The New Politics of North Carolina

Christopher A. Cooper, H. Gibbs Knotts, Christopher A. Cooper, H. Gibbs Knotts

• Publisher: The University of North Carolina Press
• Year: 2012
• ISBN:
  9781469606583
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: American Government
• Index: Politics & International Relations

Political scientist V. O. Key in 1949 described North Carolina as a "progressive plutocracy." He argued that in the areas of industrial development, public education, and race relations, North Carolina appeared progressive when compared to other southern states. Reconsidering Key's evaluation nearly sixty years later, contributors to this volume find North Carolina losing ground as a progressive leader in the South. The "new politics" of the state involves a combination of new and old: new opportunities and challenges have forced the state to change, but the old culture still remains a powerful force. In the eleven essays collected here, leading scholars of North Carolina politics offer a systematic analysis of North Carolina's politics and policy, placed in the context of its own history as well as the politics and policies of other states. Topics discussed include the evolution of politics and political institutions; the roles of governors, the judicial branch, interest groups, and party systems; and the part played by economic development and environmental policy. Contributors also address how geography affects politics within the state, region, and nation. Designed with students and interested citizens in mind, this collection provides an excellent introduction to contemporary North Carolina politics and government. Contributors:
Hunter Bacot, Elon University
Christopher A. Cooper, Western Carolina University
Thomas F. Eamon, East Carolina University
Jack D. Fleer, Wake Forest University
Dennis O. Grady, Appalachian State University
Ferrel Guillory, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Sean Hildebrand, Western Carolina University
Jonathan Kanipe, Town Manager, Catawba, North Carolina
H. Gibbs Knotts, Western Carolina University
Adam J. Newmark, Appalachian State University
Charles Prysby, University of North Carolina at Greensboro
Ruth Ann Strickland, Appalachian State University
James H. Svara, Arizona State University
Timothy Vercellotti, Rutgers University

Part I. Citizens and Context

1. The Seeds of Modern North Carolina Politics

THOMAS F. EAMON

A blend of conservative and progressive ideas shaped the evolution of North Carolina politics from the end of the nineteenth century to the beginning of the twenty-first. The Democratic Party, which dominated the state for the first seventy-two years of the twentieth century, grew out of a consolidation of white supremacy and conservative economic interests.

The dominant figure in this transformation, Governor Charles Aycock (1901–5) ruled more by spirit and force of personality than tactical skills. Aycock supported the fundamental conservatism of the North Carolina Democratic Party but also held a passionate belief in education as the means of human fulfillment. Aycock’s legacy resulted in a state creed promoting economic advancement and education while protecting the privileged status of major corporations.

Later, as the national Democratic Party moved leftward in the aftermath of the Great Depression and Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal, leading North Carolina Democrats embraced some of the New Deal’s liberalism as well as an agenda for greater racial equality. But with rare exceptions, they also maintained close ties to the state’s business leadership, ties that served state-level Democrats well even after the emergence of a strong two-party system. In the twentieth and early twenty-first centuries, North Carolina’s political culture reflected a powerful strand of the traditionalism of the Old South along with a moralistic element, the latter leading in both reformist and conservative directions. Also, an entrepreneurial spirit was especially associated with burgeoning urban areas. The result was a state quite different from any other in the American South, even as it remained distinctively southern. The most successful politicians incorporated all these strands into their campaigns and administrations.

This essay focuses on North Carolina’s unique political culture through the perspectives of history, geography, institutional structure, and transformational leadership. It begins with a closer look at the state’s political history through a discussion of the post-Reconstruction period between the late 1870s and the end of the nineteenth century. Next, the essay examines the historical claim that North Carolina is one of the most enlightened and progressive southern states before moving on to discuss the state’s varied geographic landscape and the ways political geography has shaped Tar Heel politics. Next, the essay examines the institutional environment created by the rise of direct primaries in the early twentieth century and the subsequent political tensions within the Democratic Party. Of course, politics is more than just a collection of institutions; individual politicians and personalities exert important influences. The penultimate section focuses on the most important figures in the state’s politics, while the essay concludes by outlining the continuation of the progressive conservative heritage at the dawn of the twenty-first century.

North Carolina Politics in the Post-Reconstruction Era

In the early 1900s, the shadow of Reconstruction remained ever present. The state’s would-be rescuers saw Reconstruction as a time of rape, pillage, government theft, and general decadence. They attributed that curse to a takeover by northern conquerors, southern opportunists, and newly enfranchised but manipulated blacks. White conservatives had in fact narrowly controlled state government from the 1870s until the early 1890s, but blacks remained a significant force in parts of North Carolina. From the 1860s through the 1930s, most African Americans were Republicans, assuring that the party threatened the Democrats in North Carolina’s heavily black eastern counties. White Republicans were numerous in the state’s western half and dominant in a few mountain and foothill Piedmont counties. But white Republican adherents were more common in lowland eastern North Carolina than is sometimes supposed. The Populist Party, which supported small farmers and fought big business, surged in the mid-1890s and received much of its backing from economically insecure white Democrats. The combination of Populists, black Republicans, and white Republicans alarmed white conservative Democrats. The Fusionists, the term used for the Republican-Populist coalition, gained control of the state legislature in 1894. They consolidated their gains in 1896 when Republican standard-bearer Dan Russell (1897–1901) of Wilmington won the governorship. The Fusionists—one Populist and one Republican—occupied both of North Carolina’s seats in the U.S. Senate, and the alliance controlled the state legislature (Powell 1989).¹

A dynamic and jolting period in Tar Heel politics resulted, if only for a short while. Reports alleged corruption, and some of the rookie officeholders clumsily approached their duties. However, corruption was much less rampant than in the Reconstruction era. Nor were the state’s new keepers a violent bunch when compared to activists of three decades earlier or two years later.

In 1898, white conservative Democrats came back with a vengeance. Organization, intimidation, and thuggery led the party to make big gains in ballot boxes across the state. Having won on the basis of official voting returns in Wilmington, then the state’s largest city, the conservatives staged a military style coup d’état and seized control of local government immediately rather than waiting for incumbents’ terms to end. Two years later, the Red Shirts (white conservative activists noted for their bright attire) finished the mission. Attorney Furnifold Simmons of New Bern, the leading conservative strategist, began a long career in the U.S. Senate (1901–31). Aycock, an articulate advocate of white supremacy and universal public education, won the governorship. Aycock was in many respects the spiritual father of twentieth-century North Carolina politics, embodying its prejudices as well as the promise for a better life. A state constitutional amendment passed in the name of securing a literate electorate in effect barred most blacks from voting, a goal that already had largely been accomplished (Cecelski and Tyson 1998).²

From 1900 to the 1960s, North Carolina was a quasi-democracy, a place where many citizens lacked basic political rights. A U.S. constitutional amendment adopted in 1920 but not ratified by North Carolina until 1971 gave white women basic voting rights. For African Americans, however, these rights came later and more slowly, in a long struggle from the 1930s through the 1960s.

The Enlightened Southern State?

Despite North Carolina’s history of racism and white male dominance, many scholars have argued that by the early twentieth century, the state was actually quite enlightened. Five points have buttressed this claim: Republicans could always count on a significant vote, Democratic primaries had two well-identified factions, captains of industry and bankers made up the progressive Tar Heel elite, the state was more flexible on racial issues than most other southern states, and the state had a relatively honest political leadership and bureaucracy.

Even at the height of Democratic supremacy, North Carolina’s Republican Party could count on a significant vote, usually 30 percent or more in statewide general elections. Furthermore, North Carolina had a continuing state Republican organization and many county-level organizations. Among southern states, only Tennessee and Virginia could make similar claims (Key 1949).

During the first half of the twentieth century, North Carolina’s Democratic primaries often saw competition between a conservative faction and another regarded as more critical of the status quo. The in faction pushed for probusiness policies on taxes and regulation, though to a point they were also enthusiastic about economic modernization, promoting education, and road building. The rival faction accused the establishment of not doing enough to better the lot of the average North Carolinian. Its leaders criticized machine rule, referring to the dominant group led first by Senator Simmons and later by Governor Max Gardner (1929–33). Thus, a semblance of two-party competition existed within the Democratic Party. In many southern states, such factions were fleeting, changing from election to election, but more than in other southern states, North Carolina’s two-party system and the competition within the state’s Democratic Party offered some hope for those out of power as well as more potential for democracy (Key 1949).³

In addition, the captains of industry and their banker allies constituted the elite, both in the state and in its Democratic Party. These elites were urban based in a state that was heavily agricultural—even more rural than most other southern states. In much of the South until the 1960s, rural-based landholders and their banker-merchant kindred wielded strong influence and dominated Democratic affairs. This is not to say that the rural landholder class was a weak element, but industrial elites were more powerful in North Carolina. Among nonsouthern states, Pennsylvania stood out as a place where an urban-based industrial leadership wielded vast influence, using the Republican Party as its vehicle. However, in the first half of the twentieth century, big industry and related businesses were a much larger part of the economy there than in North Carolina. North Carolina’s captains of industry worked for internal improvements such as roads and more modern state services, but they were hardly enthusiastic about a participatory democracy harkening back to the old Populist era. While wanting the state to be regarded as progressive, its elites were often just as opposed to major political and social reforms as were the planter classes of Mississippi and South Carolina (Key 1949).⁴

The state was ostensibly more liberal on racial matters than all other southern states with the possible exception of Tennessee. North Carolina’s governors (see table 1.1) spoke out against lynching at a time when other southern governors often winked and turned in the other direction. North Carolina and Virginia, hardly a democracy in most respects, had much lower lynching rates than the other southern states. Governors Cameron Morrison (1921–25), himself a former Red Shirt; Gardner; and J. Melville Broughton (1941–45) prided themselves on...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• The New Politics of North Carolina
• Copyright Page
• Contents
• Tables and Figures
• Preface
• Introduction
• Part I. Citizens and Context
• Part II. Linkage Institutions
• Part III. Governmental Institutions
• Part IV. Public Policy
• Conclusion
• Contributors
• Index