Natalie Ring, The Problem South: Region, Empire, and the New Liberal State, 1880-1930

The United States South was ridden with problems following the Civil War and Reconstruction—at least according to northern Americans.  From roughly 1880-1930 there was a desire to “readjust” and “uplift” the South to successfully reconcile the nation. Unfortunately, reconciling the nation meant altering the image of the South as a backward region. Natalie Ring’s The Problem South delves into the issues surrounding the U.S. national reconciliation and the South’s typically negative image.  Ring frequently refers to the “problem of the south” as the southern paradox, that is, “the fact that persistent poverty and cultural backwardness seemed to go hand in hand with progress and the development of national industrial ideas” (12).  This paradox is the central theme of her book, which frames the development of each chapter.

The South was viewed as distinct from their Northern counterpart—ridden with supposed quintessentially American problems such as race, disease, sanitation, poverty, etc. These problems were seen as threatening to the unification of the country; the South seemed to always be holding the North back from progress.  Despite these problems being understood as Southern, according to Ring, the South was not as exceptional as it was made out to be. Instead, Southern problems shared commonalities with countries and cultures across the world. She aims to place “the problem south” in a global context to break the traditional narrow focus of the American North and South binary. While I appreciate this broader perspective, I am not sure drawing in commonalities with other countries did much to strengthen what I took to be her overall argument: the southern paradox.

Comparing the South to other countries demonstrated that the South was not unique; other countries were grappling with similar tensions. South Africa, for example, was also dealing with racial turmoil, sanitation, and poverty. Fair enough, there are unarguable similarities. But did the global connections significantly shape the relationship between the U.S. North and South? Or did the global connections influence the South’s backward image? The fact that the South was not exceptional does not alter the reasons that the North perceived them as backward, limiting, impoverished, and barbaric at times.  The North’s perception of the South was deeply rooted in sectionalism that existed prior to the Civil War and in its aftermath was struggling to “uplift” the South to Northern standards for progress.

The Problem South is most successful in highlighting why “the South was viewed as a significant problem, an eyesore on the American landscape that posed a threat to the ideals of progress, abundance, and modern civilization” (55).  Even with the revenue the South brought the nation with its worldwide cotton monopoly, it did not rid the South of poverty, illiteracy, racial conflict, and disease. At this point, the positives did not outweigh all the negatives.

I would have preferred if Ring had focused on the southern paradox and left the global context for another project. The South in a comparative and global perspective post-Reconstruction is a compelling topic but I found it too much for such a small book.