Southern Gulag: How 20th Century Slave Labor Undermined the US Labor Movement
Let us talk this Labor Day about slave labor in the United States. No, not the antebellum kind before the Civil War but the slavery that persisted well into the 20th century, the slavery that was integral not only to the southern economy but slaves owned by northern corporations and used to break strikes and keep the South a union-free reserve. And I don't mean some metaphorical slavery, but, as Douglas Blackmon writes in his recent Slavery by Another Name, the slavery of brutal forced labor, whips, death and sexual rape of black women--in many ways worse than that of the older form of slavery.
The author is not a leftwing journalist but Atlanta bureau chief of the Wall Street Journal, but what he documents is seven decades of a southern gulag- and I use the word "gulag" deliberately for what his story shows is that the U.S. had within its borders as brutal a regime of degradation as the worst that Stalin could dish out. This southern gulag involved millions of black workers enslaved through a combination of capitalist employers, farm owners and a legal system that promised a brutal fate for anyone defying their de facto masters. And it is a key story for understanding the ultimate weakness of the overall U.S. labor movement, since having a deunionized Southern region was an essential tool in disciplining Northern workers who feared loss of jobs to a region without labor rights. That is the story that Blackmon tells. I urge every person to go out and read the book, but the following gives the highlights (or lowlights if you will).

Blackmon notes, as Reconstruction ended, white state governments realized "that the combination of trumped up legal charges and forced labor as punishment created both a desirable business proposition and an incredibly effective tool for intimidating rank-and-file emancipated African Americans and doing away with their most effective leaders." (p. 55) Every state in the South soon had laws allowing the leasing of prisoners.
Slavery Worse Than Old Slavery: Those convicted of these trumped up crimes - from vagrancy to "illegal voting" to using obscene language -- would be sold like slaves to farms or industrial concerns that could whip them and work them like antebellum slaves. In fact, their conditions, as Blackmon provocatively argues, were usually worse, since sheriffs leasing out convicts to pay court fees "had no reason for concern about how they were treated by their new keepers or whether they survived at all." Those renting a slave were quite willing to work a leased convict to death. In the first two years that Alabama leased prisoners, 20 percent died. Within three years, 45 percent were killed.(58) In the mines using the slave convicts, death was constant, with week after week of "dead black corpses" dumped into shallow graves.(327)
The culture of slave labor permeated most industries even for ostensibly free blacks. Free laborers who applied for jobs with the Southern Railway would instead find "guards with shotguns and dogs patrolling the perimeters of the worksites" and leather straps to beat men who tried to flee and assisted by county sheriffs who would return fleeting African Americans to the camps.(300) And the degradations of older forms of slavery extended to women caught in its nexus as well:
"At the lumber camps in southern Alabama, women seeking the freedom of their men were simply arrested when they arrived, chained into their cells, and kept to serve the physical desires of the men running the camps...And the laws of the South were interpreted explicitly to ensure that the rape or coercion of a black woman by a white man would almost never be prosecuted as a crime."(305)
Such slave labor was a key revenue source for state and county governments. In the 1880s, leasing convicts added up to more than 10% of state budget for state of Alabama. (95) By 1903, payments to the state from convict leasing was nearly equal to 25 percent of all taxes collected in Alabama.(112)
From key mining concerns to lumber mills to steel companies,
fortunes in the south were built on such leasing of slave labor. In Atlanta, James English, a mayor of
Atlanta in 1880, would build a network of industries, from Coal to brickmaking
to the Georgia Pacific Railroad to the First National Bank of Atlanta based on
convict slaves he bought and sold. Just
one example cited by Blackmon is that prisoners just in English's brickyard in
1907 produced $1.9 million in profit.(342)
While official state reforms were supposed to restrict the system in the 1910s and 1920s, it actually ballooned after World War I, especially at the county level and would last until World War II.
The Permeating Effects of Convict System on Southern Black Population: The southern slave system did not end with the tens of thousands of blacks officially convicted and sold under the system. Far larger numbers of African Americans were threatened with convictions and "voluntarily" would "confess judgment" and agree to work without compensation to pay a bond to the white landlord--turning them back into conscripted labor in the fields subject to shackles and the lash.(67-68)
Since any black person could be falsely accused and sent to the worst of situations--the slave mines - they were a tool for de facto enslaving most of the black population of the South:
"The reality of incarceration in the slave mines became so ubiquitously understood for African American men that landlords and local sheriffs - equipped with almost unchecked powers of arrest and conviction and enormous financial interest in providing labor to the mines and other enterprises - could make almost any demand upon any black man. More often than any other that demand was that they remain on the land of specific white farmers, living lives of supposedly voluntary serfdom" or face the worse fate of the mines.(332)
Blackmon's estimates that about half of the 4.8 million African-Americans living in the Black Belt region of South in 1930 lived in "some form of coerced labor."(375)
Blackmon marvels at the ignorance that allows a time period in the South to be characterized by the almost benign term of "Jim Crow," when it was such a packed horror house of slavery, death and degradation. For black workers, the southern gulag's legacy was one of generations of stolen wealth, broken families and racist ideology.
The Effects of the Southern Gulag on U.S. Labor Movement: One key fact Blackmon emphasizes is that the convict slave system was completely integrated into the most advanced industrial concerns of the region, including mines and other companies soon owned by Northern capitalists and corporate holding companies. And everyone recognized that:
"Coal mines, timber camps, and farms worked by imprisoned men couldn't be shut down by strikers, or have wages driven up by the demands of free men."
White miners would launch a strike against the Tennessee Coal, Iron & Railroad company in 1904; in response, the company shut down some of the free mines and opened two more mines using convict laborers--defeating the strike. (293) This was a company that was soon bought by Wall Street investors from the North and supplied steel rails to the Union Pacific and Southern Pacific Railroads, and in the economic crisis of 1906, would be merged into U.S. Steel--with that Northern company becoming "the largest customer of the Alabama slavery system."(295)
When the United Mine Workers organized more than ten thousand free miners in Alabama in 1908, slave convict labor was crucial to maintain operations during strikes. Almost all were in jail for incredibly petty crimes, such as riding a freight train without a ticket.(313) At the pitch of struggle, 7000 white miners joined by 500 free black miners were on strike (many of the latter initially brought into the mines as strikebreakers). Coerced farm tenants, themselves de facto debt slaves to landlords, were forced by farm owners to come into the mines to help break the strike. "Trains loaded with black farmworkers from the Black Belt pulled into Birmingham every day."
The united strike by white and black workers led to mine owners leading an "aggressive campaign to divide the union along racial lines" with a black union leader arrested and then lynched. Alabama Governor Braxton Comer told union leaders that officials were "outraged at the attempts to establish social equality between black and white miners" and that he would not tolerate "eight or nine thousand idle niggars in the State of Alabama." He called the strike a threat to white supremacy and used armed military units to finally break the strike.(326)
The whole system reached its zenith as industrial concerns worked with local law enforcement and agricultural owners to smash black resistance and labor union organizing, with the system:
"knitting together the interests of capitalists, white farmers, local sheriffs and judges, and advocates of the most cruel white supremacy--all joined and served by an unrelenting pyramid of intimidation."(330)
The Legacy of the Southern Gulag for Labor: When unions would finally succeed in organizing nationally in the 1930s, that organizing was still nearly impossible in the South. Economically, the South would become a region where unionized firms could threaten to move to break unions in the North and, politically, it would remain a political bastion of anti-union voting to support anti-union legislation such as the Taft-Hartley Act in 1947. To this day, racial divisions are still promoted by employers to block union organizing drives.
Many conservative analysts try to explain the weakness of labor unions and social democracy in the U.S. through a whole range of culturalist explanations about the U.S. working class. Racism is often cited but as Blackmon's book makes clear, one incredibly key but almost completely unmentioned factor is the southern gulag that destroyed free labor in a whole region of the country--with the full cooperation of northern capitalists who recognized the economic and political usefulness of a non-union region of the country to undermine labor in the rest of the nation.
Blackmon began his book wondering how U.S. companies would stack up if compared to the German corporations who relied on Jewish slave labor during World War II. The answer from his book is that the U.S. corporate elite still has much history to answer for, history which unlike in Germany or the Russia, is barely even acknowledged.


Re: This southern gulag involved millions of black workers enslaved through a combination of capitalist employers
Isn't "millions" a vast exageration here? That would mean the entire Black population. The total number of those ensnared in the judically-ordered work camps couldn't have been more than 100,000 and I doubt it was even that high.
Re: having a deunionized Southern region was an essential tool in disciplining Northern workers who feared loss of jobs to a region without labor rights.
Northern coporations were utterly unwilling to relocate south until A) air conditioning was invented and became widespread and B) the South cleaned up its racial injustice act.
Re: Every state in the South soon had laws allowing the leasing of prisoners.
Interesting factoid: This was portrayed in Gone With The Wind where Scarlett O'Hara staffed her sawmills with leased prisoners. The book however portrayed her actions as rather shady and her friends decidedly disapproved of it despite the hypocrisy of having been slave-owners (which Scarlett pointed out to them). It would seem that this slave-labor stuff was not very respectable in the South (the book is fiction of course but was written by a genuine Southerner) and decent people preferred not to know or be involved in it. It would be interesting to see the racial breakdown of this phenomenon. The old South was not known for treating any of its convicts gently and was not above exploiting "po' whites" too.
September 1, 2008 8:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Read the book and the post-- the formal convict system was merely the whiphand-- literally -- to de facto imprisoning almost the whole black population as serfs to farm owners. Since anyone could be sent to the slave mines at any time, they had to obey white authority as if slaves, since any defiance would lead to even worse fates.
Your citing of Gone With the Wind-- one of the great apologies for the romance of antebellum slavery --- is just sad. And the downplaying of the southern system is typical of the denials of the system for over a century.
September 1, 2008 9:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you for posting this.
However, it poses more questions than it answers...and it lacks context. Let me begin with the latter.
First. Convict labor was the norm during that period not only in our country but all over the world. I live in a very small, former mining town in rural California. Its current water system was built in 1941 by convict labor on lease to the county. I have the local newspaper article of the time which describes the process in glowing terms. No one thought there was anything wrong with the system. I don't know the ethnicity of those convicts but they were certainly not black. I recently watched Cagney in his 1930's classic "White Heat". You can see a sanitized version of the system portrayed there and in many, many other movies of the '20s, '30s, '40s and '50s. French penal colonies were notorious for their harsh brutality (see the Yves Montand classic).
Second. Labor conditions were harsh everywhere for all laborers and particularly so in the mines. Most mining was done in the coalfields of the north and gold and silver fields of the West by free white men working for peanuts in company towns. The roads, and many of the railroads, to those mines, in the west at least, were built by the Chinese who suffered vicious treatment at the hands of their white co-workers, not management.
Third. Whites did not want to live and work with blacks anywhere. Not just in the South and not just in America.
As for the questions. Why did the system end? And why wasn't it ended much earlier? Where were all the abolitionists, muckrackers, communists, Progressives, New Dealers, New York Times Pulitzer Prize winners (like Duranty who shilled for Stalin and Frederich something who did the same for Hitler), "courageous and brilliant" leftie journalists, writers, film makers, lawyers and other louts during this long 70 year period?
September 1, 2008 11:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
@offensivetoyou
How is this
an answer to this?
As if the left and liberals were the only set of voices with the power to end this system, the only ones who had some moral obligation to stop it. That's ridiculous.
September 1, 2008 11:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
@ sTiVo
That's their function. They are supposed to unearth and expose injustice and advocate its end. If they don't what good are they? Speak truth to power, remember?
September 1, 2008 12:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
That is absurd. The left was deeply involved in publicizing stuff like this. It was dismissed as "communist propaganda" and they weren't strong enough to make it widely known.
Perhaps they might have chosen to emphasize this particular angle more, but that is Monday Morning Quarterbacking of a completely dishonest sort, because you give the impression that you actually care about this stuff, when actually, your MO is clear to all who watch you - you hate the left and all its works and somehow everything you comment on is twisted into a framework that blames the left. They're always either morally bankrupt or worthlessly ineffective. Where is your morally sound and politically more effective alternative? You don't have one and you should stop pretending you do.
But now that a journalist for the Wall Street Journal has apparently written about this, one might as well ask the absurd question - where was the WSJ while all this was going on, arguing that this sort of exploitation did not befit American democratic ideals?
All you've proven is that the left was too weak to effectively raise this issue at the time - which is just making one of Nathan Newman's points for him.
September 1, 2008 12:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
@ sTiVo
Perhaps? This is a system which was more extensive and more unjust than actual pre-Civil war slavery (according to Newman and the author)...and you say perhaps?
And how did the Left behave when it was strong?
Was it honest about the monstrous flaws in communism as it was actually practiced?
And you wonder why I am so cynical about the Left. Maybe the motto of the New Left should be "the buck stops there".
Also, please note that I nowhere engaged in an ad hominem attack on you. I criticized a political ideology. In harsh terms, true, but no harsher than most posters here describe the right wing and the Bush administration. Yet here you are, turning the discussion into an attack on my supposed flaws, making it very, very personal. So, once again, look in the mirror before you accuse others of anything.
September 1, 2008 1:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's not personal, do you deny that you never miss an opportunity to go after the left? That is something you're quite vocal and proud of and do all the time.
The left at its strongest was not strong enough to make something of this. There is no particular shame in it. There's no great honor in that either, but it's not their fault and certainly not their fault alone.
I ask again - where is your alternative, less morally compromised and more effective alternative? It seems to me that is the least one can ask of you to demonstrate the sincerity of your views on this issue.
September 1, 2008 1:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
@ sTiVo
And I ask again, how did the Left behave when it was strong?
Which brings me to a more direct answer to your question. As of today, there's no better alternative to our present system, to the hard work of discussing issues and policies, of trying to convince neighbors and opponents, of dealing on all levels beginning with the local with very specific problems and solutions. Those who insist on looking at "the big picure, the grand solution, the all encompassing ideology" are overwhelmingly worthless louts or ambitious cheats.
September 1, 2008 2:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
@OTY
That's not really an answer.
That's what I thought this forum was for, but it's kind of hard to discuss things with you when from your very first post you call people "louts". Kind of a conversation stopper, ya think?
How did "the Left" behave? Which left, when? Sometimes abysmally, sometimes heroically. You know, like humans in general. Why is it always "the Left" that falls under your moral microscope and never their opponents?
September 1, 2008 3:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
@ sTiVo
Actually it is an answer. Too bad you can't recognize it as one. No one ever said the process would be easy. If you are distracted by name-calling you simply aren't fit for politics.
Over at Free Republic I criticize the Right. That's what I do. I'm a curmudgeon. A friend summed up Left and Right; if not for the Right nothing would be built, if not for the Left everything would be destroyed. Not a bad summation.
What I principally have against the Right is that they don't want to check their greed. What I have against the Left is that their hatred and jealosy of the Right blinds them to the faults of our external enemies. Again, not a bad summation.
September 1, 2008 11:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
FYI---FDR and the New Deal DID end this form of slavery. There was a concerted effort, led by the President and Mrs. Roosevelt to end "peonage" in all it's forms. It is well documented. What this book adds to our collective knowledge is the full context in which this abomination took place. Ending peonage was a violent struggle that did not happen overnight by any means. It took years to root out all the various forms of slavery by another name.
September 1, 2008 6:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
@ oleeb
That's not good enough. The South was an essential part of Roosevelt's grand coalition. It would never have meekly agreed to an end to such a profitable enterprise or to more equality for blacks. Nor would Roosevelt have risked his political position. I want to know the details.
September 1, 2008 11:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Im shocked that a subject has come up and you don't have superior knowledge!
I have an idea, why don't YOU go look it up and learn a little something. It is not difficult to find out about the campaign to end peonage. I'm sure you, in your vast wisdom, can go find it.
Your assertions about FDR and the south being a part of his political coalition are nongermane.
September 2, 2008 3:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Re: Your citing of Gone With the Wind-- one of the great apologies for the romance of antebellum slavery --- is just sad.
My point is not that GWTW is to be taken as Gospel on anything factual-- but the presence of leased convicts does establish that people in the 1920s (when it was mainly written) were aware of the practice and it gives us some insight as to what the public attitude was.
And I stand by what my criticism: "millions" is an exggeration. Exaggerations are excusable when being employed for hortatory purposes to right some ongoing injustice, but since we are discussing history here factual inaccuracies cast doubt on the entire subject. And really: right here right now anyone of us could in principle be caught up in the (blatantly unconstitutional) system of civil forfeiture, but that would not excuse some future historian who tried to claim that "300 million Americans were victimized by civil forfeiture laws".
September 1, 2008 1:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gone with the Wind was written in the 1930s, so certainly did incorporate a more "modern" view of slavery and its aftermath.
September 1, 2008 10:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Re: Gone with the Wind was written in the 1930s
A bit of a quible, but the book was published in the 1930s (1936), but Margaret Mitchell did most of the writing a decade earlier. Health and family issues caused her to put it aside for several years before resuming the manuscript. The last part of the book (more or less Scarlett's marriage to Rhett) is rushed and rather unfocused as compared with the meticulous detail of the earlier portions.
Ms Mitchell was born in 1900 and while she was a bit of a liberal (for her era) her attitudes were formed almost a century ago, and she knew people who had gone through the Civil War and Reconstruction; probably even knew ex-slaves. Again, you can't her work for sober, factual history but it's invaluable as a window on Southern perceptions of race, slavery, the Civil War and Reconstruction.
September 1, 2008 5:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why you chose to spotlight a labor defeat rather than celebrate one of its victories on Labor Day is truly baffling but since you brought it up, don't you think the failure of labor organizers in The Uprising of '34 may have "undermined" unions in the South more than anything else? The (mostly white) workers were ready and willing to unionize and look what happened to them.
September 1, 2008 12:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've actually often written about labor victories on Labor Day-- I've probably done more "Labor Day" posts than anyone in the blogosphere since I've been doing it since 2002.
But occasionally it's worth understanding why labor hasn't succeeded more than it should-- especially when it's tied to an obomination of American history that needs more discussion. Labor Day is one of those days when maybe more attention will be paid to a post like this one.
September 1, 2008 1:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Typo alert, Nathan.
Surely you mean "abomination". Your spelling is fraught with a different message since the Corsi book.
September 1, 2008 1:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Also an abomination is a deed. Things are not properly called abominations.
Guess we are getting picky here.
But to the greater point: OTY confuses what people hunger for with what they should hunger for.
John Stuart Mill made the same mistake (called the Naturalistic Fallacy) in saying that something is desired if and only if it is desirable. In his case (being a hedonist) it was pleasure.
People might desire exploiting their fellow men and women but that does not make it right. They can restrain their desires. It is not inevitable that they act out their desires.
The way to prevent human exploitation is to fight it and not to resign oneself to it.
In that respect conservatives are rather weak types when it comes to what is right and wrong--contrary to what they profess--they more often than not accept evil in the world and even embrace it themselves by the logic that it is inevitable.
There are many things that I desire that I restrain myself from doing because I have moral fiber.
Our leaders should be exemplars of moral rectitude not weaklings that succumb to evil because they see it as inevitable.
September 1, 2008 11:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
No doubt you mean the abomination of oligarchy since that together with inept labor organizers is what crushed The Uprising of '34 and thoroughly discredited the labor movement in the South.
Please note hundreds of thousands of strikers and they still lost, and lost badly, because organizers were not prepared. They promised support they could or did not deliver. Bad strategy, bad tactics and bad timing.
September 1, 2008 2:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
You obviously know your Labor History (I studied it once myself, but that was long ago, much too long ago to argue details with you), but I am still not sure what your disagreement with Nathan is about.
Is it that with another set of strategy and tactics, this all might have turned out differently, to our everlasting benefit, or is it that, as strong as these strikers were, they still weren't strong enough to defeat what they were up against? If it's the latter would they ever have been strong enough to take their opponents on?
September 1, 2008 3:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
You obviously know your Labor History.
Not really. I do know my region, county and personal history fairly well. The local county seat was a textile mill town. My own branches of the family were luckier than others. All my great-grandfathers had trades in addition to farms so were not totally dependent on cotton, growing or milling, for cash.
I thought my question to Nathan was fairly direct but he never answered so I will repeat it
I think Nathan is scapegoating the South by blaming organized labors own failures on racism. They had a great opportunity in 1934. They blew it.
September 1, 2008 4:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not even sure what your point is or who the bad guy is in your story? Sure, there a number of important strikes and union organizing drives in the South, but they were fatally weakened by the southern system of repression. Yes, labor leaders missed a number of major opportunities-- although 1934 was before the CIO had formed and mounted major organizing drives in the North, much less set itself up to support industrial union drives well in the South (the real failures on that front came in the late 1940s).
The problems of labor are not monocausal, but the story in this piece is one that few people know, so that was the point of writing it.
September 1, 2008 5:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
You obviously know your Labor History.
Not really. I do know my region, county and personal history fairly well. The local county seat was a textile mill town. My own branches of the family were luckier than others. All my great-grandfathers had trades in addition to farms so were not totally dependent on cotton, growing or milling, for cash.
I thought my question to Nathan was fairly direct but he never answered so I will repeat it
I think Nathan is scapegoating the South by blaming organized labors own failures on racism. They had a great opportunity in 1934. They blew it.
September 1, 2008 4:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
You obviously know your Labor History (I studied it once myself, but that was long ago, much too long ago to argue details with you), but I am still not sure what your disagreement with Nathan is about.
Is it that with another set of strategy and tactics, this all might have turned out differently, to our everlasting benefit, or is it that, as strong as these strikers were, they still weren't strong enough to defeat what they were up against? If it's the latter would they ever have been strong enough to take their opponents on?
September 1, 2008 3:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
What's interesting about GWTW is that it's actually a look back from the 1930s to the Civil War period. In the film there's a wonderful recapitulation of the Dunning school construction of Reconstruction--the whole thing in less than five minutes. By the time GWTW was made, the role of leased convicts in keeping wages low in the South was well-known and many states had stopped the practice.
While most industrial concerns did not move to the South until air-conditioning was widely available, some industries, such as textiles, had been moving south since the end of the 19th century. And what really lead to the industrialization of the South (and concurrent militarism) was the deal in Congress that massively expanded military facilities in the South in the 1960s.
September 1, 2008 1:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, as Blackmon emphasizes, while states had formally ended leasing of convicts, that was true only at the state level. The worst abuses had always been at the county level and those not only continued but often accelerated in the 1920s and 1930s.
What is accurate is that changes in industrialization and World War II did finally largely put an end to the worst of the practices that Blackmon document.
September 1, 2008 1:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
here is an example of labor practices from the early 1930s which led to the worst industrial case in US history, the tunnel built at Hawks Nest WVa. Perhaps as many as 700 people mostly black died from silicosis building this tunnel.check out the wiki on this
One of America's Worst Industrial Disaster - Hawks Nest Tunnel Tragedy
By B. L. Dotson-Lewis
Last edited: Sunday, April 01, 2007
Posted: Sunday, April 01, 2007
This short story is rated "G" by the Author.
Read New Stories Rated: G, PG, PG13, R
Share Print Save Author Tracker Recent stories by B. L. Dotson-Lewis
>> View all
When will America put health and safety of worker's first? Hawks Nest tunnel has been called one of America's greatest engineering feats of the 30s but hundreds of lives were lost due to silicosis as a result of inhaling silica rock dust.
Hawks Nest Tunnel Tragedy
One of America’s Worst Industrial Disasters
Gauley Bridge, West Virginia
Gauley Bridge is a small, picture postcard West Virginia Town where the New River merges with the Gauley. An old rusty railroad bridge stretches out over the water in a narrow place to the other side. Three wooden crosses are standing on a rock out in mid river – the center cross is stained a golden yellow and the ones on either side are stained a bluish white. Houses dot the sides of the steep hills and line the banks of the river. Stores are somewhere in between. The speed limit is 25 miles per hour through town. An old train station beautifully renovated serves as City Hall. A farmers’ market in the middle of town sells fresh garden vegetables from the river bottom land at Belva which comes to term approximately a full month ahead of gardens further up in the mountains where I live. Pumpkins and bales of straw are available in the autumn.
But hidden beneath this picture postcard scene is an almost forgotten dark history of one of the worst industrial disasters in the America - the Hawks Nest Tunnel Tragedy.
This disaster occurred during the Great Depression Era in the 1930s when times were hard; people were starving to death, and work was scarce. This Country was in such bad shape economically, it is reported prominent business men who had staked their fortune in the stock market, were plunging from high rise windows following the stock market crash in 1929.
However, not all important, powerful, wealthy men felt the urge to meet an untimely fate. No, a group of businessmen opted for a back office somewhere in New York City developing plans for one of the greatest engineering feats of the times. In fact as early as July 31, 1928, a deed was executed between National Water and Power Company and New - Kanawha Power Plant - called Hawks Nest Dam.
The plans involved harnessing the powers of Gauley River, directing the waters through a tunnel converting the water into electricity. This generated electricity would provide the power needed to begin what was later to become known as the "Chemical Valley of the World."
The Hawks Nest tunnel, located in Fayette County, West Virginia, was part of a project to supply hydroelectric power to the Electro Metallurgical Company, a subsidiary of the Union Carbide Corporation. The excavation work was contracted to the firm of Dennis and Rinehart of Charlottesville, Virginia, which received much of the blame for failing to take proper precautions after it was found that workers were blasting through silica rock.
It is reported the largest percentage of tunnel workers were poor African-Americans from the deep south, desperate for jobs. The migrant workers hopped empty coal trains and freight trains and landed in Gauley Bridge looking for work soon after the contract was awarded. The contract allowed two years for completion of the project. Hundreds of these workers died as a result of breathing the silica dust into their lungs generated by dry drilling which was used to expedite the project. The deaths began as early as two months on the job for some workers.
A marvelous engineering feat was accomplished at the expense of hundreds of human lives and the picturesque river t