
In 1933, the nation was in the midst of the Great Depression, and no American industry was more severely depressed than textile manufacturing. It had been so even during the so-called boom times of the 1920s, which for textile manufacturing were instead a period of declining prices, management cost-cutting, and frequent and largely unsuccessful strikes by workers. This decline was most stark in the cotton industry, which had moved from its traditional centers in Massachusetts and Rhode Island to the southern Piedmont, which encompasses the foothills of the Carolinas, Georgia, and Alabama. There, thousands of displaced white agricultural workers found employment in the mills that sprang up in the region. Militantly anti-union employers were able to pay significantly lower wages in the South than in the North because of the plentiful supply of labor. Indeed, the onset of Great Depression in 1929 simply exacerbated what had been a steadily declining standard of living since the collapse of the cotton boom associated with World War I. It was these southern workers who most vigorously fanned the flames of disruption when the opportunity presented itself.

Leaders of the cotton textile industry welcomed the legislation as well as the creation of the National Recovery Administration to implement it. They quickly sought to turn its provisions to their advantage, as did those in charge of the moribund UTW. Under the new law's protection, union membership grew from a mere 15,000 in January 1933 to more than 300,000 just 18 months later. Local unions appeared in 208 cities, towns, and mill villages, with members not only coming from the South's cotton textile mills but also from the woollen, worsted, silk, and jacquard mills of the older textile centers in the Northeast. They shared an increasing militancy born of a conviction that the New Deal legislation was not working for them, and they accused their employers of blatantly manipulating industry codes in their own favor while ignoring or subverting the labor provisions of the act. Most notably, the expected rise in pay rates had not occurred, and this was felt most keenly by the desperately impoverished southern workers.


On September 18, the Winant board released its report on the strike. Although some of its language indicated sympathy for the UTW grievance list, its recommendations did not suggest any basic changes in code regulations or wage rates. Nevertheless, strike leader Gorman had no choice but to claim victory and order the strikers back to work. They returned to their mills in brief triumph, with those in the North facing little retribution. In the South, however, mill workers soon faced the ferocious vengeance of the angered mill owners. These workers were not covered by the protective legislation enjoyed by their northern counterparts, nor were their unions as strong. The UTW was finished as a force in Alabama and the rest of the South, and the larger cause of textile unionism, suffered a defeat from which it never recovered.
Additional Resources
Hoffman, James L. "A Study of the United Textile Workers of America in a Medium-Sized Southern City: Labor Revolt in Alabama, 1934." Ed.D diss., University of Alabama, 1986.
Additional Resources
Hoffman, James L. "A Study of the United Textile Workers of America in a Medium-Sized Southern City: Labor Revolt in Alabama, 1934." Ed.D diss., University of Alabama, 1986.
Irons, Janet. Testing the New Deal: The General Textile Strike of 1934 in the American South. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 2000.
Salmond, John A. The General Textile Strike of 1934. From Maine to Alabama. Columbia: University of Missouri Press, 2002.
Stoney, George, and Judith Helfland, writers and directors. "The Uprising of '34." VHS. New York: First Run/Icarus Films, 1995.