The New Politics of North Carolina

By Christopher A. Cooper and Steven W. May

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

• Language: English
• Publisher: The University of North Carolina Press
• Release date: Sep 1, 2012
• ISBN: 9781469606583

Book preview

Introduction

Traditionalism and Progressivism in North Carolina

CHRISTOPHER A. COOPER AND H. GIBBS KNOTTS

Political observers treat North Carolina more favorably than other states in the American South. In his classic work on southern politics, V. O. Key Jr. labeled North Carolina a progressive plutocracy, praising the state’s progressive outlook and action in many phases of life (1984, 205). Although Key recognized the power of North Carolina’s business and financial elite, he described the state as far more presentable than its southern neighbors (1984, 205). More recently, Jack D. Fleer (1994, 1) wrote that North Carolina’s citizens demonstrated a progressive spirit as leaders of the region, and Paul Luebke (1998, 23) highlighted the strength of the modernizer philosophy in the major cities of the North Carolina Piedmont.

Considerable evidence supports the progressive view of North Carolina politics. North Carolinians elected several progressive governors, most notably Charles Aycock (1901–5), Terry Sanford (1961–65), and Jim Hunt (1977–85, 1993–2001). These governors were known for their enlightened policies, particularly when compared to leaders of other states in the region. For example, Sanford gained a reputation as the education governor during the same time George Wallace stood at the schoolhouse door denying African Americans entry to the University of Alabama. Similarly, Hunt’s time in the governor’s mansion supplied voters’ cravings for a competent, largely scandal free state government that has helped keep North Carolina in the forefront of Sunbelt growth (Christensen and Fleer 1999, 82).

North Carolina is also known for its political competitiveness (Christensen and Fleer 1999; Prysby 2003). In contrast to many other southern states, two-party competition has long flourished in North Carolina (Key 1949). North Carolinians elected a Republican governor, James Holshouser (1973–77), before many other southern states supported state-level GOP candidates. During a period of racial demagoguery, North Carolina voters were also less willing to support racially charged presidential campaigns. When other southern states backed the presidential candidacies of Barry Goldwater in 1964 and George Wallace in 1968, North Carolinians supported Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon.

Does North Carolina deserve this progressive reputation? Although the state’s residents have elected many progressive politicians, Tar Heel voters have also supported traditionalists such as Sam Ervin, Everett Jordan, and Jesse Helms. Helms, the unreconstructed foe of civil rights and the chief tormentor of Tar Heel liberals (Christensen and Fleer 1999, 81), employed racially charged tactics in his reelection bids, tactics that should have backfired in a progressive state. Moreover, white males have always dominated statewide political offices, and despite a few exceptions, Tar Heel voters have most often supported national candidates with traditional rather than progressive policy positions. There are also reasons to question the true beneficiaries of the state’s progressive economic policies (Key 1949; Luebke 1998).

The most notable challenge to North Carolina’s progressive reputation was levied by Jack Bass and Walter DeVries (1995 [1976], 218), who referred to the progressive myth of North Carolina. After analyzing a host of factors, the authors noted that migrants to the state who are familiar with the progressive reputation tend to be struck by the reality they find and that in terms of social and economic development, North Carolina—like Alabama under George Wallace—has not kept pace with the rest of the South (1995 [1976], 218, 247). Questions about North Carolina’s progressive spirit were perhaps most succinctly stated by veteran journalist Ferrel Guillory, who quipped that the farther you get from North Carolina, the more progressive it looks (Bass and DeVries 1995 [1976], 218–19).

The New Politics of North Carolina revisits this progressive legacy through a systematic analysis of North Carolina’s citizens and context, governmental institutions, linkage institutions, and public policies. This introduction begins by making the case for the importance of state politics and the value of the comparative method. Following this section, the introduction utilizes the comparative method to examine basic demographic and political characteristics in the North Carolina. Next, the introduction revisits North Carolina’s progressive reputation by updating Key’s measures and comparing North Carolina to its southern neighbors. The introduction concludes with a brief overview of the remainder of the book.

The Importance of State Politics and the Comparative Method

Some readers may question the utility of examining the politics of the American states. After all, the federal government garners more headlines in America’s newspapers and greater saliency in most people’s minds. Despite this lack of attention, states have become increasingly important in American politics. Beginning with Nixon’s new federalism, political power has shifted from the national to the state level. Issues of national importance such as gay marriage, abortion rights, and tax policies are settled in statehouses and state courts across the county. Many citizens see Washington as mired in gridlock and polarization and consequently believe that states are well equipped to help solve problems. Moreover, survey data reveal that citizens trust and place more faith in state and local governments than in government in Washington (Hetherington 2005).

In addition to these substantive reasons, there are also theoretical reasons for studying state politics. Political scientists are primarily interested in explaining variation—why some legislators engage in more casework than others, why some executives are more popular than others, why some citizens turn out to vote year after year while others abstain. Studying states provides political scientists with tremendous variation in political structures and outcomes. For this reason, political scientist Christopher Z. Mooney (2001, 1) recently remarked that the American states provide, arguably, the world’s most advantageous venue in which to test general propositions about political behavior and policymaking.

For example, a legislative specialist who wants to explain why some legislators perform more casework than others could study the U.S. Congress and estimate the effects of individual-level factors such as partisanship, time in office, and the gender of the legislator. However, the same legislative scholar will not be able to determine how institutional factors such as district structure, term limits, or district size affect casework because the federal government has only one legislative institution. By studying states, the same scholar could see whether legislative bodies with different structures and institutional arrangements produce different political outcomes. For these reasons, the study of state politics has been transformed from a neglected world (Jewell 1982) to a burgeoning field within political science (Morehouse and Jewell 2004).

This volume evaluates the new politics of North Carolina in the context of other states, frequently relying on the literature on comparative state politics. Although we often compare North Carolina to the forty-nine other states in the union, some questions lend themselves to comparison with the eleven states of the American South (Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia). At times, we also make comparisons between North Carolina and the peripheral South (Arkansas, Florida, North Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia) as well as the Deep South (Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, and South Carolina). By looking at North Carolina in comparison to other states, we will learn more about the politics and government of the North Carolina as well as gain a greater understanding of state politics more generally.

North Carolina in Comparative Perspective

How does North Carolina compare demographically and politically to other U.S. states as well as other states in the American South? North Carolina is the nation’s eleventh-most-populous state, with 8.6 million residents (see table 1.1). Among southern states, North Carolina ranks fourth behind Texas, Florida, and Georgia in total population. The Tar Heel State is also a national leader in population change, growing by 21 percent between 1990 and 2000, considerably higher than the national growth rate, 13 percent. Within the South, North Carolina trailed only Georgia and the megastates of Florida and Texas in population growth. Finally, many of the state’s residents were not born in North Carolina. Within the South, North Carolina has the fifth-fewest percentage of people born in their current state of residence, surpassing only Florida, Virginia, Georgia, and Texas in the percentage of nonnative citizens.

TABLE 1.1. Comparing Basic Demographics in the South, 2000–2005

Source: U.S. Census Bureau (2000, 2003, 2004a, 2005).

While North Carolina has never been a haven for ethnic diversity, it does have a sizable African American population. The state’s black population is almost 22 percent, compared to 13 percent nationally. In the South, North Carolina ranks sixth in percentage black population, trailing the Deep South states of Mississippi, Louisiana, Georgia, South Carolina, and Alabama. North Carolina’s Hispanic population has grown considerably, reaching 6 percent by 2004. Among southern states, North Carolina ranks fourth in the percentage of the population that considers itself Hispanic, trailing only Texas, Florida, and Georgia.

North Carolina’s median household income is $39,438, nearly $4,000 below the national average. However, in the South, North Carolina ranks fourth, behind Virginia, Georgia, and Texas. The homeownership rate in North Carolina is 69.4 percent, higher than the national average of 66.2 percent. Regionally, North Carolina ranks sixth in homeownership, tied with Arkansas. The poverty rate in North Carolina is the fourth-lowest in the South.

North Carolinians often split their votes between national-level Republicans and state-level Democrats, typically supporting Republican presidential candidates but electing Democratic governors and state legislators. Not surprisingly, the state’s partisan identification is divided evenly between Democrats and Republicans (see table 1.2). When comparing southern states’ partisan identification, North Carolina ranks as the third-most Democratic. This stands in stark contrast to South Carolina, its staunchly Republican neighbor. Although 56 percent of North Carolinians who voted supported George W. Bush in 2004, North Carolina ranked eighth out of the eleven southern states.

North Carolina Democrats differ from Democrats in other regions of the country. In North Carolina, 40 percent of residents identify as conservative, compared to 34 percent nationally. In the South, North Carolina has the seventh-highest percentage of conservative residents, tied with Louisiana.

Revisiting the Progressive Reputation

In Southern Politics in State and Nation, Key identified three areas—industrial development, public education, and race relations—where North Carolina appeared progressive compared to other southern states. Key praised North Carolina’s industrial development, highlighting the state’s diverse and productive economy. According to Key’s figures, North Carolina ranked second in both value of farm products and growth in the value of farm products. Key presented a similar picture when it came to manufacturing. North Carolina was second behind Texas in the value of manufactured products in 1939 and first in percentage increase in manufacturing (1949, 210).

TABLE 1.2. Comparing Political Basics in the South, 2004

Source: CNN.com (2004).

How does North Carolina’s industrial development compare nearly six decades after Key? As detailed in table 1.3, North Carolina’s manufacturing strength continues. The state currently stands second to Texas in manufacturing among the southern states. On a per capita basis, North Carolina ranks fourth behind Louisiana, South Carolina, and Tennessee. However, farming and manufacturing are no longer the sole measures of economic development. Healthy state economies are now expected to diversify. On the positive side, the state has become a center for banking, and, as table 1.3 shows, North Carolina is third overall in the South in the annual payroll for the finance and insurance sector. On a per-capita basis, North Carolina ranks second behind Virginia. However, in the increasingly important technology area, the North Carolina fares worse, ranking fifth in overall receipts from professional, scientific, and technical services, trailing Texas, Florida, Virginia, and Georgia. Per capita, Virginia stands far ahead, followed by Georgia, Texas, and Florida.

In addition to North Carolina’s industrial development, Key lauded the state’s educational progress. He highlighted Aycock, the education governor, who led the fight in support of the principle that the best investment a state can make is in the education of its children (1984, 208). Key does not provide empirical evidence on educational spending or achievement, but this reputation has been perpetuated over time. For example, Rob Christensen and Jack D. Fleer (1999, 83) note that North Carolina’s state university system has been long considered one of the best in the South.

TABLE 1.3. Comparing Industrial Development in the South

Source: U.S. Census Bureau (2002).

By most contemporary measures, North Carolina ranks in the top third of southern states in education (see table I.4). The state ranks fourth in percentage of high school graduates, behind Virginia, Florida, and Georgia, and fourth in the percentage of college graduates, trailing Virginia, Texas, and Georgia. Based on twenty-one factors, only Virginia tops North Carolina in rankings of the region’s smartest states (Morgan and Morgan 2006).

Key also trumpeted North Carolina’s progressive race relations, noting that although the state has been no picnic ground for its Negro citizens, the spirit of Aycock has persisted in a consistently sensitive appreciation of Negro rights (1984, 209). As with education, however, Key provided scant empirical evidence of North Carolina’s progressive policies on race relations. Following the publication of Key’s book, North Carolina experienced several racially polarized political campaigns, most notably the 1950 race for the U.S. Senate that pitted Willis Smith against Frank Porter Graham and the 1990 U.S. Senate contest between Helms and Harvey Gantt.

TABLE 1.4. Comparing Educational Achievement in the South

Source: U.S. Census Bureau (2000); Morgan and Morgan (2006).

According to one index of public opinion, North Carolina is currently the South’s ninth-most-progressive state on race relations, in front of only Arkansas and Alabama (Brace et al. 2002). Table I.5 also shows the percentage of black elected officials in the South: North Carolina ranks sixth, behind Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana, South Carolina, and Georgia. Only 8.5 percent of North Carolina’s elected officials are African American, far below the state’s 22 percent black population. North Carolina ranks fifth in the percentage of blacks registered to vote, lagging Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana, and South Carolina.

Based on this snapshot, North Carolina is not as progressive as the state described by Key during the first half of the twentieth century and is perhaps closer to the progressive myth posited by Bass and DeVries in the 1970s. North Carolina’s manufacturing prowess continues, but the state has fallen behind according to other economic development measures. Educationally, North Carolina continues to do well, ranking in the top third in the region. However, on several measures of racial progress, the empirical evidence places North Carolina near the bottom of southern states. When reevaluating Key’s measures of progressivism, North Carolina is not a laggard, but it is no longer at the forefront of progressive politics in the region.

TABLE 1.5. Comparing Race in the South

Source: Bositis (2000); Brace et al. (2002); U.S. Census Bureau (2004b).

Outline of the Book

The New Politics of North Carolina is divided into four parts and eleven essays. Although the book provides a comprehensive analysis of North Carolina politics, we made hard choices about which essays to include. These choices meant that we had to exclude relevant institutions, like the state bureaucracy, and important policy areas, such as health care. Nevertheless, we believe that the resulting product provides a compelling if not exhaustive picture of modern North Carolina politics.

The first part, Citizens and Context, introduces readers to political history and public opinion in North Carolina. In chapter 1, Thomas F. Eamon focuses on the state’s unique political culture by examining political history, geography, institutional structure, and transformational leadership. Chapter 2, by Timothy Vercellotti, presents data from opinion polls comparing public opinion in North Carolina to political views in other states.

Part 2, Linkage Institutions, examines the connections between citizens and government. Chapter 3, by Charles Prysby, addresses political parties, with particular attention to the development of the party system. In chapter 4, Adam J. Newmark focuses on interest groups and lobbying activities. In the final essay in this part, Ferrel Guillory argues that the media are important actors in North Carolina politics, but he also cites the increasingly soft bark of these watchdogs in North Carolina politics.

The third part evaluates the state’s governmental institutions. Chapter 6, written by Jack D. Fleer, examines the governor, focusing on running for office, transitions to power, informal powers, and gubernatorial performance. Chapter 7, by Christopher A. Cooper, evaluates the legislature, focusing specifically on legislators’ three primary goals: election, power, and good public policy. Chapter 8, written by Ruth Ann Strickland, considers judicial structure, judge selection, and court funding. In the last essay in this part, Sean Hildebrand and James H. Svara explore intergovernmental relations and federalism by considering governmental structure, tools of federalism, fiscal affairs, and the challenges faced by local governments.

The next part focuses on public policy. Although a variety of important policy areas exist, including economic development, health care, and law enforcement, we chose environmental and educational policies. These two policy areas are among the most important and provide vital lessons for policymakers operating in other areas. Chapter 10, by Dennis O. Grady and Jonathan Kanipe, considers the ambivalent legacy of environmental politics in North Carolina. In chapter 11, Hunter Bacot examines the role of public education. North Carolina has long benefited from a world-class higher education system, but state political leaders also focus considerable attention on other levels of education. Both essays in this part consider the state’s approach to the policy area, the specific policies in place, their effectiveness, and what they teach us about policy in the Tar Heel state more generally.

The conclusion identifies trends, pulls together common themes, and highlights what the volume has taught us about North Carolina government, politics, and policy. The conclusion also revisits the state’s progressive reputation in light of the dramatic changes in North Carolina politics over the past half century.

References

Bass, Jack, and Walter DeVries. 1995 [1976]. The Transformation of Southern Politics: Social Change and Political Consequence since 1945. Athens: University of Georgia Press.

Bositis, David A. 2000. Black Elected Officials: A Statistical Summary 2000. Washington, D.C.: Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies.

Brace, Paul, Kellie Sims-Butler, Kevin Arceneaux, and Martin Johnson. 2002. Public Opinion in the American States: New Perspectives Using National Data. American Journal of Political Science 46:173–89.

Christensen, Rob, and Jack D. Fleer. 1999. North Carolina: Between Helms and Hunt No Majority Emerges. In Southern Politics in the 1990s, edited by Alexander P. Lamis, 81–106. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press.

CNN.com. 2004. Election and Exit Poll Results. <http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/>. Accessed November 1, 2006.

Fleer, Jack D. 1994. North Carolina Government and Politics. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

Hetherington, Marc J. 2005. Why Trust Matters: Declining Political Trust and the Demise of American Liberalism. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Jewell, Malcolm E. 1982. The Neglected World of State Politics. Journal of Politics 44:638–57.

Key, V. O., Jr. 1949. Southern Politics in State and Nation. New York: Knopf.

Key, V. O., Jr. 1984. Southern Politics in State and Nation: A New Edition. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press.

Luebke, Paul. 1998. Tar Heel Politics 2000. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.

Mooney, Christopher Z. 2001. State Politics and Policy Quarterly and the Study of State Politics: The Editor’s Introduction. State Politics and Policy Quarterly 1:1–4.

Morehouse, Sarah M., and Malcolm E. Jewell. 2004. States as Laboratories: A Reprise. Annual Review of Political Science 7:177–203.

Morgan, Kathleen O’Leary, and Scott Morgan, eds. 2006. Education State Rankings 2006–2007. Lawrence, Kans.: Morgan Quitno.

Prysby, Charles. 2003. North Carolina: The Development of Two-Party Competition. In The New Politics of the Old South: An Introduction to Southern Politics, 2nd ed., edited by Charles S. Bullock III and Mark J. Rozell, 153–75. Lanham, Md.: Rowman and Littlefield.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2000, 2003, 2004a, 2005. Census of Population and Housing. Washington, D.C.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2002. Economic Census. Washington, D.C.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2004b. Current Population Survey. Washington, D.C.

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 being racial progressives, although their stance was symbolic and largely constituted tokenism and they strongly supported the basic social order of segregation. North Carolina equalized the salaries of black and white schoolteachers before other southern states did so, paying on the basis of highest degree earned rather than maintaining dual pay scales based on race. Political scientist V. O. Key Jr. (1949) and the great American travel writer John Gunther (1946) lauded North Carolina for its racial progress in the mid–twentieth century. The shadow of the Wilmington race cataclysm of 1898 was a bit of an embarrassment, something to be dismissed as an event of the distant past.⁵ Schoolchildren learned of Governor Aycock’s great progressive ideas on education but heard nothing of the bloodshed that preceded it.

Finally, North Carolina and Virginia were unusual among southern states in that top officials and continuing state bureaucracies strived to meet high ethical standards. Leaders and their subordinates were not constantly on the take.

TABLE 1.1. North Carolina Governors, 1865–2006

Source: State Library (2004).

Historians and political scientists offer two conflicting interpretations relating to the controlling forces in North Carolina politics from the early twentieth century to the 1960s. The first view—until the early 1970s, the dominant one—saw North Carolina as the most progressive of southern states. Key’s North Carolina chapter in Southern Politics in State and Nation, one strongly influenced by his research