Veterans League Books

This was required reading for a graduate course in American history.
Brooks book highlights another example of how Americans, demobilizing from a foreign war against racism and tyranny, became acutely aware of their own country's inconsistencies and hypocrisies about race and democracy. This article shows how returning veterans - both black and white - organized protests against the undemocratic machine in their home state of Georgia, but struggled with the degree to which they embraced racial change. Brooks argues that it is difficult to ascertain whether World War II helped inspire change, or just reinforced the status quo in Georgia and the South.

Using both primary sources, such as interviews and newspaper articles, and secondary sources, Brooks recounts the efforts of returning veterans. She regards veteran activism as a "barometer by which to measure the war's political impact" (564) and supports her argument by detailing the opinions of veterans and describing efforts of black and white veterans groups to jointly support political campaigns. Brooks suggests that the contradictions about race, economics and social progress the veterans experienced help define the postwar period as disruptive and destabilizing.

One example of black and white Georgian veterans groups working together was when the black World War II-Veterans Association mobilized so many black voters that they ultimately gave the win to the white Citizens
Progressive League, thereby ousting a less progressive incumbent political machine. Another more direct example is the interracial American Veterans Committee, in which black and white veterans worked to obtain full GI benefits and better housing and to stop police brutality against blacks. They also worked side by side toward change by jointly supporting moderate or liberal candidates. against white supremacist candidates like Eugene Talmadge. Finally, black and white veterans jointly launched an attack on the county-unit system, which apportioned electoral votes so that it discriminated against urbanites, blacks and the working class. A joint coalition, called the Georgia Veterans for Majority Rule, challenged this practice through lawsuits and letter campaigns.

Brooks reinforces the argument of the ambiguity of World War II as catalyst or as a constrictor of racial change by examining the other side of the argument the times when progressive racial reform agendas failed. For example, she details reactionary efforts of veterans who aligned themselves with the Ku Klux Klan or the Columbians, Inc. and how their tactics prevented efforts of moderate politics. She found that the economic situation was an important element in the Ku Klux Klan's and Columbians' ability to successfully recruit white veterans. Many veterans felt entitled to some of the spoils of the reconversion efforts and became disillusioned by the realities of overcrowding and the slow economic situation of post-war Georgia. As we saw in McEnaney's article2 some white veterans fought to claim their position on the top of the economic hierarchy and became afraid of competition from blacks.

Alternatively, these economic concerns inspired other white veterans to overturn the corruption and inefficiency of incumbent regimes. They were also embarrassed by the wartime remarks of fellow servicemen from other states deriding their home state's economic depravity and corrupt politics. Therefore, they fought to change the status quo and successfully ousted the incumbent political machines. However, these white veterans were most convinced by arguments that the corruption infringed upon their economic rights, not necessarily acknowledging the infringement upon the civil rights of their fellow black veterans. These often separate, even opposing, positions of race and economics reflect the ambiguity that is inherent in the definition of progress.
Brooks further reflects this ambiguity about race in her description of James Carmichael's campaign, in which he both attacked the racial extremism of the Ku Klux Klan and advocated the county-unit system. She declares that most white veteran campaigners were forced to adopt a two-faced outlook about progress, in which they advocated for economic growth and modernization while enforcing racial status quo. She asserts that the legacy of this period is one in which racial reform and economic reform walked side by side, but that growth politics
ultimately prevailed over progressive racial politics. While Brooks paints a complex picture of post-war Georgia politics and society, her arguments were incoherent at times. Instead of arguments postulated and defended with concrete examples, she presents incidences of where policies failed and where they succeeded. For example, she discusses how the CPL's campaign for economic modernization of society defeated the
status quo, often racist, Savannah incumbent party then, in the next sentence, discusses how the status quo county:-system defeated a more progressive campaigner, Carmichael. Perhaps, however, Brook's employs these juxtaposed arguments as a scholarly technique to parallel the ambiguity about race and economics and whether World War II helped inspire change, or reinforced the status quo in Georgia.

Recommended reading for anyone interested in American history, civil rights history.