J A N U A R Y 2 0 0 9 65 to lynching by contending that the elimination of intoxicating liquor— often packaged with sexually provocative images of women—would reduce the perceived threat of the “black beast” (p. 166). Liquor in the Land of the Lost Cause will appeal to historians of evangelicalism , prohibition movements, and the fin de siècle South. The author’s evidence largely derives from denominational publications, sermons, personal correspondence, and secondary sources. Several historiographical asides might prove tedious for laypersons but helpful to graduate students who are studying significant themes from southern history, such as race, honor, and gender. BARCLAY KEY Western Illinois University Mule South to Tractor South: Mules, Machines, and the Transformation of the Cotton South. By George B. Ellenberg. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press, 2007. xiii, 219 pp. $42.50. ISBN 978-0-8173-1597-9. Over a period of roughly thirty years (1930–1960), southern agriculture experienced dramatic technological and structural changes. Ellenberg provides a window onto these changes through a detailed accounting of the transition from mule to tractor power and presents a convincing argument that in the nineteenth century and well into the twentieth “a special relationship” was formed “between the American South and the mule” (p. 2). The mule is the offspring of a male ass, or jack, and a female horse. The popularity of mules was due to a number of factors, including strength, intelligence, and resilience to disease and mishandling. Oxen may have been stronger and horses quicker, but the mule represented a balance between the two that made it the animal of choice for small farmers. Plantation owners also favored the mule, though many also kept teams of oxen and of course horses for riding and pulling carriages. Smaller farmers did not have the luxury of such diversity and used mules for all purposes. Beyond this observation, Ellenberg devotes relatively little attention to differences between yeoman farmers of the piedmont and plantation owners of the coastal plains, and intersperses observations concerning the role of mules and tractors in the two regions. Thus the author presents mules as a unifying feature in southern agriculture. Throughout much of the nineteenth century, farmers in the cotton states imported mules bred elsewhere, principally Kentucky, Indiana, T H E A L A B A M A R E V I E W 66 Ohio, and Missouri. Ellenberg explores the trade in mules and the effect of the Civil War on mule (and horse) populations. As the cotton states recovered from war, mules continued to play a central role in the farm economy and efforts were made to encourage local mule breeding. The rise of mechanization, and in particular the farm tractor, affected progress in this direction. Ellenberg notes that the South lagged behind the Midwest in adoption of tractors and associated technologies, but that within ten years of the end of World War II the tractor had effectively supplanted the mule across the region. The final straw was adoption of an effective cotton harvester. Until that development, cotton producers continued to rely on abundant farm labor, and many farmers found little advantage in adopting tractors to prepare the soil more quickly for planting . But when the end came, it came quickly. By 1962, the U.S. Census of Agriculture no longer bothered to count the number of mules, signaling the official end of an era. In the space of a generation, mules went from ubiquitous to rarity, and mule handling became a lost art. Ellenberg characterizes the roles played by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the extension systems as supportive of the transition to mechanized farming. He notes that land grant universities were prime supporters of this technological revolution, but that “the reasons for this have not been fully explored” (p. 77). There is, in fact, a considerable amount of social science literature on this subject developed since the mid-1970s. Ellenberg draws on archival materials, agriculture journals, regional histories, and USDA and extension reports. His focus on technological transformation leaves unanswered a number of questions, some alluded to and others never mentioned. Farm mechanization led to consolidation of farms, resulting in fewer...
Read full abstract
Sep 19, 2012
Malcolm Harrison 
Open Access