The Southern Tradition at Bay: A History of Postbellum Thought

by Richard M. Weaver

Focuses on the basic concepts and principles ruling Southern life including the code of chivalry and the feudal theory of society

Genres: History, American History, Philosophy, Politics, Civil War, Nonfiction, Cultural

Hardcover

First published January 1, 1968

About the author

Richard Malcolm Weaver, Jr was an American scholar who taught English at the University of Chicago. He is primarily known as an intellectual historian, political philosopher, and a mid-20th century conservative and as an authority on modern rhetoric. Weaver was briefly a socialist during his youth, a lapsed leftist intellectual (conservative by the time he was in graduate school), a teacher of composition, a Platonist philosopher, cultural critic, and a theorist of human nature and society.
Described by biographer Fred Young as a "radical and original thinker", Weaver's books Ideas Have Consequences (1948) and The Ethics of Rhetoric (1953) remain influential among conservative theorists and scholars of the American South. Weaver was also associated with a group of scholars who in the 1940s and 1950s promoted traditionalist conservatism.

Reviews

[Isidore · Rating 5 out of 5]

You have to wonder why W. J. Cash's The Mind of the South remains in-print and admired while this book has all but vanished. Scholarship plainly has nothing to do with it, since Cash's book is slapdash journalism modelled on H. L. Mencken, while Weaver gives us a carefully referenced intellectual history based on examination of primary sources. By today's standards, they're about equally racist and sexist, although Cash strikes me as the more elitist.

Weaver's original subtitle, "A Study in the Survival of a Mind and a Culture", gives a better idea of the contents than "A History of Postbellum Thought". His premise is that Southern thinkers have groped toward but never achieved a comprehensive vision of their society, contributing to its weakness and eclipse vis à vis "Northern financial imperialism". Writing in 1943, he still hopes that enough Southern "non-materialism" and spirituality survive to be of use in the struggle against commerce and "moral defeatism", but he isn't at all optimistic about it.

Weaver begins by describing the mores of the Old South, and how Southern thinkers of the antebellum era envisaged their society; their tentative explorations, hamstrung by prevailing anti-intellectualism and completely derailed by the Civil War, were never fully developed.

The first postwar writings were mostly legalistic defenses of the Confederate cause; these were followed in turn by countless soldier's memoirs and homefront diaries, the most significant of which Weaver subjects to brief analysis. In this vast outpouring of personal history we see the Southern literati (including a surprisingly large number of women) primarily absorbed in personal and societal tragedy, often withdrawing into defensiveness, disillusionment, or religious fatalism, but sometimes also showing quiet acceptance or even satisfaction with the end of the plantation era and the rise of nationalism.

Next comes an interesting description of how the lost antebellum world was reimagined over the course of the late nineteenth-century in Southern fiction: Weaver sees these literary self-portraits as gradually moving from outright romance, through tentative self-examination, to satire, and finally into full realism.

Weaver concludes the book with a survey of Southern thought around the turn of the century. This section seems amorphous in comparison with the preceding sections, presumably because of a fracturing within Southern culture: defenders of the Confederacy continue to operate, with diminished energy and relevance; some thinkers embrace Northern commercialism while struggling to reconcile this with traditional folkways; Progressives seek reform of classism while ignoring racism; others are content to wallow in nostalgia for the antebellum world.

Weaver does not chart twentieth-century developments, but in an epilogue ponders the continuing relevance of Southern thought. While some aspects of Southern culture remain remarkably durable, at this point the South seems to him muddled and confused, something of a spent force, although possibly containing "the revolutionary impulse of our future".

The book is elegantly written and unfailingly of interest. It is at the very least a stimulating bibliographic guide which sends you scurrying off in search of the writers discussed. Why doesn't someone reprint it?

[Drew Norwood · Rating 5 out of 5]

If anyone could write a balanced and profitable analysis of the Old South, it was Richard Weaver. He didn't write as a defender of slavery or as an uncritical promoter of the old regime. But neither was he a cynic. He writes to praise what is praiseworthy from the Sourhern tradition, and to explain its postbellum trajectory. "I have attempted to find those things in the struggle of the South which speak for something more than a particular people in a special situation. The result, it may be allowed, is not pure history, but a picture of values and sentiments coping with the forces of a revolutionary age, and though failing, hardly expiring." He sought to reveal the transcendent principles embedded in the Southern society, admirable in themselves even in spite of the South's slaveholding and other many sins, which Weaver notes are "as scarlet."  As he says towards the close of the book, “[h]istory is a liberal art and one profits by studying the whole of it, including the lost causes." 

Why is it important to dredge the South's infamous past? It's important because of where we find ourselves, which is exactly where Weaver, in 1943, predicted we would be. He called the South "the last non-materialist civilization in the Western World." The South, Weaver says, "possesses an inheritance which it has imperfectly understood and little used." This matters because the positive qualities of South stand as a challenge to the current state of affairs. The challenge is this: "to save the human spirit by recreating a non-materialist society. . . Only this can rescue us from a future of nihilism, urged on by the demoniacal force of technology and by our own moral defeatism." He warned of the materialism and moral confusion that would overtake us, and the only defense is to strengthen the "unsentimental sentiments" of a non-matieral order.

[Devin · Rating 5 out of 5]

I picked up this book because I realized I had very little idea about what the South thought about the American Civil War (a sobering reflection on my mid-western public school education). As history is written by the victors, I thought it would be prudent of me to go out of my way to find out what I may be ignorant of.

What I discovered was a mind-bending new perspective on the Old South. This book was a difficult read for me because it often took me awhile to even grasp what the author was getting at. I was shocked that I had never encountered or seriously considered the following points:
1. The Old South was a remnant of ancient feudalism
2. The Old South was agrarian [focused on the cultivation of land] and deeply religious
3. The highest ideals of the Old South directly opposed those of the inhumane industry and materialism of the North
4. The Civil War was the first modern war of total aggression - the North did not respect the traditional rules of war
5. The North invaded the South - and all that implies
6. The Old South produced many of America's greatest statesmen and warriors, meaning it's values threatened to dominate Washington prior to the Civil War
7. The Old South had a much stronger constitutional argument than the North - can a federal government be respected when it uses force to keep its member states?
8. The Civil War resulted in a major consolidation of power for the federal government

It would be easy to dismiss these points as Southern propaganda, but many of these are basic factual information about the Civil War, and moreover what are the opposing arguments? When I really think about it, I've never heard anyone seriously dispute the history here. What I have heard people dispute is the cause of the Civil War, and I think even a cursory look at these points gives multiple possible motives.

But I will address the elephant in the room. The Civil War will always be a highly controversial topic because the Northern victory resulted in the abolishment of slavery. Obviously, slavery is an evil institution, and the author of this book does not dispute this. I want to get that out of the way.

However as I am sure any serious American historian knows, the Civil War was much more complex than the question of slavery alone. It can be viewed as the triumph of Northern materialism over a feudal society, the undermining of federal democracy and the rise of lawless American empire, and as a conflict playing out the opposing philosophical positions of Nominalism (taken by the South) and Realism (taken by the North). This is a heady and potent mix, and we haven't even added in the infamous villainy of Reconstruction.

For your consideration from Merriam Webster:
Nominalism - the theory that only individuals and no abstract entities (such as essences, classes, or propositions) exist
Realism - a doctrine that universals exist outside the mind

Weaver is known for another book that I have not read, Ideas Have Consequences, which I believe is quite political. The Southern Tradition at Bay however is truly a history book, although it does present many strong criticisms of industrial America from the mouths of its historical subjects. Weaver presents us with these chapters:

1. The Heritage - discusses what the 'Old South' actually was
2. Writing the Apologia - a sampling of Southern thought justifying the Civil War
3. Testimony of the Soldier - exactly as described
4. Diaries and Reminiscences of the Second American Revolution - the memories and positions of Confederate non-combatants, chiefly women
5. Fiction across the Chasm - an interesting look at Southern fiction after the Civil War
6. The Tradition and Its Critics - how the Southern people grappled with their loss in the longer run

This is a very logical and well categorized structure and I really enjoyed that about the book.

What were the motives of the author? He comes out in favor of the Nominalism vs. Realism perspective. However, it was often really difficult to ascertain his point of view, because most of the book is him quoting other sources and the opinions of others! This leads me to believe that he was genuinely motivated to give his readers a more full understanding of the deeper conflicts underpinning the Civil War.

That being said, Weaver was a Southern son, and he seems to dwell on the 'quixotic' (meaning idealistic, unrealistic, and impractical) nature of the South. He is identified as being a 'Southern Agrarian' - meaning he championed a rural and traditional life.

Here he is in his own words in the Epilogue:
(p. 322)"One might hesitate to say that the South, with such weaknesses [as naivety and idleness], has anything to offer our age. But there is something in its heritage, half lost, derided, betrayed by its own sons, which continues to fascinate the world. (...) Looking at the whole of the South's promise and achievement, I would be unwilling to say that it offers a foundation, or, because of some accidents of history, even an example. The most it offers is a challenge. And the challenge is to save the human spirit by recreating a non-materialist society. Only this can rescue us from a future of nihilism, urged on by the demoniacal force of technology and by our own moral defeatism."

To this I say, hear hear.

I will also quote his ending paragraphs in full:
(p. 326) "There is a certain harrowing alternative to be pointed out as a possibility of our inaction or our failure. It is undeniable that there are numerous resemblances between the Southern agrarian mind and the mind of modern fascism, and I would affirm that fascism too in its ultimate character is a protest against materialist theories of history and society. This is certain despite the fact that fascism immersed itself in materialist techniques for its conquests, and thereby failed. This other society too believes in holiness and heroism; but it is humane, enlightened, and it insists on regard for personality more than do modern forms of statism under liberal and social-democratic banners. Above all, in meeting the problem of motivation it does what social democracy has never been able to do. Now that the truth can once more be told, let us admit that fascism had secret sympathizers in every corner of the world and from every social level. It attracted by its call to achievement, by its poetry, by its offer of a dramatic life. It attracted even by its call to men to be hard on themselves. Social democracy will never be able to compete with this by promising to each a vine-covered cottage by the road and cradle-to-grave social security. People who are yet vital want a challenge in life; they want opportunity to win distinction, and even those societies which permit distinction solely through the accumulation of wealth and its ostentatious display, such as ours has been, are better than those that permit none. From the bleakness of a socialist bureaucracy men will sooner or later turn to something stirring; they will decide again to live strenuously, or romantically.

The Old South may indeed be a hall hung with splendid tapestries in which no one would care to live; but from them we can learn something of how to live."

Powerful and incisive indeed.

Weaver not only opposes fascism, but offers a potential solution to the problem fascism presents. If blood and soil will not disappear from our heart of hearts, if we will not be satisfied by the bland promises of comfort and international identity, what road may the human project take? Can we even meaningfully talk about something so abstract as the human project? Perhaps its up to each of us to choose our own way - with the full knowledge that like many of our forefathers, we may go astray.

5 stars. Highly recommended reading.

[Chris The Dixiecrat · Rating 5 out of 5]

I throughly enjoyed this book and recommend many Southerners and non-Southerners alike to pick up a copy and read it. Richard Weaver "Weaves" a chronological web of books of the Souths past that even I have never heard of before by long forgotten authors and makes a well balanced defense of the South's past and traditions. Traditions something we sorely need today given how bad the culture war has gotten and how many Scalawag politicians that run Dixie today have sold the South out. This book is certainly a book that garners a reread and well worth the time to do so.

[Douglas Wilson · Rating 5 out of 5]

Superb.

[Cole Branham · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is perhaps Weaver's best book. It was originally his doctoral thesis and was not published until the late 1960s after Weaver had died. If you want a comprehensive history of the southern conservative mind and of southern political-cultural thought, this is one of the best works out there. Weaver traces the historic and ancient influences on southern history and culture, which heavily influenced the structure of politics and society in the Antebellum and Postbellum American South. Weaver is unwavering in his defense of southern particularity and the creed by which the region lived. Weaver argues that this political tradition has since been "at bay" since the end of the War Between the States in 1865 and that it offers a remedy for many modern ailments, but is often overlooked or purposefully put aside by cultural elites, who benefit from other systems that reward crony and corrupt behavior. Weaver thoroughly explains the southern tradition and leaves it to the reader to make up their mind of the worthiness of this tradition and whether future generations will take up the mantle and learn from our southern forefathers and ancient ancestors in how to deal with the complexities of society.

[Apistos Yst · Rating 2 out of 5]

A social or philosophical work in support of a feudal system as it existed in the period 1000-1200. By 1300 Weaver believed that rationality had already become established and, by inference, the best of the feudal era was over. Weaver didn’t object to progress, he just didn’t see any value in it. He was a man of letters, but wrote in support of a system where literature and philosophy were akin to a trade, and not the business of the aristocracy. He isn’t identified as a proponent of the Lost Cause, but sees slavery as a normal healthy part of feudal life. Unfortunately for Weaver the feudal ideal he proposes was short-lived and unstable. Even before William of Occam was born the Magna Carta had made the first cracks in the absolutist system Weaver idealises. It is a readable book, but one of those sweeping books that covers enough information to make an impression, but too much to make a well argued case.

[JW · Rating 5 out of 5]

First published in 1968, this book was an adaptation of Weaver’s doctoral thesis written in the 1940s, thus produced in the period of sectional reconciliation that began post-Reconstruction. Weaver posits the Old South as a feudal society, probably the last such, in the Western world. As such, the book is a truly conservative work; that is, it defends the South as a hierarchical, honor based society opposed to the classical liberalism that is the basis of mainstream American “conservatism”. An engaging portrait, but one wonders if Southern planters weren’t also, in their own way, as acquisitive as any Yankee capitalist. It would be interesting to contrast Weaver with W.J. Cash’s The Mind of the South, a much more critical, or perhaps unromantic portrait of the society that came out of the war.

[Alexander Parris · Rating 4 out of 5]

Ultimately a beautiful index and history of Southern apologia, where each example is explained in context and compared to other writings of the time. Weaver offers insight of his own throughout, often to determine the efficacy of the referenced material, and the epilogue is honest, succinct, and jarringly pertinent . I see myself returning to this book to find future reads, and there are plenty I highlighted throughout the book.

[Jason Harper · Rating 5 out of 5]

This was a fascinating book that gave a great explanation for what Southern thought was, what survived the war and Reconstruction, and what remained mid-century. Traces remain today, but the United States is a fully deracinated, consumerist empire. Very thought provoking book.

[Gabriela · Rating 5 out of 5]

More formative to my appreciation for Southern goodness than any other source. A fascinating window into the calling of stewardship and statesmanship. A link to Medieval Christian covenant living.

[Bone2Pick · Rating 4 out of 5]

~4.5 Stars~

[Nicholas Bonnin · Rating 3 out of 5]

Focusing too much on gold-woven tapestries while ignoring the boarded up windows.

[Matt Simmons · Rating 5 out of 5]

An absolutely superb book. Weaver spells out in great detail the contours and complexities of the intellectual life of the South from Reconstruction to the early 20th century, a period that saw southerners trying to make sense of why they had just fought one of the most destructive wars in history, and what their defeat in that war meant for their place in the once-again United States of America, as well as the modern world, generally. Weaver's exploration of these attempts does the classic job of spelling out the logic and ends of that genus of conservatism native to the American South, in ways that are still very useful today, in 2013, as we still struggle to understand the significant sectional differences in our country. In many ways, then, this continues to be essential and necessary reading for those interested in how and why American politics continues to hit roadblocks, and continues to be based in the side-by-side articulation of two largely incompatible ways of political, social, economic, and moral thinking.

To be clear, Weaver's book is based on synthesis and analysis, and not critique, and this can be jarring to the modern reader accustomed to political writings that try to present a particular viewpoint as the viewpoint, while destroying all others as problematic, at best. This is perhaps most clearly illustrated in Weaver's neutral presentation of Southern racial thinking--a symptom of both Weaver's approach, and the time in which he was writing this, the early 1940s. But despite such frustrations and trepidations a reader in 2013 might feel, Weaver's central argument is still sound and compelling: the Old South was a place of real complexity, nuance, and intellectual vitality that provides us with a different version of what America could be. When placed into juxtaposition with modernity, we begin to see flaws in both modernity and the Old South. The fifty or so years after the Civil War showed us a people thinking through the ramifications of this juxtaposition, and we, all these many years later, can still find things of value and challenge in visiting their thinking. Weaver avoids all romantic presentation of the South, Old or New, and that is to his credit. To paraphrase his closing lines: only a fool would want to go back and live in this world, but that world can perhaps tell us challenging things about how to live in our world--something that only a fool would reject, whole-cloth.

[Michael Helvey · Rating 3 out of 5]

Richard Weaver is, of course, an excellent thinker and a sympathetic reader of the South's tradition. The purpose of his book is not an argumentative one, but rather an expositional one; he does not attack or defend the southern tradition, but simply chronicles its progress during the Reconstruction years. At the very end, he finally makes some evaluation, and it is wise.

The South, he says, is the recipient of a very great tradition. It can indeed be said to have been the last non-materialistic society in our civilization's history. In contrast to the Enlightenment "progress" and secularization of the North, the South preserved in large measure the ancient conception of a leisured society, complete with aristocratic ideals of education, honor, chivalry, and behavior. But for all this, Weaver says that the great tradition which the South inherited was "imperfectly understood and little used." It "never perfected its worldview," by coming to the metaphysical foundations for its existence. It had all the potential of a Summa Theologica; it produced only lawyers and orators. This of course is the reason why the heated defenses of the South during the Reconstruction failed to inspire the next generation.

The best men of the South had indeed understood the tradition, but the South as a whole did not live up to its best men. Weaver's book is an excellent exposition, but is somewhat lacking in interaction with that exposition. Histories of thought are wonderful things, but when the author is as preeminent a thinker as Richard Weaver, one hopes for a bit more evaluation of those thoughts.

[Al · Rating 4 out of 5]

A survey of Southern literature from a variety of sources which present the ideals that the South fought to preserve from the secular tide and utilitarianism of the North. Weaver's point of view is clear, but he succeeds in maintaining an objective and non-partisan scholarly examination of the entire spectrum of "Lost Cause" literature. His examination of the source material will lead anyone who reads this book to other works by such authors as Bledsoe, Grady and Sage. This is a very readable look at Southern traditions and idealism.