If the sectional crisis helped define the Border South and the Civil War tested its loyalties,
the region's role in the struggles over civil rights in the 1950s and 1960s cast it again as
definitively southern and at the same time set apart from the Lower South. The litigation of
cases to the U.S. Supreme Court in Brown v. Board of Education included four cases from the
Border region out of the five total cases. The NAACP's strategy targeted the Border South and
the cases emerged from the District of Columbia, Virginia, Kansas, Delaware, and South Carolina.
Reactions to the
Brown
v. Board of Education decision showed the Border region's complex
and contingent place as a deeply Southern area divided by competing loyalties
and interests. White political leaders in Virginia, in particular, attempted
to lead the South in "massive resistance" to school desegregation.
They called for Virginia to take the kind of leadership that it had demonstrated
for the South in the Civil War and conjured up images of the state standing
like a "stone wall" in resisting desegregation. Virginia closed
schools rather than integrate them, Delaware's Sussex County entrenched
in its effort to resist Brown, and Maryland's black and white residents
in the Eastern Shore town of Cambridge fought a wild, armed battle in
the summer of 1963 over civil rights, shooting at one another from windows
across streets until the Governor ordered in the National Guard to restore
order.
Yet, the Border region in the 1950s and 60s was clearly connected into national networks of
economy, media, finance, and government in ways that contributed to the crisis' resolution.
Naval bases in Maryland and Virginia represented massive federal power in the region, not to
mention federal dollars and jobs. Businessmen were dubious of school closings and other drastic
measures, seeing them as disasters for regional economic development.
Recently, Kevin Phillips has argued that the Border region is critical to any understanding of
the American Civil War since it comprised over half the states and two-thirds the population of the
country. The historical geographer D. W. Menig also considers the region worthy of greater analysis
since it so clearly defies the Mason-Dixon Line's neat division between North and South and instead
shows how fragmented the eventual tear between the sections was. No simple map depicts the Border
South's divided loyalties and cross-sectional ties.
Published: 16 April 2004
© 2004 William G. Thomas III and
Southern
Spaces