Mill work in Southern textile mills was out of reach for many African Americans as white employees dominated the workforce. That is until 1964. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 mandated the integration of mill workforces across the United States. It banned segregation of public spaces and employment discrimination. Title VII of the act prohibited (and still prohibits) employers of 15 or more staff members from discriminating against prospective and current employees based on race, sex, color, nationality, or religion. Consequently, black employment soared in the 1960s and 70s.[1] After this legislation, mills saw an influx of black workers until they became the dominant mill demographic by the 1990s and 2000s.
The Civil Rights Act established the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, or EEOC, whose goal is to prevent unlawful discriminatory employment practices. This bipartisan group of five members, appointed by the President and with the consent of the Senate, has the power to intervene in civil suits, offer assistance for compliance, assist in conciliation or remedial action, and to make technical studies that are available for public review. The Rocky Mount Mills Records (1804-2007) contain the mill’s EEOC reports from the 1960s to the 1990s, which help illuminate the story of its demographic change. These yearly self-reported demographic data calculations document how many male and female employees are in each job category and how many of those are white, African American, Asian, Hispanic, and American Indian. The following link graphs the data in these reports over time. What patterns can you observe?
In addition to the EEOC reports are the mill’s own calculations for “colored” percentages. Because the mill was required to track the number of colored individuals in their workforce, mill administration inevitably calculated the percentage of their employees who were minorities from 1966-1981. These documents found with the EEOC reports show the percent colored employees found in each department with a calculated average. Documents following this format run until 1981.
“COLORED” PERCENTAGE, 1966-1981[3]
Textile employment in the South was largely closed off to African Americans before the Civil Rights Act. In the 19th century, young white women and children were employed to operate machinery, especially after 1860 when new technologies introduced faster machines that required less physical power from operators.[4] In the first half of the 20th century at Rocky Mount Mills, white males occupied the highest skilled work – managers, officials, craftsmen – and the lowest skilled work – laborers and service workers. White females could be found in the office doing clerical work and on the floor as semi-skilled operatives. Other southern textile mills exhibited the same demographic patterns. When blacks were able to find work at mills, they often only did menial jobs (e.g. custodians, night watchmen, truck drivers, etc.).[5] Certainly, right after Integration in Rocky Mount Mills, African Americans started off doing mostly unskilled work. Many, like Nelson Moody[6] and James Hargrove,[7] came from the farm and were the first generation in their families to enter into industrial work. The mills offered small but steady wages. Gradually, however, both black men and women were able to access more skilled and higher-level positions.
John Mebane, the mill’s last president, recollected that the mill underwent a significant transition in its workforce over time in the second half of the 20th century, going from majority-white to majority-black by the time it closed in 1996. However, how did this transition play out? Some mills’ journeys to an integrated workforce were bumpy; others complied with relative lack of drama. The oral histories with former Rocky Mount Mills employees CHW has collected so far suggest the latter. Pete Worrell,[8] a doffer, described how the mill had begun to hire more black workers by the time he left in the late-60s. Linda Daniels and Helen Alston,[9] African American ladies who began work at the mill after Integration, recalled that they had fun working there and were not treated as “slaves” as some people imagined. However, Annette Tyson Xavier[10] was very explicit about the racial landscape of the mill. She admitted to oppression there, mainly manifested in segregated family days and the absence of black families in the mill village. Ms. Xavier noted that many black families lived in Happy Hill and South Rocky Mount, predominantly African American areas. She confessed to knowing that they were not treated equally but they needed to provide for their families. Yet, being able to work at the mill in the first place gave them pride; they were respected.
Their experiences contrast with those of Herbert Tillman,[11] an African American gentleman who previously worked at Burlington Industries in Rocky Mount. Applying to Burlington in 1966 right after military service, he recollected that the mill wanted to hire more African Americans for higher-paying jobs, ones that did not entail sweeping or cleaning. However, he met resistance from white colleagues who did not appreciate that he and three other black employees were being trained to become weavers (1:17:30). Mr. Tillman talked of sabotaged machines during training. Later, when working at Abbott Laboratories, he described an occasion where his maintenance supervisor tore up his application for a higher level job, assuming he was not qualified for it (1:30:29). It turns out, he was the most qualified person who had applied. Such instances of racial stereotyping and professional obstruction happened elsewhere as high-profile court cases demonstrate.
During the early years of Title VII, there were about 15,000 complaints submitted within the first two years of its existence. There were a number of notable cases that demonstrated to textile mills all throughout the South how lengthy and damaging litigation can be. In Lea v. Cone Mills (1969), Shirley Lea, Romona Pinnix, and Annie Tinnin, all black women, successfully argued that Cone Mills at its Eno Plant denied employment to black women. Lewis v. J.P. Stevens (1972) originates from the Stevens plant in Abbeville, South Carolina where several black employees accused the company of racial discrimination in hiring, job assignments, promotions, recruiting, and layoffs. The district court sided with the plaintiffs. Sledge v. J.P. Stevens (1978) was more complex. The plaintiffs sued the company both individually and as representatives of past and present black employees and all unsuccessful applicants for its Roanoke Rapids plants. The Fourth Circuit Court concluded that the plaintiffs had successfully demonstrated a prima facie case of employment discrimination; Stevens relied too heavily on the opinions of white supervisors, failed to post job vacancies (which would disproportionately affect potential and current minority employees), and had neutral hiring practices. The United States v. Southern Weaving Company (1968) decision stated that mills cannot use relatives or friends as a reason to hire an applicant, which was one method get to around Title VII legislation.
As a government sub-contractor, Rocky Mount Mills was required to submit a Certification of Non-segregated Facilities by May 9, 1967 on the Order of Elimination of Segregated Facilities by the Secretary of Labor (32 Fed. Reg. 7439, 19 May 1967) in order to remain considered for federal contracts. In the Rocky Mount Mills Records at the Southern Historical Collection are the certification documents. In addition to the actual certification, the collection contains a letter from United Merchants and Manufacturers Inc., once one of the largest companies in the garment industry, to Rocky Mount Mills requesting for the second time to supply their certification. United Merchants and Manufacturers, as a government contractor, was required to have a certification from each of their sub-contractors before each could be awarded a contract exceeding $10,000.
Also within the Rocky Mount Mills Records are random items, including a newspaper clipping on Dan River Mills. The article describes the effects of the company’s affirmative action program, which resulted in a 17% minority employee population out of 19,000 workers. Five years prior, in 1964, Dan River Mills had 9% minority employment. The mill pushed to place more minority workers in production and operation jobs to have more diversity across its job classifications. But Dan River Mills was also not exempt from litigation. In October 1969, 25 black workers, led by Julius Adams, sued the mill for having segregated plants and for its biased hiring and promotion policies.[12]
In comparison, Rocky Mount Mills went from an average 9% minority workforce in 1966 to 30% in 1971. Rocky Mount Mills’ demographic changes were more dramatic. Nevertheless, these two textile mills demonstrate that the Civil Rights Act did compel companies to be more proactive and intentional in their hiring practices (though of varying degrees of compliance); it was in their economic best interest to do so. The clipping in the Rocky Mount Records files suggests that Rocky Mount Mills kept an eye on employment trends at other mills. Perhaps mill administration wished to gauge the “success” of their integrative practices. Alternatively, it may have been a remnant of the earlier Cotton-Textile Institute, where a group of textile manufacturers met and organized in the 1920s to increase cooperation and reduce competition in light of cotton overproduction.[13] The mills corresponded with each other to stabilize prices; maybe they approached minority employment in a similar fashion.
 |
 |
 |
Although textile mills across the South integrated after the Civil Rights Act of 1964, spurring a huge demographic shift in the industry in the second half of the 20th century, the sad irony is that US textiles became an industry in crisis, as the closing of Rocky Mount Mills attests. Cheaper foreign imports, resulting from various free trade agreements, replaced domestic products, leading to the closure of one mill after another during the past two to three decades. These closures meant loss of jobs and economic decline for whole communities, such as Winnsboro, SC, Danville, VA, Rocky Mount, NC, and many others where textile was a major industry. For most of these communities, they have yet to recover and witnessed the old mills being demolished. Fortunately, some mills have been saved and are being redeveloped for other purposes. American Tobacco, Loray Mill, Revolution Mill, Rocky Mount Mills, Carr Mill, Saxapahaw Rivermill, and Trenton Mill are just a few examples of mills in North Carolina seeing new repurposed lives. It is the hope that these reused sites will spur community and/or economic development like the American Tobacco Campus did for downtown Durham.
Nicole Coscolluela
Sources:
Primary:
Annette Tyson Xavier. Interview by Mary Williford. Oral History. Rocky Mount, NC. October 29, 2016.
Herbert Tillman. Interview by Bernetiae Reed. Oral History. Rocky Mount, NC. January 27, 2018.
James Hargrove. Interview by Elijah Gaddis. Oral History. Rocky Mount, NC. October 29, 2016.
Linda Daniels and Helen Alston. Interview by Mary Williford. Oral History. Rocky Mount, NC. October 29, 2016.
Nelson Moody. Interview by Elijah Gaddis. Oral History. Rocky Mount, NC. November 10, 2016.
Roland Pete Worrell. Interview by Elijah Gaddis. Oral History. Rocky Mount, NC. October 29, 2016.
Rocky Mount Mills Records, Coll. 05211. Southern Historical Collection, University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill.
Secondary:
Daly, Christopher B, Jacquelyn Dowd Hall, Lu Ann Jones, Robert Rodgers Korstad, James L Leloudis, and Mary Murphy. 1989. Like a Family: The Making of a Southern Cotton Mill World. New York: W.W. Norton & Co.
Galambos, Louis P. “The Cotton-Textile Institute and the Government: A Case Study in Interacting Value Systems.” The Business History Review 38, no. 2 (1964): 186-213. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3112072.
Glass, Brent D. 1992. The Textile Industry in North Carolina. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press.
Minchin, Timothy. 1999. Hiring the Black Worker: the Racial Integration of the Southern Textile Industry, 1960-1980. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
Strobino, Dante. “Textile workers built unions, led strikes, fought racism.” Mundo Obrero Workers World. August 20, 2012. https://www.workers.org/2012/08/20/textile-workers-built-unions-led-strikes-and-and-fought-racism/
[1] Tim Minchin. Hiring the Black Worker: the Racial Integration of the Southern Textile Industry, 1960-1980. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. 1999. 3.
[2] Of extreme importance to note is that these data points were gathered from unrestricted material from the Southern Historical Collection (Series 3.1 Employee Records, 1917-1996). Parts of the Rocky Mount Mills Records are restricted due to the presence of personal information. These records are restricted for 72 years after the last date of materials for the archived folder.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Brent D. Glass. The Textile Industry in North Carolina. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press. 1992. 19.
[5] Minchin 1999:3.
[6] Nelson Moody. Interview by Elijah Gaddis. Oral History. Rocky Mount, NC. November 10, 2016.
[7] James Hargrove. Interview by Elijah Gaddis. Oral History. Rocky Mount, NC. October 29, 2016.
[8] Roland Pete Worrell. Interview by Elijah Gaddis. Oral History. Rocky Mount, NC. October 29, 2016.
[9] Linda Daniels and Helen Alston. Interview by Mary Williford. Oral History. Rocky Mount, NC. October 29, 2016.
[10] Annette Tyson Xavier. Interview by Mary Williford. Oral History. Rocky Mount, NC. October 29, 2016.
[11] Herbert Tillman. Interview by Bernetiae Reed. Oral History. Rocky Mount, NC. January 27, 2018.
[12] Dante Strobino. “Textile workers built unions, led strikes, fought racism.” Mundo Obrero Workers World. August 20, 2012. https://www.workers.org/2012/08/20/textile-workers-built-unions-led-strikes-and-and-fought-racism/ (Accessed May 30, 2018).
[13] Louis P. Galambos. “The Cotton-Textile Institute and the Government: A Case Study in Interacting Value Systems.” The Business History Review 38, no. 2 (1964): 187. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3112072. (Accessed May 29, 2018).