In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

Conclusion Paternalism emerged as part of the textile industry in the South after the Civil War. As mills were built away from existing towns, mill owners had to provide everything for their workers. In return, the owners expected hard work, obedience, and loyalty from their work force. Reciprocity formed an integral part of the paternalistic structure of the mill community, as it had been throughout the rural South with landlords and tenant farmers or sharecroppers after the Civil War.1 In many ways Cannon Mills was no different from the other textile mills that arose in the New South. James William Cannon’s rise as an industrialist in the 1880s was part of the trend to industrialize the South. The Cotton Mill Campaign spread across the southern Piedmont, and textile mills were constructed in large numbers. Mill owners built mill villages and operated their firms in a paternalistic manner. These early mills employed poor whites and people leaving the farms for a better way of life. Few blacks were employed, none at all in production jobs, and mill villages were segregated— as was the greater society. Furthermore, James Cannon’s attitude toward organized labor reflected that of other mill owners. He fought to keep his textile mills free of unions. Yet Cannon’s mills were different in several ways. James William Cannon was a southerner who built his cotton mills in North Carolina, unlike some northern mill owners who moved to the South, such as J. P. Stevens. Because Cannon lived close to the cotton mills and was visible in them, he was able to establish a paternalistic structure in Kannapolis that was absent in mills that had absentee ownership. Local ownership and Cannon’s constant presence created a paternalistic, family-like bond between the workers in Kannapolis and James Cannon. Cannon’s power over his workers was almost complete. 214 @ Conclusion While another southern-owned and -managed mill, Dan Rivers Mills, turned to industrial democracy to manage its workers, James Cannon would not deal with his workers that way. He would not allow industrial democracy or unionization to weaken his control over his mills or employees. James Cannon and later his son, Charles Cannon, dealt harshly with workers who turned against them to the unions. Employees who violated the paternalistic bond and turned against the Cannons lost the mill owner’s protection and benevolence. The deeply rooted structure of James Cannon’s paternalism transcended the death of its founders and became stronger under his son Charles Cannon. Indeed, the Cannon myth—that idea that Charles Cannon understood his workers and provided material prosperity in exchange for a compliant work force—was noted by union organizer Dean Culver. By the 1940s, this material prosperity translated into automobile ownership, cheap rental housing, high textile wages, job security, a good school system, recreational facilities , and theaters. Workers understood that the prosperity they enjoyed came from Charles Cannon and could be withdrawn if they were disloyal to him. Workers who agitated for unionization were fired, kicked out of company housing, thrown out of Kannapolis, and blacklisted. The way in which Charles dealt with the strike of 1921 early in his career demonstrated the consequences for workers who challenged the established power structure. This episode provided a powerful collective memory in the mill village that worked to retarded any serious union threat to the power structure until after Charles Cannon’s death. By 1921 Cannon workers had developed a collective identity, but that identity had limitations. First, it bound some workers in sporadic opposition and attempts at labor organizing, but it did not include all or even the majority of Cannon workers. Second, it did not overcome the loyalty or fear experienced by many employees toward Charles Cannon or the textile management . The iron fist in the velvet glove proved effective. While the welfare work practiced by the firm gained the loyalty of some workers and gave the impression that the Cannons cared for them, the efficient use of force against wayward workers instilled a degree of fear among many employees. The boundaries of the paternalistic compact were clearly defined. Third, no labor union had the staying power to combat James or Charles Cannon in the sort of sustained organizing effort it would have taken to overcome the pervasive power of the type of paternalism created in Kannapolis. Without the ability to convince most Cannon workers that any union was there to stay, no union could tap into the collective identity of employees to...

Share