Highway Building and the Geography of Industrialization in North Carolina, 1934-1984
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
ACCESSIBLE ISOLATION: HIGHWAY BUILDING AND THE GEOGRAPHY OF INDUSTRIALIZATION IN NORTH CAROLINA, 1934-1984 A Dissertation Submitted to the Temple University Graduate Board In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY by Tyler G. Greene May 2017 Examining Committee Members: Bryant Simon, Advisory Chair, Department of History Lila Corwin Berman, Department of History Kenneth L. Kusmer, Department of History Peter A. Coclanis, External Member, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill © Copyright 2017 by Tyler G. Greene All Rights Reserved ii ABSTRACT Between the 1930s and mid-1980s, North Carolina became one of the most industrialized states in the country, with more factory workers, as a percentage of the total workforce, than any other state. And yet, North Carolina generally retained its rural complexion, with small factories dispersed throughout the countryside, instead of concentrated in large industrial cities. This dissertation asks two essential questions: first, how did this rural-industrial geography come to be, and second, what does the creation of this geography reveal about the state of the American political economy in the post- World War II era? I argue that rural industrialization was a central goal of North Carolina’s postwar political leaders and economic development officials. These industry hunters, as I call them, wanted to raise their state’s per capita income by recruiting manufacturers to develop or relocate operations in North Carolina. At the same time, they worried about developing large industrial cities or mill villages, associating them with class conflict, congestion, and a host of other ill-effects. In the hopes of attracting industry to its countryside, the state invested heavily in its secondary roads and highways, increasing the accessibility of rural communities. In their pursuit of rural industrialization, however, North Carolina also constructed a political economy that anticipated the collapse of the New Deal state. While historians typically see New Deal liberalism as the prevailing form of statecraft in the postwar United States, North Carolina achieved economic growth through a model that state officials termed “accessible isolation.” What accessible isolation meant was that North Carolina would provide industries with enough of a state apparatus to make operating a factory in a rural iii area possible, while maintaining policies of low taxes, limited regulations, and anti- unionism, to make those sites desirable. Essentially, industry hunters offered industrial prospects access to a supply of cheap rural labor, but isolation from the high wages, labor unions, government regulations, and progressive tax code that defined New Deal liberalism. Accessible isolation was attractive to businesses in postwar America because it offered a “business-friendly” alternative to the New Deal, and factories began sprouting throughout rural North Carolina. But the success of accessible isolation was built on a shaky foundation. Indeed, most of the employers persuaded by its promises were those in low-wage, labor-intensive industries, making North Carolina’s rural communities especially vulnerable to transformations in the global economy by the late twentieth century. iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS If I have learned anything in grad school, it is that completing a dissertation says as much about a person’s resources and support system as their talent and intelligence. Although I am proud of what I have accomplished in these pages, it is not self- deprecating to say that it would not have been possible without a number of people and institutions. The History Department at Temple has been a crucial source of support to me over the years. Department awards and grants have made it possible for me to travel to present my work at conferences and conduct archival research in North Carolina. I am also grateful to the North Caroliniana Society for awarding me an Archie Davis Fellowship, which allowed me to spend an entire summer digging through collections at the State Archives in Raleigh and the Wilson Library at Chapel Hill. Twice, the Center for the Humanities at Temple funded my work, including with an Advanced Graduate Scholar Award. CHAT also gave me the opportunity to workshop chapters in an interdisciplinary setting, and I thank Peter Logan and Petra Goedde for creating such a stimulating and collegial environment. I am also indebted to the administrative staff at CHAT and the History Department, in particular Vangie Campbell, Maggie Cogswell, Anne Eckert, Lafrance Howard, and the late Pat Williams. When funding was in short supply, Erin Lucas at the Philadelphia University Academic Success Center and Lorraine Savage and Leslie Allison at the Temple University Writing Center gave me some much-needed employment. They also taught me v a lot about writing and pedagogy, and created work environments that gave me a welcome respite from the rigors of dissertation writing. I am certain that I would have never had the nerve to even apply to graduate school if not for the encouragement and support I received as an undergraduate at Mars Hill College. Thank you to Lucia Carter, Kathy Newfont, John Gripentrog, and Phyllis Smith in the History Department, and to Karen Paar at the Ramsey Center for Regional Studies. The Hill laid the groundwork for my training as a historian, and I could not have asked for a more generous and inspiring group of mentors. Throughout the research process, I depended on the kindness and expertise of archivists and reference librarians. Special thanks to everyone at the State Archives of North Carolina and the North Carolina Collection at UNC-Chapel Hill, for guiding me to collections and sources I would have otherwise overlooked and for their incredible patience as I made request after request. I also appreciated the opportunity to present some of my work at various conferences. Paige Glotzer and Jessica Levy at Johns Hopkins University and Heath Pearson and Emily Prifogle at Princeton University organized the two most engaging and productive graduate student conferences I have ever been a part of. Thanks also to Beth English, Susan Levine, Perla Guerrero, Jarvis McInnis, and Jenny Barker Devine for reading and commenting on the conference papers drawn from this manuscript. One of the pleasures of graduate school has been getting to know so many brilliant emerging historians. I thank all of the members of my cohort who commented on my work and exchanged ideas, but also those who provided a sympathetic ear and a well- timed word of encouragement: Jess Bird, Paul Braff, Jon Crider, Elliot Drago, Carly vi Goodman, Melanie Newport, Sarah Robey, Luke Swinson, Seth Tannenbaum, Matt Unangst, and Silke Zoller. My deepest intellectual debts are to my dissertation committee here at Temple. Labor turnover in the History Department compelled me to make several changes to the committee’s composition over the years, but all signed onto this project with enthusiasm and provided trenchant critiques and challenging questions. As numerous other scholars can attest, Heather Ann Thompson has a knack for listening to a writer’s unfocused ramblings and finding the true significance of what they are saying, often before even they realize it. I am fortunate to have had several conversations with Heather as I conceptualized this project, which helped clarify my central questions and encouraged me to make bolder claims. Thanks as well to David Farber for his customary tough but fair- minded criticism. During the latter stages of this project, Lila Corwin Berman and Ken Kusmer graciously agreed to join the committee, and I benefitted greatly from their fresh and insightful readings of the manuscript. I was also fortunate to have Jim Cobb—whose books on southern industrialization have rarely been more than an arm’s length away— read and comment on an early version of this project. Thanks also to Peter Coclanis, who read the entire manuscript as the external member of my committee, and shared his vast knowledge of North Carolina and his creative and thought-provoking perspective on the global economy. Bryant Simon’s impact on this project, and my growth as a historian in general, is too big to quantify. He is a model for the kind of eclectic interests and imaginative thinking that produces the best historical scholarship, and having his perspective on each version of this manuscript has made this a much stronger dissertation. Throughout my time at Temple, Bryant has been a steadfast supporter of vii both me and my work. Bryant took me on as a student when there was little evidence that I had any aptitude for academic work, and he insisted that I not settle for asking easy questions or making tepid arguments. His belief in the potential of this project, even when I had my doubts, allowed me to write a more confident dissertation. Finally, the two people most responsible for this project are two people who, so far, haven’t read word of it. My parents made sacrifices so that I could pursue higher education, and they have continued to support me in every sense of the word. I didn’t need to write this dissertation to make them proud or earn their love, and knowing that has made my life and my work much easier. Thank you. viii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ABSTRACT ....................................................................................................................... iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...................................................................................................v