Book Reviews : The Forgotten Farmers: The Story of Sharecroppers in the New Deal. By DAVID E. CONRAD. (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1965. Pp. 223. $5.00.)
| DOI | 10.1177/106591296601900121 |
| Date | 01 March 1966 |
| Published date | 01 March 1966 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
161
His
American
paradise
would
be
populated
by
men
of
benevolence,
toiling
in
re-
publican
simplicity,
living
in
unity
and
equality.
Maybe
so.
A
Scottish
verdict of
&dquo;not
proved&dquo;
would
have
to
be
rendered,
though.
Franklin
the
public
man,
the
advocate
of
positions
held
by
his
readers
and
his
clients,
his
colony-state
and
his
nation,
keeps intruding
into
the
world
of
Franklin
the
disinterested
philosopher.
There
are
too
many
self-serving
arguments,
rational-
izations,
and
inconsistencies.
At
times
he
seems
to
be
throwing
up
smokescreens.
&dquo;Don’t
do
what
I
do;
do
what
I
say!&dquo;
For
example:
A
familiar
note
is
his
opposition
to
parties
and
factions.
Yet
in
Pennsylvania
and
in
England
he
was
operating
as
a
party
leader.
At
another
point
Conner
admits:
&dquo;he
became
more
lyrical
in
his
praise
of
productivity
as
his
own
experience
with
physical
labor
receded
further
into
mem-
ory.&dquo;
Conner
concludes
that
Franklin
was
a
convincing
actor
who
eventually
may
have
convinced
himself
of
the
reality
of
his
part.
Franklin
was
more
concerned
with
ends
than
with
means.
It
was
profitable
to
pose
as
the
model
businessman,
universal
philosopher,
and
virtuous
statesman.
Be-
cause
of
this
persistent
posing,
however,
it is
extremely
hard
to
locate
Franklin’s
fun-
damental
beliefs.
Conner
deserves
a
good
mark
for
the
attempt
but
he
leaves
one
wondering
whether
another
scholar,
similarly
enterprising,
could
not
manufacture
a
different
and
equally
plausible
Franklinian
world
view.
Wisconsin
State
University,
Oshkosh
MARTIN
GRUBERG
The
Forgotten
Farmers:
The
Story
of
Sharecroppers
in
the
New
Deal.
By
DAVID
E.
CONRAD.
(Urbana:
University
of
Illinois
Press,
1965.
Pp. 223.
$5.00.)
Drew
Pearson,
like
many
other
Americans,
has
a
short
memory.
In
a
recent
column
eulogizing
Henry
Wallace
(October
31,
1965),
the
Washington
reporter
states:
&dquo;He
[Wallace]
felt
that
the
Agricultural
Department
[in
the
1930’s]
was
chiefly
helping
big
farmers,
should
be
helping
tenant
farmers
and
farm
labor.
He
tried
to
reverse
this
- without
success.&dquo;
This
is
so
much
nonsense,
as
most
well
informed
people
have
long
realized,
and
as
David
E.
Conrad’s
meticulously
re-
searched
and
judicially
argued
book
makes
clear.
As
Secretary
of
Agriculture,
Wallace
repudiated
the
liberals
and
leftists
when
they
championed
the
cause
of
the
exploited
tenant
farmers
in
the
administration
of
the
Agricultural
Adjustment
Act
of
1933.
Conrad
points
out
that
&dquo;Wallace’s
natural
inclinations
were
probably
to
back
Jerome
Frank
and
the
liberals...
,&dquo;
but
in
the
end
he
chose
to
endorse
the
position
of
the
conservative
agrarians
who
favored
the
interests
of
the
large
cotton
farmers
and
landlords.
Ironically,
Wallace’s
presidential
candidacy
in
1948
attracted
with
one
notable
exception
-
a
variety
of
liberals
and
leftists
with
memories
as
short
as
Drew
Pearson’s.
The
exception
was
Norman
Thomas
and
his
Socialist
party
supporters.
For,
says
Conrad,
&dquo;the
most
vocal
critics
of
AAA
were
the
Socialists.
Norman
Thomas
carried
on
a
personal
crusade
for
Southern
tenant
farmers
which
lasted
several
years.&dquo;
The
Socialists
helped
the
tenant
farmers
to
organize,
provided
them
with
speakers
-
in
one
instance
Harry
Laidler’s
League
for
Industrial
Democracy
spon-
sored
Jennie
Lee,
later
to
be
the
wife
of
Aneurin
Bevin
-
with
food,
legal
aid
and
To continue reading
Request your trial