The Militant South, 1800-1861. By John Hope Franklin. (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1956. Pp. 317.).

            The South contributed great military leaders to the United States during the nineteenth century. Washington, Jackson, and Lee all fell into the greater legendarium of southern military leaders. By 1859, southerners like James De Bow argued that northerners wrongly assumed that the South was impotent; but the South’s military strength guaranteed southern rights. Franklin’s work explores the nineteenth century roots of southern militarism. His focus is interdisciplinary. The literature, folkways, and society of the South all played an essential role in the development of southern militarism.

            The provenance of Southern militarism, Franklin argued, stemmed from the earliest settlement of the region. Virginia’s settlers fought Indians, as did later settlers in the Old Southwest. The majority of the successful generals during the American Revolution hailed from the southern colonies (or like Daniel Morgan, from what became the South). And the culmination of the South’s military’s traditions occurred in the nineteenth century. The War of 1812 enjoyed massive support in the South. Southern Warhawks like Calhoun and Clay provided the impetus for pro-war sentiment in Congress, and the war’s eventual southern victor, Andrew Jackson, on a southern battlefield (Chalmette) further enhanced the reputation of southerner’s martial spirit.

            Southern parents raised their children to admire military bearing and adulate military virtues. Franklin used examples from all over the South to explain comprehensiveness and state-to-state commonality of southern militarism, seemingly attached to the southern aristocracy. Philip Cooke, PGT Beauregard, and Joseph Johnston all enjoyed the trappings of militarism from early in life.

            Land and geography played an important role in the development of a violent southern militarism. Southerners never enjoyed the social cohesiveness exemplified by New England or even the Mid-Atlantic States. The physical size of southern counties mean that little to know governmental or societal policing took place in the vast expanses of the unpopulated South. The power of the individual remained increasingly unchecked, and thus the defensiveness of already violent nineteenth century southerners led to a pronounced sense of personal honor. Franklin posited that while planters led the way in promoting a societal sense of honor and the societal norms associated with militarism, poor and middling whites too shared in this wider militant ideal.

            Plantations and farms comprised the bulk of southerner’s everyday environs, but towns and cities remained important to the South. Violence and militant action occurred in southern urban spaces just as often as it did in the agricultural country. The violence endemic to southern cities created a particular problem; instead of offering any civilizing influence on the South, the cities’ reputation for violence only exacerbated the already unhealthy southern penchant for violent and militaristic resolution to conflict. The commonality between southern cities and rural places lay in their common dominion by a slaveholding society. Slavery, Franklin argued, bred violence simply in the institutional reality of slavery and in the daily implementation and protection of human bondage. The nature of slavery in the abstract was violent; could the legal and total domination of one human by another look any different? But Franklin looked further and saw the protections implemented by white society as a major factor in the development of southern militarism. Begun in the eighteenth century and perfected in the heyday of the Antebellum South, slave patrols featured heavily armed men on horseback searching the backwaters of the South for runaway-slaves.

            By 1860 an entrenched southern militarism created an environment where southern young men held military careers in higher esteem than all others. Southern young men desiring a military career mighty seek appointment to West Pint, but there remained too few places for too many young men. States created their own military academies, Virginia Military Institute and the Citadel most preeminent. Slowly but surely, southerners built a seemingly unparalleled militaristic identity they believed to be superior to their northern neighbors, culminating in the Civil War and remaining, as Franklin showed, well into the twentieth century.

Miles Smith                                                                                        Texas Christian University

The Militant South.  By John Hope Franklin (Cambridge:  Harvard University Press, 1956)

Many historians debate how and why the Civil War broke out in 1861.  One group of historians insists that Southerners contained a proclivity toward militancy that propelled them into war with the Union.  John Hope Franklin challenges this notion.  His study concentrates on what aspects of southern society and culture prompted historians to draw such audacious conclusions.  According to Franklin, “This volume seeks to identify and describe those phases of life that won the ante-bellum South the reputation of being a land of violence.  It is concerned, therefore, not merely with the formal and conspicuous revelations of bellicosity but also with those varied conditions of life which not only reflect, but explain this tendency” (p. vii).  Although Franklin does not believe that Southern militancy pushed the South into war, he asserts that the south did contain a martial tradition and spirit.  This military proclivity, “gave the South a self-confidence that strengthened its determination to take the fatal step of secession.  The martial spirit of the South helped it face the consequences of secession with confidence, if not with eagerness” (p. x).  Franklin exhausts a breadth of primary sources in order to describe the martial aspects of southern society.  The author visited numerous notable repositories including the Library of Congress, the National Archives, the University of North Carolina, and Duke University.  His sources include:  contemporary periodicals, memoirs, and diaries.

Franklin begins by describing the South prior to 1800.  The South wasn’t always viewed as a violent place.  Other sections of the country criticized the South for not supporting the American Revolution.  Southerners resented these accusations and responded with rhetoric that served as a testimony to their bravery.  Views pertaining to southern aggression changed during the nineteenth century when the South displayed enthusiastic support for both the War of 1812 and the Mexican War.  “By 1860, the South claimed to be the fountainhead of martial spirit in the United States” (p. 10).

Next, Franklin highlights life in the Old South.  The South was a very violent place during the antebellum period.  The South during this time contained many frontier characteristics.  Underdeveloped cities separated by a vast and hostile wilderness forced people to fend for themselves.  Many ranged the countryside and roamed city streets armed and ready for conflict.  Vigilante communities patrolled the countryside and served as the primary means of law enforcement.  Deficient political and law enforcement organizations gave way to personal combat.  Dueling developed around a cult of chivalry that allowed gentlemen to defend their honor.  This atmosphere cultivated tough, violent individuals that imbibed a martial spirit.  

Slavery promoted a militant gentry and martial atmosphere in the Old South.  Slave patrols and local militias melded into one institution in order to assuage the fear of slave uprisings.  According to Franklin, “A southerner seeking military activity did not have to wait for war with Britain, Mexico, or the North.  He could find it in the almost continuous campaign against the subversion of slavery” (p. 79).  In addition, slavery promoted southern militant expansionism.  Filibusters such as John A. Quitman, William Walker, and the Knights of the Golden Circle relied on military force in attempts to preserve slavery through expansion. 

The importance of military academies in the antebellum south further testifies to the southern marital spirit.  The antebellum period witnessed an explosion of military academies in the South.  For example this period witnessed the construction of the Virginia Military Institute (1839) and the Citadel (1842).  According to Franklin, “These ‘West Points of the South’ both reflected the martial spirit and contributed to its growth” (p. 167). 

Other stimuli promoted the martial spirit in the South.  According to Franklin, the founding fathers detest of standing armies promoted a unique citizen soldiery.  This caused citizens to form their own military organizations as a means of defense.  These militia organizations became very popular in the South.  Public musters promoted the marital spirit and became occasions for social gatherings.  In addition, romantic literature such as Sir Walter Scott’s writings encouraged the military spirit. 

Franklin concludes examining how the South became a unified area.  The author asserts that southern nationalism exploded sometime between the end of the Mexican War and the election of Abraham Lincoln.  Prior to this, the South’s interest in military affairs were directed at strengthening local defenses against interior threats.  The South began to preach a doctrine of self-reliance as tension between the North and South increased.  Ultimately, the marital spirit encouraged the South to prepare for war rather than seek a peaceful compromise with the North.  Franklin writes that, “The martial spirit had reached beyond the formal military groups, extending itself into every phase of life, transforming most institutions into semi-military agencies, and establishing forms of control which flourished in such an atmosphere” (p. 248). 

Although the book is dated, those interested in southern military culture should read this book.  One caveat is that Franklin stands too close to his subject at times.  He begins his scholarly journey setting out to prove that the southern martial tradition did not propel the South into Civil War.  Yet, his constant examples that seek to highlight the uniqueness of the southern martial spirit force one to reconsider Franklin’s thesis.  Thus, while he describes southern military culture he does not explain how such a culture could exist without contributing to the Civil War.

Texas Christian University                                                                                                                  Justin S. Solonick

John Hope Franklin.  The Militant South, 1800-1861.  Cambridge, MA.: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1956.

        John Hope Franklin, professor emeritus of American history at Duke University, in 1956, produced a work that explored the martial tradition of the antebellum South.  The author concludes that the region embraced a decidedly violent tradition.  This violence was bred from an enhanced sense of honor.  Southerners were quick to defend any slights to honor by challenging perceived offenders to duels.  A culture of violence and action permeated all aspects of southern society.  The South displayed a militant streak largely absent from the North.  This militancy spread, in the decade before the Civil War, from defenses of personal honor to a need to protect the southern fatherland and the institution of slavery from abolitionist challenges.  Franklin explores the roots and manifestations of this militancy.

       Franklin alleges that southerners only fully embraced the martial tradition late in the antebellum era. The South plagued by fears of Indian attacks and slave revolts, in the author’s opinion, had provided little material support for the fight for independence during the American Revolution. However, the Mexican War provided southerners an opportunity to remold their tradition. The heroics of southern generals like Zachary Taylor and Winfield Scott, during the conflict, allowed southerners to proudly embrace a martial tradition. Many southern newspapermen and pamphleteers rewrote the narrative of the American Revolution and emphasized that the region had contributed immeasurably to national independence. Additionally, other factors unique to southern society laid the foundations for regional militancy.

       The same circumstances that had prevented the region from providing needed support for the cause of independence also increased the militancy of the South.  Southern settlements, during the early years of the nineteenth century, located on the frontier struggled constantly against Indian raids. These early settlers formed localized militia companies to defend their homes because they could expect little aid from the central government. Every able bodied man was expected to take up arms to defend their respective communities.  Southerners were accustomed to the experience of constant action and carrying firearms. Eventually, the emergence of the Cotton South only reinforced this tendency towards militancy.  Heavily armed slave patrols insured that order and control were maintained in the antebellum South.  In addition, armed vigilantes meted out justice before the arrival of the authorities.  Violence and militancy became an everyday occurrence in the Old South.

       Franklin also emphasizes how the region lacked educational and occupational opportunities. The dearth of free public education and universities circumscribed the career paths many southerners could take.  Many young men found law and medicine closed to them and by necessity had to pursue a military career. Franklin points out that the South while possessing few universities had many military academies like Virginia Military Institute and The Citadel. The Southern gentry, facing limited educational options for their children, sent their sons to these academies. The stunted educational system of the South only reinforced a martial tradition.

       Franklin’s narrative is well-written.  His research also appears to be solid.  However, the author tends to draw a broad portrait of antebellum era southerners.  The writer while readily addressing enhanced honor among the elite fails to mention the yeoman class.  Did this sense of honor exist among the yeoman farmer and were they quick to turn to violence?  He never addresses these questions.  Additionally, honor and dueling were also manifestations of the antebellum North.  The most famous duel in American history occurred between Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr both residents of New York.  Perhaps the concept of honor and a culture of violence were national phenomena unbounded by regional borders.  In the end, Franklin’s portrayal of the South is overdrawn. 

Robert H. Butts

Texas Christian University

John Hope Franklin explores the militant nature of southern culture in The Militant South, 1800-1861.  According to the author, unique elements combined to produce a society with militant tendencies.  Franklin notes that the economic structure of the North, based on commercial industrialization, differed dramatically from the agricultural economy of the South.  The divergent economies of each section influenced its response to slavery.  Abolitionists regarded slavery as a moral issue effecting the social order, while Southerners viewed slavery as a necessary evil based on a racial hierarchy.  Southerners lived in predominately rural areas and often spend extended periods of time away from large cities.  Issues such as personal reliance and survival, state and civilian militias, defense against slave uprisings, scarce law enforcement authorities and Indian uprisings resulted in a penchant for militancy throughout the South.  Franklin seeks to identify and describe the factors prevalent in the anti-bellum South that lead to its reputation as a violent society.  The harsh lifestyles of many Southerners promoted an interest in military activities and education.  As the Civil War loomed, militant tendencies became inflamed by racial tension and defense for Southern lifestyles.

A propensity towards militant behavior brought disapproval from those outside the Southern states and often pride from those within.  Franklin demonstrates that Southerners often encouraged their reputation for militancy as a sign of superiority.  Southern attitudes often equated a love of horsemanship, firearms, combat and defense of personal honor as an indication of chivalrous behavior.  Though the South’s reputation in the War for Independence lacked significant notoriety, Southern soldiers redeemed their reputation as fighters in the Mexican War.  As a result, the author claims that “the South claimed to be the fountainhead of martial spirit in the United States” by 1860.  Informal behavior reinforced this assertion, as dueling became the action of choice among Southerners anxious to redeem their honor at any perceived slight.  Franklin argues that “fighting became a code by which men lived.”  Franklin argues that the prevalence to violence stemmed from its social and economic institutions.

Though occupations as planters provided the most lucrative careers for Southern youth, military or political life, provided alternative careers for ambitious young men.  Military life, specifically the army, provided underprivileged young men with an opportunity for with the essentials for life, an education, and an opportunity to prove their manhood.  From an early age, young Southerners received training in firearms and the martial arts in order to survive.  An environment rooted in the frontier existence prevailed in the South as war loomed.   Few large cities existed and their economies centered around agricultural interests.  Proficiency with martial skills became the mark of a honorable man, as did his willingness to defend his honor at all costs.  The assertion that honorable men defended their honor personally discouraged the growth of law enforcement and fostered what the author calls a “cult of murder.”  The author argues that as long as the plantation economy prevailed the propensity for violence and militancy flourished.

The author further argues that universal freedom and democracy increasingly came under fire from Southerners.  Many claimed that no inalienable rights existed and that inequality, particularly racial inequality, were inherent to social organizations.  Political democracy often equated in the minds of Southerners to anarchy and contempt for order.  Thus, white of all classes were united in their feelings of superiority over African slaves.  As war grew ever closer, ardent Southerners persecuted those opposed to slavery and the Southern lifestyle.

Franklin argues that the militant tendencies of Southerners led to the quest for expansionism, as Southerners sought additional lands to cultivate through slave labor.  In addition, some Southerners hoped to establish new Southern countries free of the divisive issues of slave emancipation.  The quest for expansion led to expeditions to Texas, Cuba, Nicaragua and Mexico.  By 1860, expansionist schemes faded as Southern militancy focused on the North.

The author address education in the South and contends that initial efforts at educational programs suffered from issues relating to the social and economic structure of the South.  Affluent Southerners provided educational opportunities for their children.  Whites of the lower classes seldom felt the urgent need for educational advancement as they struggled to meet their daily needs.  When educational opportunity did become popular in the South, the military school became a logical extension of Southern ethos and values.  As a result, the South produced military leadership for its Confederate Army during the Civil War.  Volunteer militias also proved to be popular institutions in the South.  Activities of militias often escalated to entertainment venues as militias traveled great distances to march and compete with other militias.  Thus, a substantial citizen army grew in popularity in the South.

Southerners also became convinced that their region had been unfairly treated by the North.  The growth of military industries and academies in the North perpetuated a sense of discrimination in the South.  As a result, loyalties shifted from the Union to the Southern nationalism.  Internal conflicts subsided as Southern states joined together against the North.  The Southern military establishment provided proponents of secession with a valid claim that the South had a defensive arm.  Efforts to improve Southern preparedness for war began, as armories and military academies opened throughout the South.  The author argues that by the time of the conflict at Harpers Ferry and the election of Lincoln, a war spirit had captured the South.

The authors research contains a large amount of primary source materials, drawn largely from contemporary documents, newspapers and pamphlets.  Although the author claims to be providing an unbiased view of Southerners, he in fact portrays most Southerners as warmongers.  Little attention is given to those opposing violence or war.  In addition, the North appears completely benign on all issues, including expansionism and economic differences.  Franklin’s study is focused primarily on one aspect of Southern culture and fails to consider anything not consistent with his thesis.

Melanie Kirkland

The Militant South: 1800-1861. By John Hope Franklin. (Cambridge:  Belknap Press of the
Harvard University Press, 1956)  317 pgs.

John Hope Franklin examines the origins of and offers explanations for Southern attitudes towards war and violence in the six decades preceding the Civil War. The martial spirit of the South is documented in great detail and placed in the context of a Southern identity, experience and world view markedly different from that of the North. Franklin traces this difference to the period before the revolution. A “martial spirit” existed in the South that enjoyed “universal acknowledgment.(2).” A source of both envy and derision, Southern militancy bred both admiration and contempt. Whether seen as an outgrowth of peculiar notions of honor, Indian wars or an unjust social system, militancy set Southerners apart from Northerners from the beginning.
Franklin provides a description of Southern views of the central role played by the Southern colonies in the American Revolution, which he finds instrumental in determining Southern identity. Those in the South felt themselves superior in the military skills of riding, shooting and hunting to their compatriots to the North. One of Franklin’s sub-thesis involves the effect of this attitude on sectionalism and secession, particularly when the prospect of civil war became a reality.

Franklin offers several reasons, for the common adoption by Southerners of the militant spirit. In practical terms, the South was a frontier society. From 1800 until the beginning of the Civil War itself, “Southerners were crying out against Indian outrages (25)." The South never developed a sense of security similar to that enjoyed by New Englanders by mid-century. The South also never found itself  “knit together” by a transportation network or political institutions like those developed in the industrial North. Southerners never accepted, or particularly valued, the constraints of governments. From this uncertain frontier environment, “a combination of monotony and conflict, emerged a tense, sensitive, fighting man (32).”

The author links the lack of political control to the development of a code of honor designed to protect the individual when society did not. Contempt for week formal authority found Southerners clinging to a concept of honor, which the Southerner “placed above wealth, art, learning, and urban civilization (35).” Individuals identified not with their government or other authority, but instead acquired a sense of  “personal sovereignty.” This honor “was no less important to the individual than it would be to an embattled nation(36).” Franklin finds this attitude present “at every level of the social scale (37).”

The “social scale” itself also generated unique attitudes toward violence. Some described the South as a “Spartan state” in which the gentry ruled over their helot underlings. The threat of slave rebellion, demonstrated by events in Haiti and actual revolts by Nat Turner and Denmark Vesey, radicalized Southerners. Their response “frequently mounted to uncontrollable alarm,” at even the tiniest rumor of insurrection (76). Such fears led to the militarization of large segments of the Southern countryside.

If the fear of revolt strengthened the military tradition of the South, the abolitionist’s “assault” on slavery generated a corresponding political reaction. The resulting writings of the slave-owning class “were as full of fight as a state militia called out to quell a slave uprising (81).” Franklin details the arguments and writings of the “defenders of the cornerstone (slavery),” be they economic, political or biblical in their dimensions. Slavery also provided a positive military good, as it left the masters free to fight while the slaves tended the fields (95).

The fear of abolition drove a corresponding desire for expansion. Expanding the nation, especially if new states could add to Southern power in the Senate, led to the many efforts of the filibusters. John A Quitman, William Walker and others supported various expeditions to incorporate new areas of Central America or Cuba to the United States through armed insurrection. While Quitman urged permanent occupation of Mexico, Walker invaded Nicaragua, introduced slavery and set himself up as President. All of these efforts received support, in terms of both money and volunteers, throughout the South.

Franklin links the effects of all of these Southern predilections to the diminishment of  public education. Suspicious of both the taxation necessary to establish educational institutions and also of its practical value, Southerners whole-heartedly supported only their military schools. In his chapter, "West Points of the South," the author details this phenomenon, many colleges adopting systems derivative of West Point itself (148). This attitude had great practical value. By 1861 the graduates of these multiple military academies provided the cadre for the Confederate Army. These men "were leaders who could train and command human material," and were "the bulwark of Southern defense (170)."

The martial spirit and militancy the author describes was also reflected in the literary and social pursuits of Southerners. Franklin contends that Sir Walter Scott's novels "were the Bible's only competitors for the attention of literate Southerners (193). Mark Twain called this "the Sir Walter disease," as every Southern gentleman required a title of major, colonel or Judge. Twain continues, saying "Sir Walter had so large a hand in making Southern character that he is in large measure responsible for the war (194)." Franklin discuses both the literary influences, the production of Southern authors and the content of its religious and social functions as a further reflection of militancy.

Thus the South entered the war with a militarized population, an educated planter class to provide leadership and a society steeped in a tradition of violence and honor. Unified in its fears of slave rebellion, with its militias organized and armed, the South improvised a great army, in spite of its material deficiencies. In his conclusion, Franklin sums up the effects of the militancy he so carefully documented throughout the book:  "While Clausewitz was keenly aware of the elements of uncertainty and chance involved in any military operation, Southerners were closed to the possibility of failure (248)."

While Franklin is careful to make no overt judgements, the excesses of Southern militancy were disastrous for both the South and the nation. This ultimately is Franklin's thesis, implied rather than stated. Writing in the middle fifties, several of Franklin's reviewers took note of the care with which Franklin crafted his book and his language to reflect no apparent militancy of his own. The results are satisfying. The Militant South, is an achievement by a very professional historian who was the first to write and research in archives previously closed members of his race.

Paul Schmelzer