What do you think?
Rate this book
The Rebuke of History: The Southern Agrarians and American Conservative Thought
In 1930, a group of southern intellectuals led by John Crowe Ransom, Allen Tate, Donald Davidson, and Robert Penn Warren published I'll Take My The South and the Agrarian Tradition . A stark attack on industrial capitalism and a defiant celebration of southern culture, the book has raised the hackles of critics and provoked passionate defenses from southern loyalists ever since. As Paul Murphy shows, its effects on the evolution of American conservatism have been enduring as well.
Tracing the Agrarian tradition from its origins in the 1920s through the present day, Murphy shows how what began as a radical conservative movement eventually became, alternately, a critique of twentieth-century American liberalism, a defense of the Western tradition and Christian humanism, and a form of southern traditionalism--which could include a defense of racial segregation. Although Agrarianism failed as a practical reform movement, its intellectual influence was wide-ranging, Murphy says. This influence expanded as Ransom, Tate, and Warren gained reputations as leaders of the New Criticism. More notably, such "neo-Agrarians" as Richard M. Weaver and M. E. Bradford transformed Agrarianism into a form of social and moral traditionalism that has had a significant impact on the emerging conservative movement since World War II.
Tracing the Agrarian tradition from its origins in the 1920s through the present day, Murphy shows how what began as a radical conservative movement eventually became, alternately, a critique of twentieth-century American liberalism, a defense of the Western tradition and Christian humanism, and a form of southern traditionalism--which could include a defense of racial segregation. Although Agrarianism failed as a practical reform movement, its intellectual influence was wide-ranging, Murphy says. This influence expanded as Ransom, Tate, and Warren gained reputations as leaders of the New Criticism. More notably, such "neo-Agrarians" as Richard M. Weaver and M. E. Bradford transformed Agrarianism into a form of social and moral traditionalism that has had a significant impact on the emerging conservative movement since World War II.
351 pages, Hardcover
First published September 24, 2001
6 people are currently reading
61 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews
May 16, 2025
Murphy, Paul. The Rebuke of History: The Southern Agrarians and American Conservative Thought. University of North Carolina Press, 2001.
Southern Agrarianism was an identity in search of a history. Perhaps like the family in a Faulkner story, it was a glorious tragedy, with the emphasis on the tragedy. I discovered the Agrarians twenty years ago and began an on-again, off-again relationship with them. As much as I wanted to be an Agrarian, it was not realistic to move to the farm, which was probably a good thing since I know little about farming. But there was something to the Agrarian vision that rightly compelled me to them. Defining what that something was, on the other hand, was no easy task. Whatever definition one gives on this point probably colors his definition of conservatism in general. So it did for Paul Murphy.
On one level this is a survey of several key Agrarian thinkers: Andrew Tate, Donald Davidson, Robert Penn Warren, and John Crowe Ransom. And those parts are depressing, since some of these figures were moral failures (e.g., adultery).
Radical Conservatism of I’ll Take My Stand
Agrarianism certainly includes living on the farm and rejecting city life, but that does not define it. Indeed, it was never clear what defined it. The original agrarians would never overcome that difficulty. Compounding the problem, despite their eloquent attacks on materialism, both the philosophical and consumerist varieties, they never could develop (or find or be found by) any robust form of Christianity. To be sure, Allen Tate converted to Catholicism but only after his life was in shambles. John Crowe Ransom defended a form of theism, but it was one that any Neo-Orthodox could embrace.
At this stage, the early Agrarians gave a vigorous, if flawed defense of the Old South. But that raises another conceptual problem: was that really the way the Old South was? Almost certainly not. To be sure, there were continuities, most notoriously its racial past.
Failure of a Political Faith
The Agrarians failures should not be ignored, for they are quite instructive. What is the main lesson? Loyalty to the past inadequate cannot substitute for moral force. To be sure, our memory of the past can help us avoid a rootless postmodernism, but at best it is only a necessary condition, not a sufficient one.
Happily, the Agrarians said other things. Like all decent humans, they opposed socialism–but only to a point. Until Richard Weaver, the Agrarians remained ambivalent towards a market economy. Socialism is the opposite of individualism, not capitalism.
From here we see an unlikely alliance: Agrarians and Catholic Distributists. Despite their Roman Catholicism, the Distributists were sounder on theology, at least believing in orthodox propositions concerning God. On the other hand, the Agrarians were more realistic on economics. The Distributists could never (and still cannot) satisfactorily explained how their views on property were different from, say, Hugo Chavez’s. For the Agrarians, on the other hand, property is a thing to be used, not sold. It preserved family.
The South as Synecdoche for Conservatism
As the Agrarians failed on the cultural front, various forms of conservatism arose. Defining it in such a way that united the Old South, former Marxists like Kristol, and elites like Buckley was no mean task. A basic definition comes from Russell Kirk: Conservatism is the capacity to produce a spontaneous order.
Kirk’s superior thinking, however, was not enough to withstand the Communist juggernaut. For better or worse (and by the 2000s it would clearly be for worse), he needed William F. Buckley. Buckley united politics of order with rejection of modernism.
Back to Kirk: his focus on permanent things gutted Agrarianism of radicalism, which was probably a good thing. The villains were now collectivists and secularists, not Northerners. Otherwise superb thinkers like Donald Davidson wanted a spiritual wholeness but could never find it. Kirk could. Nonetheless, and for the better, the South did remain an echo of Ciceronian Humanism, a politics of rooted identity that excluded no region.
Agrarian in Exile: Richard Weaver
Richard Weaver was the hero the Agrarians needed, only he arrived too late. He was more of a conservative than an agrarian. For despite his beautiful writing on the South in Southern Tradition at Bay, he never worshiped the South. For him, the South was a set of cultural values, rooted in feudalism, chivalry, the concept of gentleman, and a vague sense of religion. Religion was more a piety more than doctrine, a ‘submissiveness of will to nature and institutions”
In short, he broke with the older Agrarians; now the emphasis was on a philosophical system, not the 1930s South.
Survival of the South
This is where the book gets interesting, for it echoes some of my own introductions to modern-day conservatism. The Neo-Agrarians (more below) were now more interested in Southern Pride than anything else. If you are looking for biographical information on Mel Bradford, Tom Fleming, Sam Francis, and Michael Hill, this chapter is a gold mine. It also details conservatism’s break with Neo-Conservatism. The Neo-cons were former Marxists who knew that liberalism could not withstand totalitarianism, so they became conservatives.
Traditional conservatives had always adopted a wise policy towards the Neo-cons: We should welcome their arguments but still treat them as outsiders. As the University of Michigan historian Stephen Tonsor so eloquently put it regarding Neo-conservatives: “It is splendid when the town whore gets religion and joins the church. Now and then she makes a good choir director, but when she begins to tell the minister what he ought to say in his Sunday sermons, matters have been carried too far.”
Any godly patriot reading the above probably thinks I am talking about the Neo-con betrayal during the 2000s. This is actually about the 1990s. Matters have only gotten worse. Need proof: read BIll Kristol’s twitter feed.
Conclusion
Many of us came to conservatism through the writings of Richard Weaver and some of the Agrarians. Those who came in such a manner are probably sounder conservatives and less given to demagoguery. People who read Russell Kirk are simply better thinkers than those who read Glenn “The Priesthood is Rising” Beck. None of this, to be sure, downplays the objective failures of the Southern Agrarians, nor their ugly racism. As a movement, it died, and let it stay that way.
Southern Agrarianism was an identity in search of a history. Perhaps like the family in a Faulkner story, it was a glorious tragedy, with the emphasis on the tragedy. I discovered the Agrarians twenty years ago and began an on-again, off-again relationship with them. As much as I wanted to be an Agrarian, it was not realistic to move to the farm, which was probably a good thing since I know little about farming. But there was something to the Agrarian vision that rightly compelled me to them. Defining what that something was, on the other hand, was no easy task. Whatever definition one gives on this point probably colors his definition of conservatism in general. So it did for Paul Murphy.
On one level this is a survey of several key Agrarian thinkers: Andrew Tate, Donald Davidson, Robert Penn Warren, and John Crowe Ransom. And those parts are depressing, since some of these figures were moral failures (e.g., adultery).
Radical Conservatism of I’ll Take My Stand
Agrarianism certainly includes living on the farm and rejecting city life, but that does not define it. Indeed, it was never clear what defined it. The original agrarians would never overcome that difficulty. Compounding the problem, despite their eloquent attacks on materialism, both the philosophical and consumerist varieties, they never could develop (or find or be found by) any robust form of Christianity. To be sure, Allen Tate converted to Catholicism but only after his life was in shambles. John Crowe Ransom defended a form of theism, but it was one that any Neo-Orthodox could embrace.
At this stage, the early Agrarians gave a vigorous, if flawed defense of the Old South. But that raises another conceptual problem: was that really the way the Old South was? Almost certainly not. To be sure, there were continuities, most notoriously its racial past.
Failure of a Political Faith
The Agrarians failures should not be ignored, for they are quite instructive. What is the main lesson? Loyalty to the past inadequate cannot substitute for moral force. To be sure, our memory of the past can help us avoid a rootless postmodernism, but at best it is only a necessary condition, not a sufficient one.
Happily, the Agrarians said other things. Like all decent humans, they opposed socialism–but only to a point. Until Richard Weaver, the Agrarians remained ambivalent towards a market economy. Socialism is the opposite of individualism, not capitalism.
From here we see an unlikely alliance: Agrarians and Catholic Distributists. Despite their Roman Catholicism, the Distributists were sounder on theology, at least believing in orthodox propositions concerning God. On the other hand, the Agrarians were more realistic on economics. The Distributists could never (and still cannot) satisfactorily explained how their views on property were different from, say, Hugo Chavez’s. For the Agrarians, on the other hand, property is a thing to be used, not sold. It preserved family.
The South as Synecdoche for Conservatism
As the Agrarians failed on the cultural front, various forms of conservatism arose. Defining it in such a way that united the Old South, former Marxists like Kristol, and elites like Buckley was no mean task. A basic definition comes from Russell Kirk: Conservatism is the capacity to produce a spontaneous order.
Kirk’s superior thinking, however, was not enough to withstand the Communist juggernaut. For better or worse (and by the 2000s it would clearly be for worse), he needed William F. Buckley. Buckley united politics of order with rejection of modernism.
Back to Kirk: his focus on permanent things gutted Agrarianism of radicalism, which was probably a good thing. The villains were now collectivists and secularists, not Northerners. Otherwise superb thinkers like Donald Davidson wanted a spiritual wholeness but could never find it. Kirk could. Nonetheless, and for the better, the South did remain an echo of Ciceronian Humanism, a politics of rooted identity that excluded no region.
Agrarian in Exile: Richard Weaver
Richard Weaver was the hero the Agrarians needed, only he arrived too late. He was more of a conservative than an agrarian. For despite his beautiful writing on the South in Southern Tradition at Bay, he never worshiped the South. For him, the South was a set of cultural values, rooted in feudalism, chivalry, the concept of gentleman, and a vague sense of religion. Religion was more a piety more than doctrine, a ‘submissiveness of will to nature and institutions”
In short, he broke with the older Agrarians; now the emphasis was on a philosophical system, not the 1930s South.
Survival of the South
This is where the book gets interesting, for it echoes some of my own introductions to modern-day conservatism. The Neo-Agrarians (more below) were now more interested in Southern Pride than anything else. If you are looking for biographical information on Mel Bradford, Tom Fleming, Sam Francis, and Michael Hill, this chapter is a gold mine. It also details conservatism’s break with Neo-Conservatism. The Neo-cons were former Marxists who knew that liberalism could not withstand totalitarianism, so they became conservatives.
Traditional conservatives had always adopted a wise policy towards the Neo-cons: We should welcome their arguments but still treat them as outsiders. As the University of Michigan historian Stephen Tonsor so eloquently put it regarding Neo-conservatives: “It is splendid when the town whore gets religion and joins the church. Now and then she makes a good choir director, but when she begins to tell the minister what he ought to say in his Sunday sermons, matters have been carried too far.”
Any godly patriot reading the above probably thinks I am talking about the Neo-con betrayal during the 2000s. This is actually about the 1990s. Matters have only gotten worse. Need proof: read BIll Kristol’s twitter feed.
Conclusion
Many of us came to conservatism through the writings of Richard Weaver and some of the Agrarians. Those who came in such a manner are probably sounder conservatives and less given to demagoguery. People who read Russell Kirk are simply better thinkers than those who read Glenn “The Priesthood is Rising” Beck. None of this, to be sure, downplays the objective failures of the Southern Agrarians, nor their ugly racism. As a movement, it died, and let it stay that way.
May 11, 2017
Detailed, critical and complete
A very well reasoned and fully fleshed out historic and critical analysis of all the key players of Agrarian thought, following them from the 20's to their modern day successors. Fully analyzes the core motivations of the Agrarians as a movement while still taking them to task individually for their philosophical and personal mistakes (racism, political opportunism, ideological inconsistency, etc), as well as how each individuals interpretation of what it meant to be an Agrarian evolved and changed over time.
The last chapter in particular artfully contrasts Neo-Agrarian and likeminded modern offshoots to the original ideology, which puts the entire movement into clear and sharp relief.
A very well reasoned and fully fleshed out historic and critical analysis of all the key players of Agrarian thought, following them from the 20's to their modern day successors. Fully analyzes the core motivations of the Agrarians as a movement while still taking them to task individually for their philosophical and personal mistakes (racism, political opportunism, ideological inconsistency, etc), as well as how each individuals interpretation of what it meant to be an Agrarian evolved and changed over time.
The last chapter in particular artfully contrasts Neo-Agrarian and likeminded modern offshoots to the original ideology, which puts the entire movement into clear and sharp relief.
October 24, 2009
Thorough and enlightening description of how conservative politics got where it is today. If you've ever been a conservative, if you know a conservative, if you call yourself a conservative, you need to read this book.
December 28, 2023
A very well reasoned and historic and critical analysis of all the key players of Agrarian thought, following them from the 20's to their modern day successors and its links/contrast with modern conservative and neoagrarian thought. I do think the personal leanings of the author comes through often which bothers me for an objectivist type work.
February 24, 2011
Aside from some questionable footnote commentary, this was an enjoyable work on the Agrarians and how their thought influenced modern conservatism, and still parallels it in some ways. It becomes clear that the Agrarians are NOT modern conservatives, and this is illustrated by the inlcusion of Wendell Berry, the poet, as one of the later Agrarians.
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews