. It is possible then that this book is badly out of date. From what I have read however it is my impression that historians are still arguing over the same issues with respect to the South as they were in Woodward's time. While the terms being used have evolved with our standards of political correctness, I am not sure that the consensus opinion among academics on the US South has greatly changed since Woodward wrote the "Origins of the New South" which is still an excellent introduction to the topic.
August 31, 2014
A. Thesis: Segregation emerged dramatically in the 1890s and that it was closely related to the Bourgeoisie New South movement.
B. Prior to the Civil War: Slavery was a system of vertical domination, with close contact between the races. This was the agrarian, rural, Old South.
C. Reconstruction: Black Codes were immediately enacted (disenfranchised blacks). Northern power overturned these Codes. After the Compromise of 1877 the South regained control with the Redeemers.
D. New South: There was no abrupt change in Southern life or politics. Blacks still sat where they wanted to on street cars, etc. Political leaders continued to seek the black vote. In the 1890s a revolution occurred, caused by white racism. Why was segregation delayed until 1890s?
1. External influences: Mississippi Plan of 1890 to disenfranchise black voters was declared constitutional. Henry Cabot Lodge’s Force Bill which would have authorized federal intervention to stop discrimination in electoral districts was defeated. Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) was upheld (separate but equal). These emerged in the 1890s because the South had to be cautious until they could be sure that the North would not return.
2. Internal influences were more important: Political and social factors were more important than economic (urbanization, banking, finance). The most important political determinant was Populism. They attacked the crop lien system, the RFM, and the banking structure. Farmers Alliance and a Black Farmers Alliance forms and merges with the Populists. In some cases the Populists merge with the Republicans. The Democratic Redeemers had to try to stop this political force by absorbing it. Conservative Redeemers in the Democratic party gave way to new racist demagogue leaders who represented lower class white voters. These “progressives” sought to stamp out the black vote like liquor or prostitution.
E. Main themes of Origins
1. Examination of the Southern power elite: who were they, how was it formed, how did it retain power, how did it exert hegemony.
2. The massive infusion of Northern capital into the South in the 1870s. This removed much of the South’s economic decision making. But, industrialization proceeded slowly, falling behind the rest of the nation. The Redeemers were cooperative Southern collaborators that the Northerners were looking for.
3. The emergence of an entrepreneurial elite of businessmen and industrialists (bankers, railroadmen, and owners of cotton, tobacco, and iron factories.) This was a middle class on the make, and closely associated with the ideological movement of the “New South.” They seized power from the old planter aristocracy. They sought national reconciliation. Thus, there is a unity between economic and political power here. While the “New South” espoused by the new southern elite never became a reality, it was a strong bid for power.
1. Then came the Populist revolt. The threat that the poor white farmers and blacks would unite was the force that eventually led to disenfranchisement. The race issue in the disenfranchisement campaigns was essentially a masquerade. The real issue was the combative whites (new elite businessmen and farmers). Radical, racist demagogues within the Democratic part (Pitchfork Ben Tillman), overthrew the conservative Democrats. These new Democrats responded to the arguments of the racist lower class whites and enacted Jim Crow.
A. Synopsis: The south can not be understood in a national history--it stands apart. The “New South” is as distinctive, or more distinctive of a region than before the Civil War. War and Reconstruction removed old and added new peculiarities in the south. Politically it achieved a unity that it previously never had. Economically the “New South” was set apart from the nation by differentials in per capita wealth, income and standard of living.
B. Prior to the Civil War: Slavery was a system of vertical domination, with close contact between the races. This was the agrarian, rural, Old South.
C. Reconstruction: Black Codes were immediately enacted (disenfranchised blacks). Northern power overturned these Codes. After the Compromise of 1877 the South regained control with the Redeemers.
D. New South: There was no abrupt change in Southern life or politics. Blacks still sat where they wanted to on street cars, etc. Political leaders continued to seek the black vote. In the 1890s a revolution occurred, caused by white racism. Why was segregation delayed until 1890s?
1. External influences: Mississippi Plan of 1890 to disenfranchise black voters was declared constitutional. Henry Cabot Lodge’s Force Bill which would have authorized federal intervention to stop discrimination in electoral districts was defeated. Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) was upheld (separate but equal). These emerged in the 1890s because the South had to be cautious until they could be sure that the North would not return.
2. Internal influences were more important: Political and social factors were more important than economic (urbanization, banking, finance). The most important political determinant was Populism. They attacked the crop lien system, the RFM, and the banking structure. Farmers Alliance and a Black Farmers Alliance forms and merges with the Populists. In some cases the Populists merge with the Republicans. The Democratic Redeemers had to try to stop this political force by absorbing it. Conservative Redeemers in the Democratic party gave way to new racist demagogue leaders who represented lower class white voters. These “progressives” sought to stamp out the black vote like liquor or prostitution.
E. Main themes of Origins
1. Examination of the Southern power elite: who were they, how was it formed, how did it retain power, how did it exert hegemony.
2. The massive infusion of Northern capital into the South in the 1870s. This removed much of the South’s economic decision making. But, industrialization proceeded slowly, falling behind the rest of the nation. The Redeemers were cooperative Southern collaborators that the Northerners were looking for.
3. The emergence of an entrepreneurial elite of businessmen and industrialists (bankers, railroadmen, and owners of cotton, tobacco, and iron factories.) This was a middle class on the make, and closely associated with the ideological movement of the “New South.” They seized power from the old planter aristocracy. They sought national reconciliation. Thus, there is a unity between economic and political power here. While the “New South” espoused by the new southern elite never became a reality, it was a strong bid for power.
1. Then came the Populist revolt. The threat that the poor white farmers and blacks would unite was the force that eventually led to disenfranchisement. The race issue in the disenfranchisement campaigns was essentially a masquerade. The real issue was the combative whites (new elite businessmen and farmers). Radical, racist demagogues within the Democratic part (Pitchfork Ben Tillman), overthrew the conservative Democrats. These new Democrats responded to the arguments of the racist lower class whites and enacted Jim Crow.
A. Synopsis: The south can not be understood in a national history--it stands apart. The “New South” is as distinctive, or more distinctive of a region than before the Civil War. War and Reconstruction removed old and added new peculiarities in the south. Politically it achieved a unity that it previously never had. Economically the “New South” was set apart from the nation by differentials in per capita wealth, income and standard of living.
May 23, 2013
C. Vann Woodward’s Origins of the New South, 1877-1913, written in 1951, is a foundational work for modern scholarship on the South from Redemption to the Progressive Era, but an odd foundation because of the soil in which it rests. While a common emphasis on class conflict makes it lie not incongruously side by side with works such as Eric Foner’s Reconstruction in its major themes and analysis, it was written prior to the revisionist wave of Southern history, and in dialogue with the current of historiography which that wave swept aside. Accordingly, Woodward’s portrayal of the post-Reconstruction South is familiar and yet strange. In some passages Woodward pushes back at the vision of Redemption penned by Dunning school historians; more prevalently he seems to engage them in an argument on shared ground about the exact nature of the Yankee usurpation and exploitation which held the South back. For Woodward, the key characteristic of Redemption was the condensation of the antebellum two party system into the single Democratic Party of white rule, and the ascendancy within the new party of former Whigs and Whig principles of political economy which locked the region in a tight conservative alliance with Northern capital, keeping the South in a subordinate, colonized position. For Woodward this alliance is the master wheel of post-bellum Southern history which sets all other wheels in motion. The entrenchment of the romantic vision of the Confederacy is a consequence of the need of capitalistic interests to legitimize themselves locally: “it was a poor subsidiary of an Eastern railroad that could not find some impoverished brigadier general to lend his name to a letterhead.” Woodward conceptualizes the stoking of racism among poor whites and the theft of political and economic agency from poor whites as bound together, a self-reinforcing tactical play in a battle between labor and capital for the direction of an industrializing nation, fought out by Woodward’s own Lost Cause, the Populist Movement. Some elements of Woodward’s thesis have held up over time and others have served as the flashpoints of debate over the causes of racism and segregation
August 12, 2011
One of the true classics, perfect in nearly everyway.
February 10, 2018
This is an extended review of one of the most important books of southern history ever written.
When C. Vann Woodward published Origins of the New South in 1951, he made several claims about the region that historians have debated ever since. He wrote that by 1913, rather than achieving integration into the American mainstream, the South remained very much a distinct region. It had been a one-party political region for decades and was in many ways a unique region economically as well. When he looked at the New South, Woodward was not convinced that conditions there were, in fact, new at all. Considering the importance of Woodward’s book (from the 1950s to the 1970s, many textbook accounts of this era of Southern history were little more than paraphrases of Woodward’s analysis) and the amount of revision his work has undergone, it is worthwhile to ask if his thoughts, insights, and conclusions retain any validity more than half a century later.
One of the themes central to Woodward’s interpretation of the New South is its courting of, and dependence on, Northern industrialists for its economic development. From the Hayes administration onward, Woodward portrays the Democratic Party as coming under the control of former Whigs who allied themselves with Northern industrialists.
The basis of Northern economic dominance was control over natural resource/extraction industries and the transportation network. Woodward states, “the South was limited largely to the role of a producer of raw materials, a tributary of industrial powers, an economy dominated by absentee owners.” (311) This contention is eerily similar to the “plundered province” argument advanced by Bernard DeVoto to describe the American West early in the twentieth century, for the same reasons, and it held true regardless of the resource in question. Whether it was cotton mills, coal mining, railroad construction, or timber, the capital funding for development in each industry came not from southerners, but from the North, and Redeemer economic policies contributed to this state of affairs.
One important reason for this dependence on outside capital was the impoverishment of the southern people, a result of many factors. Woodward places most of the blame for this on class conflict within the South. For example, the lack of literacy compared with the North resulted from the fact that southerners had a general reluctance to tax for the support of their schools yet had to support two school systems simultaneously due to segregation. This was unfortunate, because several economic considerations seemed to bode well for the South. With a low immigration rate and a largely rural population, labor in towns was scarce, which should have driven wages up.
Woodward believes that class relations in the South prevented this from occurring. He points to the desire of the planters to control labor and discusses the means, both legal (debt peonage, enticement laws, emigrant agent laws, contract enforcement statutes, vagrancy statutes, and the criminal surety system backed by convict labor) and extralegal (physical violence), employed to achieve this end. Additionally, the poor economic conditions in the South should have given southerners incentive to move north for better conditions. That they did not do so in large numbers is further testament to the coercive powers of southern planters and industrialists over labor conditions. So while Southern segregation was meant to hold down African Americans, its simultaneous purpose was to hold down all poor farmers and working class southerners, black or white, for the economic gain of the planter/industrial class in the South.
Another theme developed throughout Origins of the New South is the unfortunate trend toward less democracy that prevailed throughout the former Confederacy. While the national tendency was to broaden democracy through the Fifteenth Amendment, the initiative, referendum, and recall, and suffrage for women at the state level in some states, the South moved in the opposite direction. In 1877, the Richmond Dispatch editorialized that “every step towards pure democracy in the states has increased the depravity in the political arena.” (53) Following the “Second Mississippi Plan” of 1890, most Southern states defied the Fifteenth Amendment and disenfranchised blacks through poll taxes, literacy tests, the grandfather clause, and sheer intimidation. Even though, in the words of Virginian Albert Gillespie, “the remedy suggested here is to punish the man who has been injured,” (327) these states then proceeded to extend these voting limitations to certain poor and illiterate whites as well, a reactionary trend and another tool in the repression of southern labor.
The ascendance of a reactionary social system, which promptly passed laws restricting the rights of labor, helped to stunt economic development by removing any incentive to increase productivity via mechanization or the division of labor. Because increases in per capita output would allow sharecroppers and renters to increase their production and thereby escape the cycle of debt peonage, innovation was clearly not in the interests of the merchant/planter class and therefore they discouraged it in all possible ways.
For Woodward, the Redemption regimes that came to power throughout the South in the 1870s were not a restoration of the old regime of plantation owners but a new phase in the process begun in 1865. Rather than Republican carpetbaggers it was the Redemption leaders who laid the social and economic foundations for the New South.
How relevant is Woodward’s analysis today? Many historians of the New South no longer accept many of Woodward’s central points without some revision. Several dispute his interpretation of the domination of southern politicians by northern industrialists, believing the relationship more a willing alliance for mutual advantage. They likewise find continuity in the political leadership between the antebellum era and the Redeemers where Woodward sees change.
However, this does not rob Origins of the New South of all the merits that made it influential to begin with. For one thing, few historians criticize Woodward’s identification of the key issues facing the New South. Likewise, many still substantially agree on the main factors contributing to the economic poverty of the South. The contrast in the trend towards (or away from) greater democracy between the South and the rest of the nation has not lost validity. While Woodward’s big picture view of the economic situation is no longer in the ascendant, his research into the conditions prevailing in the cotton mill towns of the South, and in other industries, remains useful to social historians.
If nothing else, his work remains important for its historiographic value. Because of its influence when published, understanding the themes in Origins of the New South is key to understanding the evolution of historical research on the Redeemer period in Southern history. After more than 50 years, it is no surprise that some of Woodward’s interpretations are out of favor or in need of refinement. This is true of any research after five decades. However, the work retains enough value in enough areas that it is still worth reading for those seeking to understand the history of the New South in all its nuances.
When C. Vann Woodward published Origins of the New South in 1951, he made several claims about the region that historians have debated ever since. He wrote that by 1913, rather than achieving integration into the American mainstream, the South remained very much a distinct region. It had been a one-party political region for decades and was in many ways a unique region economically as well. When he looked at the New South, Woodward was not convinced that conditions there were, in fact, new at all. Considering the importance of Woodward’s book (from the 1950s to the 1970s, many textbook accounts of this era of Southern history were little more than paraphrases of Woodward’s analysis) and the amount of revision his work has undergone, it is worthwhile to ask if his thoughts, insights, and conclusions retain any validity more than half a century later.
One of the themes central to Woodward’s interpretation of the New South is its courting of, and dependence on, Northern industrialists for its economic development. From the Hayes administration onward, Woodward portrays the Democratic Party as coming under the control of former Whigs who allied themselves with Northern industrialists.
The basis of Northern economic dominance was control over natural resource/extraction industries and the transportation network. Woodward states, “the South was limited largely to the role of a producer of raw materials, a tributary of industrial powers, an economy dominated by absentee owners.” (311) This contention is eerily similar to the “plundered province” argument advanced by Bernard DeVoto to describe the American West early in the twentieth century, for the same reasons, and it held true regardless of the resource in question. Whether it was cotton mills, coal mining, railroad construction, or timber, the capital funding for development in each industry came not from southerners, but from the North, and Redeemer economic policies contributed to this state of affairs.
One important reason for this dependence on outside capital was the impoverishment of the southern people, a result of many factors. Woodward places most of the blame for this on class conflict within the South. For example, the lack of literacy compared with the North resulted from the fact that southerners had a general reluctance to tax for the support of their schools yet had to support two school systems simultaneously due to segregation. This was unfortunate, because several economic considerations seemed to bode well for the South. With a low immigration rate and a largely rural population, labor in towns was scarce, which should have driven wages up.
Woodward believes that class relations in the South prevented this from occurring. He points to the desire of the planters to control labor and discusses the means, both legal (debt peonage, enticement laws, emigrant agent laws, contract enforcement statutes, vagrancy statutes, and the criminal surety system backed by convict labor) and extralegal (physical violence), employed to achieve this end. Additionally, the poor economic conditions in the South should have given southerners incentive to move north for better conditions. That they did not do so in large numbers is further testament to the coercive powers of southern planters and industrialists over labor conditions. So while Southern segregation was meant to hold down African Americans, its simultaneous purpose was to hold down all poor farmers and working class southerners, black or white, for the economic gain of the planter/industrial class in the South.
Another theme developed throughout Origins of the New South is the unfortunate trend toward less democracy that prevailed throughout the former Confederacy. While the national tendency was to broaden democracy through the Fifteenth Amendment, the initiative, referendum, and recall, and suffrage for women at the state level in some states, the South moved in the opposite direction. In 1877, the Richmond Dispatch editorialized that “every step towards pure democracy in the states has increased the depravity in the political arena.” (53) Following the “Second Mississippi Plan” of 1890, most Southern states defied the Fifteenth Amendment and disenfranchised blacks through poll taxes, literacy tests, the grandfather clause, and sheer intimidation. Even though, in the words of Virginian Albert Gillespie, “the remedy suggested here is to punish the man who has been injured,” (327) these states then proceeded to extend these voting limitations to certain poor and illiterate whites as well, a reactionary trend and another tool in the repression of southern labor.
The ascendance of a reactionary social system, which promptly passed laws restricting the rights of labor, helped to stunt economic development by removing any incentive to increase productivity via mechanization or the division of labor. Because increases in per capita output would allow sharecroppers and renters to increase their production and thereby escape the cycle of debt peonage, innovation was clearly not in the interests of the merchant/planter class and therefore they discouraged it in all possible ways.
For Woodward, the Redemption regimes that came to power throughout the South in the 1870s were not a restoration of the old regime of plantation owners but a new phase in the process begun in 1865. Rather than Republican carpetbaggers it was the Redemption leaders who laid the social and economic foundations for the New South.
How relevant is Woodward’s analysis today? Many historians of the New South no longer accept many of Woodward’s central points without some revision. Several dispute his interpretation of the domination of southern politicians by northern industrialists, believing the relationship more a willing alliance for mutual advantage. They likewise find continuity in the political leadership between the antebellum era and the Redeemers where Woodward sees change.
However, this does not rob Origins of the New South of all the merits that made it influential to begin with. For one thing, few historians criticize Woodward’s identification of the key issues facing the New South. Likewise, many still substantially agree on the main factors contributing to the economic poverty of the South. The contrast in the trend towards (or away from) greater democracy between the South and the rest of the nation has not lost validity. While Woodward’s big picture view of the economic situation is no longer in the ascendant, his research into the conditions prevailing in the cotton mill towns of the South, and in other industries, remains useful to social historians.
If nothing else, his work remains important for its historiographic value. Because of its influence when published, understanding the themes in Origins of the New South is key to understanding the evolution of historical research on the Redeemer period in Southern history. After more than 50 years, it is no surprise that some of Woodward’s interpretations are out of favor or in need of refinement. This is true of any research after five decades. However, the work retains enough value in enough areas that it is still worth reading for those seeking to understand the history of the New South in all its nuances.
November 3, 2015
Modern works of history tend to be very formulaic in their argumentation. They often state the thesis over and over again in very clear terms. This seems annoying until you read a book from 60 years ago that just jumps right into the narrative itself without offering much direction to the reader. It's clear that this is a quality piece of history from the legacy that it's had in the field, but I found it difficult to follow because I'm so used to the modern way of organizing the book. A lot of terms, concepts, and people just flew over my head. Anyone who wants to get a sense of the work of this important historians should start with the much more readable "Strange Career of Jim Crow."
Nevertheless, I found many parts of this book interesting and useful. So much of the history of the South today is about race relations, but Woodward focuses just as much on conflicts among whites and the impact on blacks. Woodward argues that the 1870's and 1880's Redemption period actually had much looser race relations than the Jim Crow era that was to follow. Blacks were still crucial parts of the political system, and both major parties had to reach out to them and/or find ways to control them. The Democrats, through mostly nefarious means, came to dominate the black vote once the Republicans withdrew from Reconstruction and civil rights. Furthermore, a series of political insurgencies rocked Southern politics in the 1880's and 1890's, culminating in the Populist challenge in the early 1890's. These movements often reached out to blacks in common interest, but racism and the manipulation of elites helped prevent an effective fusion of the races.
This book helps explain a great deal of why the South had fallen and continued to fall behind the rest of the nation in many respects. The governments of redemption were deeply conservative on the role of government, and drained state governments of any meaningful functions. Education, infrastructure, public health, and other realms fell into decay, making the South the poorest, least educated, and least modern part of the country. The utter neglect of the Southern governments was really callous and ultimately self-defeating. Woodward argues that the slow development of industry in the South made the region into a veritable colony of the North. Northerners controlled a great deal of Southern businesses and industries and used the South as a source of raw materials. Outside capital boosted the economy a bit, but the region still lagged far behind the North.
The key turning point in this story is the rise of a middle class Progressivism that brought 2 important changes to the South in the 1890's and 1900's. First, they pushed the state governments into being somewhat more activist than they were before, shaking the region out of its doldrums and helping it recover its political power. Second, they took concrete steps to segregate society (Jim Crow/Plessy v. Ferguson) and create barriers to voting for blacks and poor whites, whom the middle and upper classes detested and distrusted. These barriers included poll taxes, literacy tests, the white primary, and straight up intimidation. The measures were really designed to keep blacks from registering and voting, but they had a similar effect on lower class whites, who became largely excluded from politics as well. The South from then until the 1960's became a region with very low voter turnout and Democratic dominance throughout, casting serious doubt on its small-d democratic credentials.
This ideas are all very interesting, but it was difficult to pull them out of this dense text. I probably should have picked up an easier book on Southern history in this period before diving into Woodward, but obviously every American historian should be familiar with it.
Nevertheless, I found many parts of this book interesting and useful. So much of the history of the South today is about race relations, but Woodward focuses just as much on conflicts among whites and the impact on blacks. Woodward argues that the 1870's and 1880's Redemption period actually had much looser race relations than the Jim Crow era that was to follow. Blacks were still crucial parts of the political system, and both major parties had to reach out to them and/or find ways to control them. The Democrats, through mostly nefarious means, came to dominate the black vote once the Republicans withdrew from Reconstruction and civil rights. Furthermore, a series of political insurgencies rocked Southern politics in the 1880's and 1890's, culminating in the Populist challenge in the early 1890's. These movements often reached out to blacks in common interest, but racism and the manipulation of elites helped prevent an effective fusion of the races.
This book helps explain a great deal of why the South had fallen and continued to fall behind the rest of the nation in many respects. The governments of redemption were deeply conservative on the role of government, and drained state governments of any meaningful functions. Education, infrastructure, public health, and other realms fell into decay, making the South the poorest, least educated, and least modern part of the country. The utter neglect of the Southern governments was really callous and ultimately self-defeating. Woodward argues that the slow development of industry in the South made the region into a veritable colony of the North. Northerners controlled a great deal of Southern businesses and industries and used the South as a source of raw materials. Outside capital boosted the economy a bit, but the region still lagged far behind the North.
The key turning point in this story is the rise of a middle class Progressivism that brought 2 important changes to the South in the 1890's and 1900's. First, they pushed the state governments into being somewhat more activist than they were before, shaking the region out of its doldrums and helping it recover its political power. Second, they took concrete steps to segregate society (Jim Crow/Plessy v. Ferguson) and create barriers to voting for blacks and poor whites, whom the middle and upper classes detested and distrusted. These barriers included poll taxes, literacy tests, the white primary, and straight up intimidation. The measures were really designed to keep blacks from registering and voting, but they had a similar effect on lower class whites, who became largely excluded from politics as well. The South from then until the 1960's became a region with very low voter turnout and Democratic dominance throughout, casting serious doubt on its small-d democratic credentials.
This ideas are all very interesting, but it was difficult to pull them out of this dense text. I probably should have picked up an easier book on Southern history in this period before diving into Woodward, but obviously every American historian should be familiar with it.
January 15, 2018
In Chapter VII, "The Unredeemed Farmer," Woodward takes on another myth. This time it is the myth that "Emancipation freed the poor whites more than it did the Negro!" This, as Woodward amply demonstrates, simply was not true. The poor white farmer's plight was miserable. A the root of his misery was the crop lien system. Credit was in the saddle and rode the farmer merciless. It was not the local merchant at the South whom Woodward blames for the exploitation of the Southern poor, but rather the financiers at the North, for "the merchant was only a bucket on an endless chain by which the agricultural well of a tributary region was drained of its flow" (p. 184- 5). Woodward also describes the Farmers' Alliance attempts to short circuit this exploitative system by co-operative buying and selling (p. 196). The example of successful agitation by the Alliance to which he points is the destruction of the jute trust.
In Chapter VIII, "Mudsills and Bottom Rails," he discusses the relationship between black and white freedoms. Poor whites and freedmen were in pretty much the same economic position, 8 yet the transformation "from slavery to caste as a system of controlling labor" proceeded apace as the New South integrationist ideology attempted to pit workers against each other --divide and conquer (p. 209). The New South was not solid in ~he sense of labor quiescence in the face of management any more than it was politically unified. Addressing the activities of the Knights of Labor and the American Federation of Labor in the South, Woodward provides ample evidence of Southern labor's militancy.
In Chapter IX, "Southern Populism," he points out that the Southern Alliance men were oriented toward the West, as opposed to Southern Conservatives who had entered into a colonial relationship with Eastern capital. At the heart of Southern Populism was the Farmers' Alliance. As a test of Alliance loyalty the Southern Alliancemen chose fealty to the sub treasury system ( p,. 239) .This is an idea upon which Goodwyn would later build, more on this under Goodwyn entry. Analyzing the socio-economic structure of Southern Populism, Woodward finds its leadership to have been drawn from a variety of strata but its rank and file to have been predominantly of the lower orders (p. 246). There would be considerable agreement with Hofstadter I here. This agreement would extend to granting the Southern Populists' position among the national muckraker phenomenon. Indeed, the Southern Populists challenged the New South integrationist ideology head on (pp. 249, 252). Most radical of all was the attempt to integrate blacks into Populism, which itself engendered considerable violence against the movement (257-259). One more example of the fractioned New South!
Finally, in Chapter X, "Revolt Against the East," Woodward addresses the great depression of the nineties in the South. The South was torn by industrial conflict in exactly the same way as the North. The Populists of the South chose to ally themselves with those of the West under the free silver banner. Woodward spends considerable time analyzing Populist electioneering at the South. The detail is good but one could easily def lost. He concludes that revolting against the Democratic leadership, these new silver leaders eventually became as entrenched as the Eastern oriented leadership they had had replaced !(p. 290).
In Chapter VIII, "Mudsills and Bottom Rails," he discusses the relationship between black and white freedoms. Poor whites and freedmen were in pretty much the same economic position, 8 yet the transformation "from slavery to caste as a system of controlling labor" proceeded apace as the New South integrationist ideology attempted to pit workers against each other --divide and conquer (p. 209). The New South was not solid in ~he sense of labor quiescence in the face of management any more than it was politically unified. Addressing the activities of the Knights of Labor and the American Federation of Labor in the South, Woodward provides ample evidence of Southern labor's militancy.
In Chapter IX, "Southern Populism," he points out that the Southern Alliance men were oriented toward the West, as opposed to Southern Conservatives who had entered into a colonial relationship with Eastern capital. At the heart of Southern Populism was the Farmers' Alliance. As a test of Alliance loyalty the Southern Alliancemen chose fealty to the sub treasury system ( p,. 239) .This is an idea upon which Goodwyn would later build, more on this under Goodwyn entry. Analyzing the socio-economic structure of Southern Populism, Woodward finds its leadership to have been drawn from a variety of strata but its rank and file to have been predominantly of the lower orders (p. 246). There would be considerable agreement with Hofstadter I here. This agreement would extend to granting the Southern Populists' position among the national muckraker phenomenon. Indeed, the Southern Populists challenged the New South integrationist ideology head on (pp. 249, 252). Most radical of all was the attempt to integrate blacks into Populism, which itself engendered considerable violence against the movement (257-259). One more example of the fractioned New South!
Finally, in Chapter X, "Revolt Against the East," Woodward addresses the great depression of the nineties in the South. The South was torn by industrial conflict in exactly the same way as the North. The Populists of the South chose to ally themselves with those of the West under the free silver banner. Woodward spends considerable time analyzing Populist electioneering at the South. The detail is good but one could easily def lost. He concludes that revolting against the Democratic leadership, these new silver leaders eventually became as entrenched as the Eastern oriented leadership they had had replaced !(p. 290).
Read
January 24, 2018As part of the History of the South Series for Louisiana State University the Trustees of the Littlefield Fund for Southern History at the University of Texas, C. Vann Woodward's Origins of the New South covers the time period of 1877 until 1913. Written to counter popular assumptions that the South folded into a uniform Union after Reconstruction and thus does not require a regional examination of its history, Woodward explores the "New South" post-Reconstruction beyond its association as nationalistic slogan. He questions the "newness" of the New South and its supposed lack of distinctions, arguing that the New South is not as similar to the rest of the nation as previously (ca. 1950s) thought.
Beginning with the Redeemers, conservative Southern Democrats reclaimed power and leadership from the Radical Republican governments established during Reconstruction, Woodward explains that it was the Redeemers who "laid the lasting foundations in matters of race, politics, economics, and law for the modern South" (22). From there on, he follows the development, retrenchment, growth, and stagnation of the South as it dealt with the legacy of Reconstruction, transformed into a one-party region by any means necessary, rebuilt its economy with Northern and foreign investment, and undid any racial progress from Reconstruction. The thick volume goes through every topic imaginable -- Southern culture, Southern Populism and Progressivism, the Mississippi Plan and the Atlanta Compromise, the conflict between poor whites and the white gentry, and cultural expression -- to provide a comprehensive history of the South during this critical period in time. He dives into different states, different figures, and different events without generalizing and this offers a more nuanced look into the New South. Ending his periodization in 1913, a half-century after its defeat in the Civil War, Woodward has taken his readers through the postbellum lows to the new century's tentative hopes in a resurgent South.
Beginning with the Redeemers, conservative Southern Democrats reclaimed power and leadership from the Radical Republican governments established during Reconstruction, Woodward explains that it was the Redeemers who "laid the lasting foundations in matters of race, politics, economics, and law for the modern South" (22). From there on, he follows the development, retrenchment, growth, and stagnation of the South as it dealt with the legacy of Reconstruction, transformed into a one-party region by any means necessary, rebuilt its economy with Northern and foreign investment, and undid any racial progress from Reconstruction. The thick volume goes through every topic imaginable -- Southern culture, Southern Populism and Progressivism, the Mississippi Plan and the Atlanta Compromise, the conflict between poor whites and the white gentry, and cultural expression -- to provide a comprehensive history of the South during this critical period in time. He dives into different states, different figures, and different events without generalizing and this offers a more nuanced look into the New South. Ending his periodization in 1913, a half-century after its defeat in the Civil War, Woodward has taken his readers through the postbellum lows to the new century's tentative hopes in a resurgent South.
August 31, 2021
Woodward's "Origins of the New South, 1877-1913" is a scholarly book enumerating the economic and political transformation of the South during the period after Radical Reconstruction and before WWI. It is told in an episodic manner, each chapter capturing a particular theme or topic, and weaving the complexities of regional differences into a coherent narrative.
There are at least three central arguments of the book: 1) The Redeemer governments were just as corrupt as the Radical Republican governments they replaced, 2) Segregation, Jim Crow, and Disenfranchisement came much later in Reconstruction than conventionally understood and were not inevitable, and 3) the New South should be properly disassociated with the Civil War memory of the Lost Cause.
Woodward's book is a seminal read for graduate students of Southern history but he writes assuming the reader has an extensive knowledge of such archaic topics as Whiggery, yeomen, free-silver, and the reactionary South.
There are at least three central arguments of the book: 1) The Redeemer governments were just as corrupt as the Radical Republican governments they replaced, 2) Segregation, Jim Crow, and Disenfranchisement came much later in Reconstruction than conventionally understood and were not inevitable, and 3) the New South should be properly disassociated with the Civil War memory of the Lost Cause.
Woodward's book is a seminal read for graduate students of Southern history but he writes assuming the reader has an extensive knowledge of such archaic topics as Whiggery, yeomen, free-silver, and the reactionary South.
July 21, 2020
"So far in this account of the Redeemers the emphasis has been upon the dominant element and its leadership. In the main they were of middle-class, industrial, capitalistic outlook, with little but a nominal connection to the old planter regime. ... If the Redeemers themselves are an indication of the character of their regimes, it would seem a mistake to assume that Redemption was in any sense a restoration." (20-1)
"It was this point of whites cheating whites that became sorest during the Populist struggle. ... The remedy, declared the reformers, was the disfranchisement of the Negro." (326-7)
"It was this point of whites cheating whites that became sorest during the Populist struggle. ... The remedy, declared the reformers, was the disfranchisement of the Negro." (326-7)
August 26, 2025
This is an old book, so it's style is dated. It talks about random people without introducing them and rambles a bit. Probably could have been cut down a few hundred pages and organized better. However, loads of important information that changed my perspective on the American South. Anyone who studies development should read this.
January 1, 2020
An oldie that's still a classic.
February 3, 2021
This book remains important and perceptive 70 years after its first publication.
Read
May 16, 2022ch 1-3, 7-9, 12, 13, 14
August 14, 2021
Woodward's tract on the New South (a term he wryly acknowledges was unhelpful by 1951, the publication date of the book) is often credited with revolutionizing the interpretation of Southern history. Even in 2021, many of its arguments struck me as surprising and counterintuitive. As a native Southerner, I tended to see the region as a historically potent force of atavism within the country at large; even after the defeat of the Confederate menace, the Solid South carried forward a program of racial apartheid that was only broken by heroic resistance by black activists and eventual federal intervention.
Woodward does not necessarily dispute this view, and as a proponent of the New Historiography, he emphatically rejects the "shibboleths" of white supremacy and the celebrations of the Confederacy and the Old South that emerged in the early 20th century. However, his history emphasizes the utter devastation of the South following the Civil War. Its economy and political system shattered by the war and the subsequent federal occupation, the South in many respects came to function as a sort of economic colony of the Northern states, or more specifically, the "money power" of New York City and Wall Street.
Woodward shows how many of the characteristic features of this period -- share cropping, cotton manufacturing, and the epic clear-cutting of Southern forests -- were carried out by companies owned by Northern investors and managed by their agents. Unsurprisingly, the profits generated by these ventures primarily returned north, while the Southern masses were left to cope with the resulting environmental and social devastation.
One of the most remarkable themes of Woodward's account is the fierce resistance of Southern farmers and working people to this "colonial" paradigm. For the entire period, enormous social movements shook the region, the Farmers' Alliance and the succeeding Populist movement establishing an unmistakably social democratic tradition in the region that is often willfully forgotten today. At times, these social movements sought rapprochement with black farmers and workers, though the weight of racial hatred, the machinations of the powerful economic interests, and the often violent intervention of the old political parties doomed this effort, and to this day the promises of the populist ideal remain unfulfilled.
Woodward does not necessarily dispute this view, and as a proponent of the New Historiography, he emphatically rejects the "shibboleths" of white supremacy and the celebrations of the Confederacy and the Old South that emerged in the early 20th century. However, his history emphasizes the utter devastation of the South following the Civil War. Its economy and political system shattered by the war and the subsequent federal occupation, the South in many respects came to function as a sort of economic colony of the Northern states, or more specifically, the "money power" of New York City and Wall Street.
Woodward shows how many of the characteristic features of this period -- share cropping, cotton manufacturing, and the epic clear-cutting of Southern forests -- were carried out by companies owned by Northern investors and managed by their agents. Unsurprisingly, the profits generated by these ventures primarily returned north, while the Southern masses were left to cope with the resulting environmental and social devastation.
One of the most remarkable themes of Woodward's account is the fierce resistance of Southern farmers and working people to this "colonial" paradigm. For the entire period, enormous social movements shook the region, the Farmers' Alliance and the succeeding Populist movement establishing an unmistakably social democratic tradition in the region that is often willfully forgotten today. At times, these social movements sought rapprochement with black farmers and workers, though the weight of racial hatred, the machinations of the powerful economic interests, and the often violent intervention of the old political parties doomed this effort, and to this day the promises of the populist ideal remain unfulfilled.
March 31, 2024
Woodward suffers from a form of logorrhea. He knows a lot of stuff, too much even, and he has to say all of it. Or maybe he just needed a good editor who could tell him to focus on the essential. And he could at least have told us what The New South is, or is supposed to be, in contrast to The Old South, whatever that was. And are we to understand that The New South has fully and finally arrived in all its glory with the election of Woodrow Wilson, ex-President of Princeton and ex-governor of that great southern state, New Jersey? I know Wilson was a racist and raised in the South, but I’m not sure what he represents other than Progressive idiocy.
There probably is a very good book in here, somewhere, maybe two, but I’d cut about 30% of this behemoth and then organize it better.
I also have a problem with techniques such as character assassination by innuendo and the sloppy (and lazy) use of value-laden words (“capitalist”, “banker”) that tell the reader what she’s supposed to think. Woodward’s sneering contempt for southern ‘intellectuals’ (see Chapter XVI) gives rise to doubts about the his objectivity, to say the least. I’d thought i could trust this author, but now I don’t.
There’s a lot of good info in this book, but overall, it’s quite unsatisfying.
There probably is a very good book in here, somewhere, maybe two, but I’d cut about 30% of this behemoth and then organize it better.
I also have a problem with techniques such as character assassination by innuendo and the sloppy (and lazy) use of value-laden words (“capitalist”, “banker”) that tell the reader what she’s supposed to think. Woodward’s sneering contempt for southern ‘intellectuals’ (see Chapter XVI) gives rise to doubts about the his objectivity, to say the least. I’d thought i could trust this author, but now I don’t.
There’s a lot of good info in this book, but overall, it’s quite unsatisfying.
March 30, 2008
I read this in a graduate level history class, and I was surprised to see how well it holds up despite the changes to Southern History. It serves as a useful overview to readers with limited knowledge of the New South.
December 26, 2007
Classic in field... must-read. What else is there to say about C. Vann Woodward??
Read
May 1, 2009Origins Of The New South 1877-1913 by C. Vann Woodward (1967)
Read
November 21, 2009None
September 11, 2012
Try to start looking for the brighter side Wait for a sign, wait for a sign, wait for a sign Welcome home, everything will be alright.
Read
September 29, 2015Classic history of the early development of the "new" South, emphasizes localism/sectionalism in its argument.
Displaying 1 - 22 of 22 reviews