That's mostly true, but I think you're going a little too hard against the role of the anti-mask laws. Nobody is saying they were the main weapon against the Klan or were essential or anything like that. They were a useful weapon against them though.
I don't have solid sources on this, but I'm pretty sure the masks were most useful for Plausible Deniability. Local officials didn't really want to fight the Klan, true. They still had to answer to State and Federal officials and out-of-state newspapers though. Klan members wearing masks allow them to claim to anybody asking tough questions that they can't do anything more against those people because they don't know who they are. (And allow them to deny some of them are infact members)
It's often tough to discuss logistics issues like this on boards. Everybody wants to find One Big Reason for something, and declare every other reason irrelevant. In reality, most large efforts to solve large issues require lots of different tactics. Often, no one tactic is "key" or "essential", but they all help out a little to achieve a goal. Taking away any one won't doom you or anything, but it will make things take a little longer and go a little harder.
— I wasn’t searching for one big reason, and I wasn’t declaring all other reasons irrelevant. I provided several reasons that are exceedingly well documented in Klan-focused histories for the decline of Klan violence (seriously, go read some histories and see how prominently mask laws play in the events).
— Alabama passed the first anti-mask law in the South in 1949—roughly 20 years after the national (2nd) Klan and its violent activities had been exposed and its membership severely dwindled (turning the Klan into a splintered group of uncoordinated and smaller local and state groups).
— The post-WW2 (3rd) Klan had alliances all the way up the local, county, and state-level political and legal ladder. They had direct alliances with governors. Local officials weren’t having to deny anything, because there was rarely anyone to answer to higher up the chain. In the states this occurred, hooded Klansmen weren’t really a thing like the 2nd Klan, and the violence continued without masks. The feds didn’t get involved until way late—FBI and the like cared about chasing communists more than they did Klan violence when it mattered.
— The 3rd Klan became a notable and present force of violence and intimidation throughout the South after the Alabama anti-mask law (and the other state laws that followed)
— The Klan robes and hoods most people envision were a staple of the 2nd Klan, and basically copied the costumes in Birth of a Nation—that is, 20+ years before mask laws (when they might have been helpful; at that time Klan membership numbered 3M-6M).
— The first and second Klan were organized and national. The third Klan was local and state specific, and never reached the membership levels of the former—yet mask laws didn’t stop Klan violence during this period.
— Alabama is a funny example—it passed the first Southern mask law thanks to a Klan-hating governor, and it later had a Klan-allied governor.
By the way, this period and the issues society struggled with was pretty much the focus of my graduate school work, and years of study since.
Well that's a lot of interesting detail, thanks! If they were indeed passed after the fall of the generation of the Klan that liked to use masks, then why did anyone bother to pass them? Had it gotten to the point of just virtue-signaling how against the Klan they were?
It’s complicated? I don’t think it’d be fair to call it virtue-signaling in a blanket fashion, no. Despite the overwhelming decline of 2nd Klan membership across the country, racism was still deeply entrenched in American society. Most Americans in heavily racist areas saw this as normal. A minority disagreed, and some were in positions of power to act on those convictions.
I believe it’s more than fair to interpret the mask laws as being fueled by recognition (by some) that times were changing, and a desire to avoid returning to the hooded times of the 2nd Klan. They were likely interested in preventing hooded Klan marches and intimidation acts—for example, Georgia’s 1951 mask law came a couple years after a group of hooded Klansmen stood outside a polling place to deter black citizens from voting, iirc.
I also think it’s wise to keep that interpretation balanced by recognizing that while perhaps not quite virtue-signaling, the mask laws—when viewed alongside the horrible racist violence allowed in the states that had mask laws—were passed by some people who wanted to unmask the Klan, and others who realized it was politically expedient to be seen doing so. In some cases—notably those states who allowed post-1954 Civil Rights-era violence and allied with local Klans—it provided an appearance of doing something, while then turning a blind eye toward the mask-free violence occurring in their states, and forging alliances with local Klan members.
Ultimately, to understand the period, its actors, and their motivations, we’re left digging through whatever records exist of public arguments made at the time for the mask laws, and looking carefully at who made the arguments, and how those arguments square with their actions in their states. Sadly, I’m not sure if there are many publicly available records online of that sort for someone to dig through.
I don't have solid sources on this, but I'm pretty sure the masks were most useful for Plausible Deniability. Local officials didn't really want to fight the Klan, true. They still had to answer to State and Federal officials and out-of-state newspapers though. Klan members wearing masks allow them to claim to anybody asking tough questions that they can't do anything more against those people because they don't know who they are. (And allow them to deny some of them are infact members)
It's often tough to discuss logistics issues like this on boards. Everybody wants to find One Big Reason for something, and declare every other reason irrelevant. In reality, most large efforts to solve large issues require lots of different tactics. Often, no one tactic is "key" or "essential", but they all help out a little to achieve a goal. Taking away any one won't doom you or anything, but it will make things take a little longer and go a little harder.