Rural Radicals: Righteous Rage in the American Grain [Paperback]

Catherine Stock (Author)

Book Description

Publication Date: December 1, 1997 | ISBN-10: 0140268472 | ISBN-13: 978-0140268478

For centuries Americans have thought of rural people as hardworking, trustworthy, and dedicated to their family, representing the moral backbone of our country. But when Timothy McVeigh was indicted in the 1995 bombing of Oklahoma City's Murrah Federal Building, the nation was suddenly made aware of a thriving network of militiamen, conspiracists, survivalists, and white supremacists in all parts of America's heartland. The sudden media attention made it seem as though rural extremism were a new phenomenon, but as this illuminating study makes clear, the tradition of rural radicalism is older than the country itself. Tracing the history of patriotic intolerance as far back as 1676, noted historian Catherine McNicol Stock explains how rural Virginians took up arms to protest what they considered to be economic and political injustices. She examines recurring themes in rural radical movements, including anti-federalism, white supremacy, populism, and vigilantism--and reveals how for centuries these themes have been played out in a clash of private and public interests that is distinctly rural and distinctly American.

Editorial Reviews

Amazon.com Review

A historian at Connecticut College, Stock identifies a long-standing strain of extremist rage in the rural heartland of America which informs the current right-wing militia groups, the survivalists, and the Christian Identity zealots. She suggests that ignorance and denial of this cultural are what made the Oklahoma bombing such a shock. She cites examples like Nathaniel Bacon's rebel group in colonial days, and the uprising led by Daniel Shays in Pennsylvania in George Washington's time, as exemplars of hatred of federal authority and federal taxes, and of an ugly rural cultural isolationism. In time, fed by economic insecurity, gun craziness, and crude machismo, this would manifest itself in hatred of Indians, blacks, Mormons, Mexicans, and Asians--an enduring contradiction of American idealism. --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.

From Publishers Weekly

How is it that whites from the rural heartland, long romanticized in popular culture as the salt of the American earth, have come to make up the United States' most violent domestic terrorist movements, including militias, Identity Christians and other "hate radicals"? In the wake of the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, allegedly the work of blue-eyed Timothy McVeigh, historian Stock has attempted to trace the lineage of today's extremist white rural politics. She draws clear links between contemporary hate groups and a long tradition of rural political movements characterized by a fierce commitment to the rights of small landowners and family farmers, and by a culture of vigilantism. This tradition has never fit into urban categories of left and right. As far back as colonial times, she points out, rural Americans have organized simultaneous opposition, often violent, to elite Eastern landowners and elite Eastern government: such high-school textbook examples as Shays's Rebellion, the Whisky Rebellion and the Grange movement are just a few illustrations of the point. Rural Radicals is a wild ride, particularly for readers yet unfamiliar with the recent trend in history of conducting research from the perspective of less powerful groups; yet it vividly demonstrates the value of this approach. Photos not seen by PW.
Copyright 1996 Reed Business Information, Inc. --This text refers to the Hardcover edition.

See all Editorial Reviews

Product Details

• Paperback: 240 pages
• Publisher: Penguin (Non-Classics) (December 1, 1997)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0140268472
• ISBN-13: 978-0140268478
• Product Dimensions: 7.7 x 5.2 x 0.6 inches
• Shipping Weight: 6.4 ounces
• Average Customer Review: 3.2 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (6 customer reviews)
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #836,231 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

More About the Author

Discover books, learn about writers, read author blogs, and more.

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

13 of 17 people found the following review helpful:

4.0 out of 5 stars Interesting contrast of producer radicalism and vigilantism, October 5, 2000

By 

J. Grattan "Ideas can move the world" (Lawrenceville, GA USA) - See all my reviews
(VINE VOICE)    (TOP 1000 REVIEWER)    (REAL NAME)   

Amazon Verified Purchase

This review is from: Rural Radicals: Righteous Rage in the American Grain (Paperback)

The author contends that the media discovery in the 1990s of rural militia and even the Oklahoma City bombing should not be too surprising because they follow in a long line of rural radicalism. She considers rural radicalism as a distinct phenomenon because of the nature of rural life itself. Rural residents, especially the common folk, often endure difficult and even harsh lives. Urbanization, modernization, consumerism, and the rise of huge business interests and bureaucratic government have impacted or have been felt to unduly impact rural residents. Rural people have generally turned inward toward their local communities for support in the face of difficulties. But at different periods in our history these small communities have erupted, often extra-legally, to contend with these various hated forces.

The author distinguishes between producer radicalism and vigilantism. The former category is much concerned with economic issues from unfair land laws and practices, distant and unresponsive legislatures, burdensome taxation, judicial favoring of creditors, and monopolistic businesses, especially railroads. The Populists of the late 1800s are the prime example of producer radicals. Vigilantism shares some of these same concerns, but is slanted towards external forces or people who are seen to be a threat to a closed way of life. In some cases, as in pre-revolutionary North Carolina, vigilantes have operated against criminal elements in the absence of effective law enforcement but have been far more likely to identify and inflict harm on scapegoats along racial, ethnic, religious, and political lines. The KKK is perhaps the foremost example of a vigilante group.

The author trys to convince that producer radicalism and vigilantism are two sides of the same coin. This reviewer does not find that the case is made. The Populists had legitimate complaints and found responsible ways of expressing them. They did not hate the federal government, even advocating for the nationalization of some industries. Some of their platform was adopted during the Progressive Era. Vigilantes in lieu of operating from any careful analysis of their situation seem to cling to wild conspiracy theories usually involving the federal government and then proceed to select vulnerable victims to assuage their frustrations. These are not the virtuous citizens of producer radicalism.

The book is a very good survey of the various rural radical groups through our nation's history. While I do not agree with a central tenet of the book, maybe others would. In any event the book is quite worthwhile.

3.0 out of 5 stars Rural Radicals, August 10, 2010

By 

J. Lindner (Gem Lake, MN United States) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   

This review is from: Rural Radicals: Righteous Rage in the American Grain (Paperback)

Early on in Rural Radicals, author Catherine McNichol Stock suggest that most Americans have never seen a real working farm. After reading her book, I would submit that neither has she. In Stock's eyes, all farmers do is plot evil against the government and want to blow up its buildings and kill its agents. She uses about 176 pages to explain her position. Unfortunately her arguments are not totally convincing.

The book is divided into three chapters, the first gives a historical background of rural discontent. This is also her weakest chapter by far. Stock does not really explain rural radicalism but rather gives examples of farmers throughout American history taking matters into their own hands when they feel they have no other choice. She describes colonial events like Bacon's Rebellion and the Paxton Boys, then skips ahead to Shay's Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion. There is no continuity between her different subjects, they all just blend into one large radical event. SHe continues on to the Populists and the Progressives, leaving behind nearly a century of time. She then makes her way to the New Deal and the modern era of Timothy McVeigh.

She describes the events but never explains the mindset of farmers and what causes them to become radical. There is no analysis of the frontier mentality or the relationship between the idealism of the time as it is applied to their lives by the individual farmers.

Her next two chapters are more thematic in approach and here is where her argument becomes more persuasive, but it still remains superficial at best. She describes the farm crises of the 1960s through the 1980s and how farmers first drove to Washington to protest prices and conditions but she never traces the onset of farm subsidies as a response to these complaints. She does not explain how such welfare programs actually make people dependent on the federal government instead of independent. She talks little of banking policies and land prices that result in higher taxes or the cost of financing farm implements. Each of these is a daily reality to farmers and their struggle for independence.

Stock prefers the anecdotal approach of describing individual events of murders, bombings, shootings, standoffs and other similar situations. She describes individuals who take matters into their own hands and blame Jews and other conspirators for all of their ails. These make for a good story but miss the point in explaining how these individuals were brought to their present state. What general trends facing all farmers lead certain marginal individuals to act violently? Stock never really explains anythig to help the reader gain understanding towards her original thesis. She also misses the point that rural radicals are often an offshoot of urban radicals. This is what led to the American Revolution. The Progressive movement was not limited to the farms.

The relationship between rural America and its political culture is best described by William Appleman Williams in the Roots of the Modern American Empire. Progressivism is best described by Walter Nugent. Look to these other works for a detailed explanation of the issues Stock introduces. Stock's book is weak and uninspiring. If you are a farmer or from rural America, it may either be downright offensive or comedic.

3 of 5 people found the following review helpful:

4.0 out of 5 stars Angry and Disaffected, February 19, 2007

By 

Clinton Ervin "maximus" (Murfreesboro, TN USA) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   

This review is from: Rural Radicals: Righteous Rage in the American Grain (Hardcover)

Catherine Mcnicol Stock's treatise on agrarian radicalism is not exactly the book I thought I was buying, but I discovered that it is an excellent addition to rural history as well as the history of radicalism in America. This book was written in response to the shocking revelations in the wake of the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, an attempt to place rural, white male radicalism in context. Her thesis states that this radicalism and violence is not new, going back as far as 1676. She reconciles seemingly paradoxical elements: rural producers, right-wing, left-wing, and vigilantes. This may seem contradictory, but it shouldn't in light of a long history of anti-government protest and intractable problems running counter to the dominant American culture.

One interesting and disturbing example Stock provides is that of Jim Jenkins of Minnesota. He killed the banker who had foreclosed on him in the desperate agricultural times of the early 1980s. The rights of farmers have been sacrosanct in this country, but unseen economic and political forces have driven some to desperation.

I agree with "One Man's View" that many producer radicals, like the Populists, were not vigilantes. I, too am a student of Populism, and I assert that many were inclusive, egalitarian for their time, indeed "virtuous." However, Stock's thesis is still valid; it is conceivable in radical ideology to be both a producer and a vigilante.

I recommend this work, but it must be carefully read as not to be misinterpreted. This ground has been trod by academia before, but I don't remember this particular thesis. I am sure that this filled a need at the time of its publication; explaining murderous rage does not excuse it. Anyone can still learn from this impressive scholarship. It isn't so timely now, but it isn't antiquated. The emotional jolt from that time has ebbed, but as history has shown, this is an American tradition. Sometimes the politics of hope and the politics of hate are hard to differentiate.