Do outlaws of the 20th century like Bonny and Clyde match the description of the social bandit in the 19th century? While it does seem that both categories seem to be similar in their disregard to law and fame, evidence has shown that as times have changed, so have the bandits. Their differences are numerous but the most striking are the motive or “manliness” they promote, their support groups, and the circumstance of which their times occurred.
In the 19th century, the core belief of the celebrated social bandits was their masculine characteristics. ”The portrait of the outlaw as a strong man righting his own wrongs and taking his own revenge had a deep appeal to a society concerned with the place of masculinity….in a newly industrialized and seemingly effete order.” (White, 406) It is said that those who romanticized these characteristics admired their toughness, loyalty, bravery, honor and daring among other qualities. (White, 407) These traits are similar to those Davy Crockett showed in the Disney version where he disobeys his superior’s orders to do the “right” thing. But by the time of the 20th century bandits, the values of masculinity had changed. If the social bandits promoted values, then the outlaws promoted material gain. Gorn comments: “Dillenger’s wild year was a response….to ideals of masculinity….during the Great Depression.” Here, masculinity meant reclaiming all that had been lost during the Great Depression. Women, cars, and clothes were all Dillenger sought for. (Gorn, 175) Bonnie and Clyde also didn’t bother to call their crimes a way to advance social causes like revenge or righteousness. They simply went after the “small stakes”. Clyde was described as a “careless and remorseless killer”. Cott, 222)
White also describes the bandits as having 3 kinds of supporters. The kin supporters, the active supporters, and the passive supporters.(White, 389) Certainly, both the social bandits and outlaws had passive supporters but it is the first two in which they differ. Family is only briefly mentioned in how Clyde’s brother was in the gang (Cott, 222) and how Dillenger would receive support from his father to exonerate his son (Gorn, 158). But it is the 19th century gangs in which family which fed, hid and even warned the gang. One example of close kin is that three prominent gangs were led by brothers: the James, the Younger, and the Dalton (White ,390). The social bandits also had the active community support that the 20th century outlaws lacked. Social Bandits like the James gang were so familiar with locals in the counties that it was thought that “a local jury would never convict them”. (White, 390) Meanwhile, the later outlaws were hunted down constantly. Dillinger was being considered as a target for bounty hunters (Gorn, 166) and Bonny and Clyde were tracked and shot down by a posse.
Another difference was which the circumstances the criminals did their actions. In the mid-19th century where the social bandits emerged, the division across the nation was wide after having just finished the Civil War. Locals resented the officers with the north and vice versa. Complicated by frantic land-stakers, the tension in community over land and property reached a fever where violence was accepted as a means of proving oneself. In this case, White constantly explains that the line defining vigilante, sooner and bandit were vague (White, 397-399). The actions carried out by the gangs might not have seemed out of place. By the 1930s though, the rule of the government had been established and was assimilating power to fight outlaw crime (Gorn, 161-162). There was order and these bandits were a blatant departure from it. Dillinger, Bonnie, and Clyde were all described as living a life that broke free from the norm of others at the time which contributed to their fame as most of their fans lived vicariously through them (Gorn, 175-176).
The Social Bandits of the outlaws of the 20th century did have some similarities such as their fame and disregard for the law. However, they weren’t the same type of criminal. Social Bandits lived by their own honor code while outlaws sought wealth and material goods. And while both had passive supporters, the social bandits had much more local and familial support than the outlaws. Furthermore, the violence of the social bandits weren’t uncommon at their time while the outlaws like Dillinger drew attention particularly because of their extremity at the time.