War on Poverty: A New Grassroots History, 1964-1980

Looking Back to the City in the Hills: The Council of the Southern Mountains and a Longer View of the War on Poverty in the Appalachian South, 1913–1970

THOMAS KIFFMEYER Looking Back to the City in the Hills The Council of the Southern Mountains and a Longer View of the War on Poverty in the Appalachian South, 1913–1970 Though usually associated with racial minorities in decaying urban centers, the War on Poverty rhetorically and symbolically began with Appalachia. Shortly after he declared “unconditional war on poverty” in his January 8, 1964, State of the Union address, President Lyndon Baines Johnson announced that he would “launch a special effort in the chronically distressed areas of Appalachia .” On April 24, the president visited Martin County, Kentucky, located in the heart of the Appalachian coalfields, with the express intention of putting a “white face” on his nascent reform program. Coming on the heels of nearly a decade of varying degrees of racial unrest precipitated by the civil rights movement , this “white face” helped sell his agenda to the American public. Perhaps unintentionally, Johnson’s visit linked his reform efforts with a much longer history of Appalachian reform that dated to the late nineteenth century. This essay takes that longer view, tracing the history of the Council of the Southern Mountains (csm), an Appalachian aid society founded in 1913 that channeled much of the War on Poverty money that came into rural Kentucky. It also argues that looking at Appalachia creates a different interpretation of the War on Poverty from those that focus on cities. Poor mountain whites failed to harness—or, more properly, rejected—the possibilities presented by what they labeled “other people’s programs, instead channeling public and private monies [360] Kiffmeyer into programs of their own.” This essay attempts to make sense of that history and to fit it into our understanding of the War on Poverty. In 1964, focusing on those white southerners who left Appalachia for northern cities following World War II, Cleveland, Ohio, resident Adelbert Bodnar informed the csm, headquartered at Kentucky’s Berea College, that his city had “trouble . . . with ‘Sam’ [an acronym for southern Appalachian migrant] in the area of behavior.” While the adults were responsible for drunken brawls, robbery , burglary, vandalism, and gang fights, “Sam’s” children used the foulest language. No wonder, Bodnar wrote, that decent people called these migrants “poor white trash.” They also threatened the economic security of established residents. Since the 1930s, industry had increasingly relocated to the Piedmont South, lured by right-to-work laws and tax breaks; in contrast, Appalachian residents , jobless in large part as a consequence of the mechanization of the coal industry, moved north in hopes of gaining industrial employment. This migration , which began during the Great Depression and rapidly increased during and immediately after World War II, brought thousands of mountaineers to America’s industrial centers: Cleveland and other cities now faced “hordes of hillbillies [who came] up here to take away what jobs [were] left.” Bodnar ordered the csm to “keep them back in the hills where they belong” and teach them respect for order and property. That a Cleveland resident would know about, let alone contact, the csm is not surprising. The csm had long advocated reform in Appalachia. Comprised mostly of fairly conservative members of the Congregationalist and Presbyterian churches, the council was a loose confederation of individuals bent on remedying the region’s problems through a cooperative approach that allowed virtually anyone—from outside industrialists to local church leaders—a seat at the table. Perley Ayer, who became the csm’s executive director in 1951, reflected this consensual approach to social reform through his “call to partnership.” While Ayer recognized the destructive capabilities of extractive industry, he sought ways to include “all segments of society; public and private, dominant and dependent ; . . . affluent . . . as well as poor” in his consensus-building reform programs. By embracing everyone, Ayer believed that he could create a sense of ownership among all parties in the csm’s reform efforts and that beneficial change would then result. As Ayer took his message across the country in the 1950s and 1960s, the csm became well known and more open to all Americans. In 1983, nearly twenty years after the council received Bodnar’s letter, a csm member explained why the organization finally rejected Ayer’s cooperative ap- The City in the Hills [361] proach in 1969 and underwent a profound transformation. During the 1960s, the csm received millions in federal funds, much of it through the Office of Economic Opportunity (oeo). During that...