Ambiguous Industrialists: Paternalism, Labor Conflict, and Economic Change in North Carolina, 1921-1984

Daniel Seel, University of Wisconsin-Madison

This paper examines a counterintuitive phenomenon in capitalist politico-economic development: industrialists who actively oppose economic growth in their locales. Using the case of Kannapolis, North Carolina and Cannon Mills (1921-1982), I analyze how Charles Cannon deliberately prevented industrial diversification by restricting water access to potential competitors, opposing recruitment of new manufacturing facilities, and discouraging infrastructure development that might attract outside capital. Methodologically, this study employs process tracing and historical analysis of over 1,000 archival documents from corporate, union, and municipal sources. I analyze oral histories from 52 former workers and community members, complemented by local newspaper coverage spanning seven decades. This multi-method approach uncovers both explicit and coded evidence of anti-developmental strategies that rarely appeared in official records due to the normative stigma against openly opposing economic growth. The research challenges conventional understandings of capitalist rationality by revealing how economic elites prioritize local social control over profit maximization and regional development. I trace how the Cannon family transitioned from developmental to anti-developmental orientations across generations, identifying critical junctures where class strategies shifted in response to social upheaval, labor organization, and external competitive pressures. The anti-developmental strategy manifested through monopolistic control of essential utilities, political influence blocking tax incentives for competing employers, and dominance of local media suppressing discourse about economic alternatives. These actions revealed a complex class strategy aimed at maintaining both economic and social dominance. By reconceptualizing anti-development as a strategic response to disruption rather than market failure, this research contributes to understanding how regional development patterns emerge from the interaction of elite strategies, labor control imperatives, and path dependencies—relationships that continue to shape contemporary patterns of inequality and uneven development across the American landscape.

No extended abstract or paper available

 Presented in Session 147. Conservative Actions and Anti-Development Arguments