1 Davidson, Donald, ‘I'il Take My Stand: A History’, American Review, V (Summer, 1935), 302Google Scholar.

2 In the South, the typical Southern–progressivist criticism was that of ProfessorHesseltine, W. B.: “The difference between us is the attitude which should be taken towards the machine. My own advice is, that the South should face the issue, recognize the inevitable, and adopt an attitude of open-minded experimentalism.” Book Review in The Chattanooga News, 12 6, 1930Google Scholar.

3 Cf.. MrDavidson's, “…. The making of an industrialized society will extinguish the meaning of the arts as humanity has known them in the past.” Twelve Southerners, I'll Take My Stand, (New York, 1930), 29Google Scholar.

4 The Agrarians are by no means unique in holding this belief. The same viewpoint was shared by two famous pre-war “liberals,” MrStearn, Harold, and MrLewisohn, Ludwig. Recalling a visit to the University of Wisconsin in 1917Google Scholar, MrStearns, wrote: “But I definitely felt that if what I had seen and heard was ‘education’ it would be better for those youngsters, better for God and country, had they never learned to read at all—except for technical and mechanical and engineering purposes. ‘An honest peasantry’, I remember saying to myself, ‘would be better than this kind of pre-digested culture.’” The Street I Knoxo, (New York, 1935), 151Google Scholar. And MrLewisohn, , writing of his experience at Ohio State University: “One year we had eight hundred graduates; we conferred eight hundred degrees. The long line passed in cap and gown. Seventy per cent should never have gotten there.” Upstream, (New York, 1922), 168 and passimGoogle Scholar.

5 I'll Take My Stand, i; see also Davidson, Donald, “The Restoration of the Farmer,” American Review, III (04, 1934), 97Google Scholar.

6 MrAgar, and MrTate, , in particular, have emphasized this point, although the idea is implicit in the writings of all their colleagues. Under the auspices of the Department of Contemporary Thought at Northwestern University, a conference was held the week of 04 14th, 1937Google Scholar, on “the problems and possibilities of social distributism and an integral life in the modern world.” Among the participants were Mr. Agar, Mr. Davidson and Mr. Ransom.

7 Rawe, John C., “Agrarianism,” American Revient, VI (12, 1935), 187Google Scholar; Tate, Allen, “Notes on Liberty and Property,” Who Oruns America? edited by Agar, Herbert and Tate, Allen, (New York, 1936), 88Google Scholar.

8 Tate, Allen, “A View of the Whole South,” American Review, II (02, 1934), 431Google Scholar.

9 Coyle, David C., “The Fallacy of Mass Production,” Who Owns America? 3–17Google Scholar; Borsodi, Ralph, “The Fallacy of Mass Production,” Free America, I (02, 1937), 1–4 and 14–16Google Scholar. For a number of their arguments on this issue, the Agrarians acknowledge indebtedness to Berle, A. A. and Means, G. C., The Modern Corporation and Private Properly, (New York, 1933)Google Scholar. See also Webb, Walter Prescott, Divided We Stand, (New York, 1937)Google Scholar.

10 See, for example, Agar, Herbert, “But Can It Be Done?” Who Owns America?, 100–103 and passim.Google Scholar

11 See “The Pillars of Agrarianism,” American Review, IV (03, 1935), 529–547Google Scholar.

12 Cauley, T. J., “The Integration of Agrarian and Exchange Economies,” American Review, V (10, 1935). 585Google Scholar.

13 Tate, Allen, “A Traditionalist Looks at Liberalism,” Southern Review, II (Spring, 1936), 737Google Scholar; see also “What is a Traditional Society?” American Review, VII (09, 1936), 386Google Scholar.

14 Davidson, Donald, “The Southern Poet and His Tradition,” Poetry, XL (05 1932), 98Google Scholar.

15 Bishop, John Peale, “The South and Tradition,” Virginia Quarterly Review, IX (04, 1933), 168Google Scholar.

16 ”What is a Traditional Society?” loc. cit.

17 Couch, W. T., “Reflections on the Southern Tradition,” South Atlantic Quarterly, XXXV (07, 1936), 284Google Scholar.

18 Wynn, Dudley, “A Liberal Looks at Tradition,” Virginia Quarterly Review, XII (01, 1936), 59–79Google Scholar. Mr. Wynn's criticism applies more to Mr. Tate than to the Agrarians in general. Mr. Wynn and Mr. Davidson appear to agree on the nature of the Southern tradition. See MrDavidson's, “Expedients versus Principles,” Southern Review, II (Spring, 1937), 647–670Google Scholar.

19 For a discussion, see Ford, W. C., “Jefferson's Constitution For Virginia,” Nation, 08 7, 1890, 180Google Scholar.

20 Jefferson, Thomas, Writings, VII, 35Google Scholar. Unless otherwise indicated, all references are to The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, edited by Ford, P. L., 10 vols., New York, 1892–1899Google Scholar.

21 Correspondence Between Thomas Jefferson and Duponl de Nemours, edited by Malone, Dumas, Boston and New York, 1930, 173Google Scholar.

22 Writings IV, 88Google Scholar.

23 Ibid., X, 10.

24 Ibid., II, 268–269; X, 285; see also notes 21 and 22 above.

25 Malone, , (Ed.), Op. cit., 132Google Scholar.

26 Writings, VII, 36.

27 Ibid., I, 443–445.

28 “The Pillars of Agrarianism,” loc. cit., 546.

29 Writings, VII, 309Google Scholar.

30 MrChinard, describes Jefferson's economy at Monticello as “selling comparatively little, buying practically nothing.” Thomas Jefferson: Aposlle of Americanism, (Boston. 1929), 327Google Scholar.

31 Writings, IX, 387.

32 That Jefferson was an historical relativist seems clear. See Correspondence Between Thomas Jefferson and du Pont de Nemours, (Malone, , ed.), 38, 187 and passimGoogle Scholar.

33 Too much has been made of Jefferson's phrase, “dreams of the Future.” Cf. “It is true that I am tired of practical politics, and happier while reading the history of ancient [sic] than of modern times.” Quoted by MrChinard, , Jefferson el les Idéologues, (Baltimore, 1925), 112Google Scholar.

34 Writing, X, 188.