Racism and Confederate Monument Construction: Temporal Regimes Distinguishing the 1900s, 1960s, and Contemporary Decades

The bulk of Confederate monuments were constructed by White southerners in the early 1900s, but some were built much later. Recent research has assessed average relationships across the decades, but comparable evidence for distinct peaks in construction is lacking. My objective is to determine whether the timing of monument construction is connected to unique social contexts, particularly different manifestations of racism. I use multinomial regression analysis and a rich dataset spanning the U.S. South. Results confirm the central role of the United Daughters of the Confederacy (UDC), but also suggest stronger attachments to slavery and greater reliance on lynching increase the risk of erecting a monument in the early 1900s. In contrast, the resurgence of construction in the 1960s is unrelated to the presence of a UDC chapter and positively related to the presence of an National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) chapter. Construction in the decades after the 1960s shift again, suggesting the renewed importance of the UDC (in addition to the location of Civil War battles), but no role of racialized dynamics. Results suggest three distinct regimes of Confederate monument construction that broadly reflect the structural racism that dominated the early 1900s; the group threat/countermovement dynamics of the 1960s; and the “colorblind” era of racism associated with contemporary decades. This research contributes to knowledge of the factors associated with Confederate monument construction and provides a foundation for public and academic discussions of how racism is intertwined with these divisive public symbols.

The Intergenerational Effects of a Large Wealth Shock: White Southerners after the Civil War

The nullification of slave wealth after the US Civil War (1861–1865) was one of the largest episodes of wealth compression in history. We document that White Southern households that owned more slaves in 1860 lost substantially more wealth by 1870, relative to Southern households that had been equally wealthy before the war. Yet, their sons almost entirely recovered from this wealth shock by 1900, and their grandsons completely converged by 1940. Marriage networks and connections to other elite families may have aided in recovery, whereas transmission of entrepreneurship and skills appear less central. (JEL D31, G51, J15, J24, N31, N32)

“Remember Little Rock”: Racial (In)Justice and the Shaping of Contemporary White Evangelicalism

In 1957, Little Rock became a flash point for conflict over the U.S. Supreme Court’s Brown decision. This article examines Little Rock as a religious symbol for white southerners—especially white southern evangelicals—as they sought to exercise their self-appointed roles as cultural guardians to devise competing, but ultimately complementary, strategies to manage social change to limit desegregation and other civil rights expansions for African Americans. This history reveals how support for segregation helped to convert white southern evangelicals to conservative political activism in this period.

“A New Ethnology”: The Legal Expansion of Whiteness under Early Jim Crow

The segregation laws known as “Jim Crow” are often understood as legislative efforts to promote White supremacy by shielding White southerners from contact with other races. This was not the case, however. By analyzing early railway segregation laws–in particular, the 1890 Louisiana law that was challenged in Plessy v. Ferguson–this article shows that the first post-Reconstruction segregations laws used an expansive definition of the “white race” as everyone who was not Black. In short, White purity and separation were the pretext, not the purpose, of early Jim Crow laws. Instead, the structure of legal segregation was initially determined by White, Democratic legislators' efforts to isolate and subjugate Black Americans by reinstating the racial logic of slavery, which had divided the world into Black people and everyone else. To achieve this end, White supremacist lawmakers framed laws that strategically integrated “white” train cars, all the while claiming the laws did the opposite.

The Bounds of Their Habitation

Chapter 2 explicates the theology behind southern evangelicals’ resistance to civil rights. It explains why conservative white Christians opposed civil rights reforms, arguing that a significant percentage of these Christians constructed a theology from both the natural world and biblical texts in which God was viewed as the author of segregation, and one who desired that racial separatism be maintained. Referencing letters, sermons, pamphlets, and books, this chapter documents how segregationist theology was crafted, defended, and deployed throughout the 1950s and 1960s in the South. It also demonstrates how such a theology supported a segregationist Christianity that became common in southern white churches, proving influential in shaping the social and political responses white southerners had to the civil rights movement.

Law and Its Limits in Albion Tourgée’s Bricks without Straw

Tourgée’s novel explores the challenges posed by the wartime abolition of slavery in the United States and the federal government’s attempt to impose a new legal order on the southern states. The Ohio-born Tourgée was an accomplished writer as well as a judge in Reconstruction North Carolina, and the novel—which is set in central North Carolina—takes up the possibilities and limits of legal reform in the wake of war. Masur argues that Bricks without Straw presents a largely pessimistic vision of law’s capacity to change deeply rooted social and political structures. Tourgée’s novel warns readers that when it comes to overcoming the legacies of slavery, the law is outmatched by white southerners’ racism and contempt. Masur situates Tourgée’s novel in the context of his political experience, which convinced him that an abstract commitment to individual rights meant little without robust federal institutions capable of protecting those rights against state and local resistance.

White Supremacy, Terrorism, and the Failure of Reconstruction in the United States

Reconstruction failed in the United States because white Southerners who were opposed to it effectively used violence to undermine Black political power and force uncommitted white Southerners to their side. Although structural factors made it harder to suppress this violence, a series of policy failures proved most important. The Radical Republican-led U.S. government did not deploy enough troops or use them aggressively. Nor did it pursue alternative paths that might have made success more likely, such as arming the Black community. The violence caused Reconstruction to fail, and the victorious white supremacists embedded structural racism into the post-Reconstruction political and social system in the South. Reconstruction's failure illustrates the dangers of half measures. The United States sought to reshape the American South at low cost, in terms of both troop levels and time. In addition, the failure indicates the importance of ensuring that democratization includes the rule of law, not just elections. Most important, Reconstruction demonstrates that a common policy recommendation—compromise with the losers after a civil war—is often fraught, with the price of peace being generations of injustice.

The Paradox of Loyalty

Woodward begins by examining northerners’ obsession with the question of southern loyalty in the wake of Confederate defeat. But, as he observed, the verdict was unclear in part because no knew what post-Confederate southern loyalty looked like. Some northern journalists who toured the South offered one assessment. U.S. Senator and former Union General Carl Schurz offered a different interpretation. Woodward argues that Presidential Reconstruction made little headway not only because of President Andrew Johnson’s intransigence and leniency toward former Confederates, but also because loyalty to church, tradition, and locality precipitated a crisis amongst white southerners. One could not be both loyal to the nation and loyal to the region. In claiming allegiance to the union, white southerners had to affirm they were both “anti-Confederate” and “anti-Southern.” The penalty for not doing so was social ostracism by the community. Woodward concludes this lecture by acknowledging the defeated South’s inability to convince the North of its loyalty to the Union.

Introduction

This introduction provides a background of C. Vann Woodward and his career, as well as an overview of his lectures on the history of white antebellum southern nonconformists, the immediate consequences of emancipation, and the history of Reconstruction in the years prior to the Compromise of 1877. The Fleming Lectures at Louisiana State University document the alienation of white southerners who challenged the proslavery orthodoxy of their friends and families and ultimately fled to the North seeking a more tolerable climate. The Messenger Lectures at Cornell University and the Storrs Lectures at Yale University Law School highlight Woodward's interpretation of Reconstruction. In addition to these lectures, Woodward spent more than a decade intermittently researching and thinking about writing a history of Reconstruction meant to be the equal of Origins of the New South (1951). This collection reveals Woodward’s intellectual process as he grappled with and ultimately failed to attain his goals.

Did The North Really Mean It?

This lecture details southern interest in northern elections. Woodward argues that white southerners viewed this as the litmus test to judge Northern commitment to racial equality. The bulk of northern states voted against black suffrage thus prompting charges of hypocrisy. After Ulysses S. Grant assumed the office of the presidency in 1869, Republicans began debating whether to pass a constitutional amendment supporting black suffrage. Moderates and conservatives, however, ultimately shaped the Fifteenth Amendment’s wording leading some to conclude that the North’s commitment to racial equality was tepid at best. Northern apathy encouraged white southern defiance which manifested itself in terrorism and violence. Woodward concludes that white northerners never fully committed to Reconstruction, Charles Sumner notwithstanding, and thus cautions scholars and activists not to look to it as inspiration for the modern Civil Rights Movement or what he called the Second Reconstruction.