The Rise of Cotton Mills in the South

by Broadus Mitchell

Little towns, villages almost, did not fail of local enthusiasm and capital in small amounts.[214] In January of 1882 Fort Mill, in York County, was agitating the building of a cotton mill there, and $50,000 was set as the amount of stock to be secured.[215] Chester, a little earlier concluded her size would compel her to produce $300,000 for a mill within her borders.[216] A gentleman of Griffin, Georgia, offered to subscribe one fourth of the capital necessary to start a mill there.[217]

Having seen the character of the arguments used in attracting native capital to the Southern cotton mill projects, and the extent of the response to these appeals, it is next necessary to turn to the other source of assistance—outside capital. Practically this may be termed Northern capital, although Englishmen interested themselves in the Southern ventures, and much money came from what were strictly termed, the Eastern States. In the minds of the people of South Carolina, North Carolina, Georgia, Alabama and those States, capital stock of a Southern mill held in Baltimore would be classed as appertaining to the North.

It is proper first to consider the attitude of the South toward Northern capital; second, the appeals made to Northern capital; and third, the effect of these appeals or the response of them.

In many aspects the rise of cotton mills in the South was less an industrial development than a subtle drama, powerful in its great motives. As William Garratt Brown has said of the history of the Southern States in their struggle upward after the war, it is not only to be studied with diligence of research, but is to be viewed with passion. The story of the cotton mills is filled with elemental emotions; the moving characters are splendid, clear-cut dramatic types; there are the villain, the hero, the schemer, the lover of his fellow men. The vices and virtues take their part—self-sacrifice, jealousy, hate, charity, revenge, bravery, honor, patriotism.

The first act of the drama is constituted in the defeat of Hancock and the magnificent refusal of the South to be baffled—the oath to rebuild her shattered fortunes. The actors leave the stage with hope filling the future. The curtain rises on the second act to discover the chief spirits of the South setting systematically about "the cotton mill campaign"; their brethren converted to a belief that manufacturing the staple would transform the South, they turn in entreaty to their fellows for support, and the answer is loyal and gallant.

The third act opens with a situation which tests the greatness of the players' faith in what they profess. Domestic resources exhausted or exhausting, or slow in response to the need, should the object for which they were striving be lessened in its meaning, importance and desirability? Should the cotton mills which were to mean so much be restricted to the means of the South, urged to the front by a splendid pride and devotion? Should the esprit de corps which animated the Southerners, and the cheerfulness of their co-operation, with all that inspired these, when they failed of further effect, be considered to set the natural and proper limits to expansion?

Was this to close the action? Or was the South, remembering her vows, to cling to her ambition undiminished? In spite of wounds yet fresh and burning, which in the name of pity and honor and self-esteem cried out to be nursed and comforted at home, could the South face again her enemies, and this time not just to challenge, which was hard, but to entreat, which was hardest? Would the South rise superior to pride, and be content with nothing short of the fullest heroism? Would she go to the North for capital for her young cotton mills?

It was a silent struggle with herself. Little was uttered, but fundamental emotions were at play. When she decided to appeal for assistance in a work which she knew to be right, the climax of the drama had been reached. The crucial test had been endured, and the South had emerged triumphant.

As has been said, few lines are there to indicate the feeling. It is largely dumb show. But we may look at the expressions that did occur to show the attitude of the South toward the question of Northern capital.

The following manifesto is significant, involving as it does recognition of the necessity for a modification of political views if capital to be invested in the South, in the eyes of the North, was to be made safe: "In this state (South Carolina) we need capital and less party and politics.... Such men as Gould, Vanderbilt and Plant have invested millions of dollars in our railroads, manufactories and other enterprises, and have been remunerated in the face of a 'Solid South and a Solid North'. It is useless to say that millions have been driven off from like investments on account of personal whims and jealousies among prominent politicians in both parties. Can the South afford to remain solid? This is the great question of the day, and it can be answered in the negative.... We want all the capital possible to develop our hidden and inexhaustible resources...."[218] And again: "So long as we have section unity in politics in the South its material prosperity will be checked and an absolute injury will be sustained through its entire commercial and agricultural dealings by exciting distrust of capital.... So taking the past and the present as indices for the future, it is plain to see that a dissolution of the solid South will cut at the very roots of all these wrangles between the North and the South in which sectionalism is involved."[219]