THE RISE OF COTTON MILLS IN THE SOUTH A DISSERTATION Submitted to the Board of University Studies of The Johns Hopkins University in Conformity with the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy by Broadus Mitchell Baltimore, Maryland 1918 CONTENTS Page Foreword Chapter I: The Background 1-45 Chapter II: The Background, 45- continued 94 Chapter III: Conditions Precedent to 95- the Erection of the Mills 131 Chapter IV: 132- Capital 181 Chapter V: 181- Financing the Mills 225 Chapter VI: Financing the Mills, 226- continued 271 Vita 272 FOREWORD These pages represent a partial exploitation of materials gathered with a view to their ultimate use in more extended form. Many phases of the problem have been left entirely untreated, but the research upon these subjects has not been without indirect service in the present study. In the case of two chapters written midway of the investigation, in revision care has been taken to bring them into consonance with the indications which developed from subsequent discoveries. It is hoped, therefore, that their lack is rather as to completeness than as to fidelity of temper. Unless this presentation is entirely inadequate, in addition to the more objective economic forces, in the rise of cotton mills in the South, there will appear the human elements that lie at the core of the development. For assistance, my first thanks are due to Professor Jacob H. Hollander and Professor George E. Barnett, of The Johns Hopkins University, who have contributed in a hundred ways over the whole period of study, and to Dr. Nathaniel R. Whitney, formerly of The Johns Hopkins University and now of the Iowa State University, who helped form my original conception of the problem. In the wider aspects of my study I have drawn upon the experience and judgment of my father continuously. Acknowledgment is due Miss Ellen Rothe and Miss Ethel Hubbard, of the library staff of The Johns Hopkins University; to the authorities of the library of the Peabody Institute of Baltimore, and to the officers of the reading room of the Library of Congress. In two field investigations in the South, many gentlemen connected directly or indirectly with the cotton manufacturing industry have been instituting in extending their time and counsel and courtesy. From lack of space, it is not possible to make individual mention of all of these in this place; foot-note references to the interviews must be understood each one as expression of appreciation. For extraordinary assistance, however, it gives me pleasure here to return thanks to Hon. John Skelton Williams, Comptroller of the Currency; Mr. George A. Nölting, Jr., of Richmond, Virginia; Mr. O. D. Davis, of Salisbury; Mr. J. L. Hartsell, of Concord; Messrs. J. Lee Robinson and S. N. Boyce, of Gastonia; and Miss Anna L. Twelvetrees, Mr. Sterling Graydon and Mr. Hudson Millar, of Charlotte, North Carolina; Mr. W. J. Thackston, of Greenville; Mr. August Kohn, Professor Yates Snowden and Mr. William W. Ball, of Columbia, South Carolina, and Mr. T. S. Raworth, of Augusta, Ga. Of more intimate sort is my obligation to Professor K. Roberts Greenfield, of Delaware College, who by his constructive criticism has helped shape my opinion in a large way and has at many points improved the text as such. I cannot fail to acknowledge, finally, my gratitude to Mrs. Charles Reuter and the members of her family, under whose roof most of these pages were written. Broadus Mitchell Baltimore, February 6, 1918. THE RISE OF COTTON [Pg 1] MILLS IN THE SOUTH CHAPTER I THE BACKGROUND This opening chapter undertakes a broad survey in brief compass of the historical and economic background out of which the cotton manufacturing industry of the South, as a distinct development, emerged. Thus to begin the story of the rise of the mills with discussion of a period which commences a century in advance, is not unlike the production of a play hopeful in conception, robust in theme and rapid in action, but in which the curtain first rises on a stage which remains empty throughout an entire act. In viewing the period lying back of the concerted erection of cotton mills in the South, some observers have said they caught satisfying glimpses of men and facts not only presaging but causally related to the main action later. In spite of the present writer's usual disbelieve in the sufficiency of the evidence in these findings, it is a primary purpose of this discussion to give their statements, together with the supporting testimony that they deliberately and others incidentally have brought forward. The total of this study will show that the development, as such, not only first substantially showed itself, but had its [Pg complete genesis, about the year 1880. 2] It is plain that in order to present, however, the conclusions of students who have believed they discerned signs of it in earlier years, it is necessary to include in these preliminary pages much that will not appear as fact exhibit, but rather as opinion. And not simply this, but in seeking to make clear the opposite theory, free recourse is taken to the findings and statements of others than the writer. No apology is made for the incorporation of secondary material. On the contrary, this is intentioned. Lying, after all, outside of the central facts to come under view in this essay, exclusively original research in so extended a period has not seemed justified. In the second place, it has not appeared necessary for the reason that there has been usually less dispute as to the facts and the completeness of the data that much study has uncovered, than as to the right interpretation of material evidences agreed upon. Besides these considerations, it should be understood that much which might carelessly be taken as second-hand information, is really entirely and valuably first-hand. Peculiarly in the case of the economic history of the South, the statements of those who spoke from intimate elbow-touch with and active participation in the events of the various periods are sources in the finest sense. This is particularly true with respect to the work of the late Mr. D. A. Tompkins, which is repeatedly made use of. No document giving a photograph of conditions at one point [Pg of time could replace an utterance 3] which sprang from his rich association with the whole fabric of the South's economic life, and which voiced the result of his long and sensitive responsiveness to stimuli external and internal. He absorbed influences as a sponge does water, and when pressed his books and speeches yield observations quick, living, liquid. There is considerable reason for belief, too, that Mr. Tompkins' concepts, however correctly or incorrectly interpretative of the past, stood in a causal relation to the cotton manufacturing development in his active period and continuing to a less extent even to the present. While there has perhaps been no previous effort to bring the several beliefs into parallel presentation, concerning the rise of cotton mills in the South a little body of theory has grown up. Many of the statements are not well-informed, and in other cases they are almost too studied. Aside from a preparatory instance, designed to show the limits of divergence between the various views, the method here chosen is that of relating the different assertions to all of the periods to which they apply, rather than attempting to give at once expositions of each in continuity. It is hoped that in trying to examine the views in detail, the relative weighing of periods as intended by the writers will not be lost. One who made his study with empirical purpose, and may believed to have [Pg been not deeply interested in the 4] historical setting of the cotton mills, has made the following observation for South Carolina, taken by him as typical of the Southern States: "The story of the development of the cotton manufacturing industry in South Carolina is not wanting in impressive elements. From the beginning in 1790 till 1900 it was a struggle of gradually increasing intensity and extension."[1] This is a very positive statement of what may be called the continuity theory. Mr. Goldsmith's view is in marked contrast with a representative expression of Mr. Tompkins, like himself a Southerner for considerable time a resident of the North: "The settlement of mountainous and middle North Carolina was practically by the same elements,—Scotch-Irish, Germans, Moravians, and Quakers,— as came to Pennsylvania. Many emigrants landing at Philadelphia and New Castle, Delaware, settled first in Pennsylvania and moved southward through the Valley and Piedmont of Virginia to the Carolinas. Others landed at Charleston and moved northwestward. In South Carolina even the names of several of the northern counties are identical with those of Pennsylvania, as Lancaster, Chester, and York counties. "These settlers brought with them a large degree of knowledge and skill in manufacturing. All along the Piedmont and even in the mountains from [Pg Pennsylvania to Georgia, they not only 5] followed agriculture, but developed varied household manufactures in the period between 1750 and 1800.... In 1800 many charcoal blast furnaces making pig iron and many catlin forges and rolling mills making wrought iron bars, and other products of iron, indicate that a manufacturing development throughout the Piedmont region of the South might have continued parallel with that which has taken place in Pennsylvania, except for the circumstances of the combined influence of the invention of the cotton gin, the institution of slavery, and the checking of this immigration. As late as 1810 the manufactured products of Virginia, the Carolinas and Georgia exceeded in variety and value those of the entire New England States.