Electrification in South Carolina in 1920s

Modernizing Rural Life: South Carolina's Push for Public Rural Electrification
Author(s): D. Clayton Brown

Source: The South Carolina Historical Magazine, Vol. 99, No. 1 (Jan., 1998), pp. 66-85
Published by: South Carolina Historical Society
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/27570281 .
Accessed: 04/03/2014 20:23
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
.
South Carolina Historical Society is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The
South Carolina Historical Magazine.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 130.127.238.233 on Tue, 4 Mar 2014 20:23:12 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
MODERNIZING RURAL LIFE:
SOUTH CAROLINA'S PUSH
FOR PUBLIC RURAL ELECTRIFICATION
D. Clayton Brown*
THE USE OF ELECTRICAL ENERGY IS NOW CONSIDERED BY MANY
to be one of the most
important requirements
for modern
living.
When
electricity
was introduced to the United States in the
early
twentieth
century
it was available
only
in cities and
larger
towns. There was a
widespread
assumption
that the electrical
industry eventually
would
develop
the rural
market,
but it showed little interest
owing
to the assumed
high
cost and low
revenue. As late as 1930
only
about 10
percent
of the nation's farms and
nonurban homes were served. In South Carolina the
figure
was less than 3
percent.1
Without electrical
service,
rural inhabitants could not take
advantage
of
modern home
improvements,
so
by
1930 the lack of electrification was
considered
part
of a
larger problem:
the
widening gap
in the
quality
of life
between urban and rural residents. The latter continued to live much as
their
nineteenth-century predecessors
had. In South
Carolina,
with 78.7
percent
of its
population
classified as rural and almost
equally
divided
between
Anglos
and African Americans
(52
percent
and 48
percent
respectively),
farm and
home-management practices
remained
undeveloped
and
preindustrial.
This condition was caused
largely, though
not
entirely,
by
the lack of electrical service. Residents in the
countryside
had to
carry
water from
springs
or use hand
pumps
on wells. Perishable foods had to be
stored in
spring
houses and meals had to be cooked on
wood-burning
stoves. Women still used "sad irons" heated
on
stovetops
to
press
clothes
and household linens. Farm
operations
also
were inefficient as
many
tasks
were still
performed by
hand. In 1933 one
study
of South Carolina
farming
operations
demonstrated a need for water
pumps, milking
machines,
incubators and
brooders,
feed
grinders,
and other
electrically operated
machines. As stated
by
one
observer,
"the substitution of electric
power
would
certainly
stimulate,
diversify
and
reorganize
the
agriculture
business
of the state and
help put
it on a more
competitive
basis with other businesses."2
^Professor of
history,
Texas Christian
University
*U.S.
Department
of
Commerce,
Bureau of the
Census,
Fifteenth
Census
of
the
United
States,
Agriculture (Washington,
D.C.: U.S. Government
Printing
Office,
1932),
Vol.
4, p.
539.
2A.R.
Wellwood,
Survey of
Rural
Electrification
in South Carolina
(Columbia:
South Carolina State
Highway Department,
1933),
p.
95. Wellwood considered the
Census Bureau
figures
on rural electrification in South Carolina to be
slightly high.
South Carolina Historical
Magazine
99,
No. 1
(January
1998)
PUBLIC RURAL ELECTRIFICATION 67
In the
early
twentieth
century, electricity
was available in cities and
larger
towns,
but not in rural areas. These
photos
of
Florence,
South
Carolina,
about
1927,
show
power
lines and
poles, recently
installed
by
the Carolina Power and
Light Company. Top
left: B. of L.E. Store.
Top right: Looking
north on
Dargan
Street at the intersection of Evans. Bottom: West Business Street.
Courtesy
of the South Caroliniana
Library, University
of South
Carolina,
Columbia.
68 SOUTH CAROLINA HISTORICAL MAGAZINE
Many
observers felt electrical service would be
necessary
to overcome
the
poor
state of rural health in the United States.
Improper sanitary
conditions associated with the
use
of the
outhouse,
or
"privy,"
and the
water well were
significantly responsible
for the
higher infant-mortality
rate and the
higher mortality
and
morbidity
rates of the rural
population.
The
high
rate of hookworm
infestation,
often
reaching
30 to 40
percent
in
southern
states,
was linked
directly
to the lack of indoor bathrooms.
Without cold
storage
for
preserving
foods,
meals tended to be monotonous
and lacked the
variety
commensurate with a balanced diet.
Among
the
poorer
families,
the seasonal
scourge
of
pellagra commonly emerged
each
year
after a
prolonged
winter diet short of B vitamins.
Country
schools also
went without modern
lighting
and sanitation facilities. In
addition,
the use
of electrical conveniences was
expected
to enhance
significantly
the overall
quality
of home
life, for,
as stated in a
study
of South Carolina farm
homes,
the use of
electricity
would afford "the housewife and others in the household
an
opportunity
to devote time to more cultural and educational
things."
One historian has
gone
so far as to
say
that "for the vast
majority
of South
Carolinians who lived on
farms,
the 1930s could have
just
as
easily
been the
1830s."3
The lack of home
improvements
was linked to another concern
throughout
the United States: the
decreasing
number of rural residents. It
was
commonly thought
that if farm
families,
particularly youth,
could
enjoy
the benefits of modern
living
available in the
cities,
they
would be less
inclined to abandon
farming
as their
way
of life. An essential element of this
idea was electrification:
providing
farm families with the
opportunity
to
enjoy
such conveniences as
running
water,
electric
lights,
and radios. This
idea was
regularly expressed
in the rural
press.4
When the federal Rural
Electrification Administration
(REA)
started
operations
in
1935,
it
represented
the culmination of a
generation-long struggle by
both
public
power
and rural interests. A small number of states had taken
steps
to
furnish their rural residents with
electricity,
but most of them
only
conducted
a
publicity campaign.
South Carolina was
among
the few
exceptions:
it
made a serious effort to establish a
program through
which its rural citizens
3D.
Clayton
Brown,
"Health of Farm Children of the
South, 1900-1950,"
Agricultural History
53
(January
1979),
pp.
170-187. For a
study
of health conditions
among
mill workers in the
South,
see Edward H.
Beardsley,
A
History of Neglect:
Health Care
for
Blacks and Mill Workers in the
Twentieth-Century
South (Knoxville:
University
of Tennessee
Press, 1987).
First
quotation
in
Wellwood,
Survey of
Rural
Electrification, p.
93;
second
quotation
in Walter B.
Edgar, History of
Santee
Cooper
1934-1984
(Moncks
Corner: South Carolina Public Service
Authority,
1984),
p.
27.
4O.M.
Rau,
"Rural Electric Lines to Curb
Migration
from
Farms,"
Public Utilities
Fortnightly
16
(Aug.
15,1935),
pp.
200-209;
Progressive
Farmer
(Feb. 9,1924), p.
156;
Raleigh
(N.C)
News &
Observer,
July
31,1925,
p.
2.
In 1930 less than 3
percent
of farm and nonurban homes in South Carolina
were connected to electrical lines.
Many people argued
that the extension of
electrical lines would
improve
health and
farming efficiency
and would
encourage people
to
stay
in rural areas.
Top:
"An Indian
Family,"
Beaufort
vicinity,
December 1938. Bottom: "A House Which is
occupied by
a
negro
bricklayer,"
Summerville
vicinity,
December 1938. Both
photos
taken
by
Marion Post
Wolcott, courtesy
of
Special Collections,
Robert Scott Small
Library, College
of Charleston.
could have
electricity
in their homes. Its
activity
in this
regard
coincided
with the
push
within the
early
New Deal on behalf of rural electrification.
BECAUSE LESS THAN 3 PERCENT OF RURAL DWELLINGS HAD
electricity, proponents
of
public power
in South Carolina took the initiative
in 1929 to establish
a
state-owned and
-operated
rural electric-distribution
system.
That
year
former state
representative
Richard A. Meares circulated
among
members of the Palmetto State
legislature
a
proposal
to
investigate
the
power companies operating
in the state.
Taking
the
position
that "the
public utility companies
have not done what could be
reasonably expected
in
meeting
their
obligations
to the
public,"
he
urged
the lawmakers to order
a
thorough analysis
of the
industry, ranging
from the
generation
of
energy
to its final use in the home. Meares was convinced that electrical rates
throughout
the state were too
high,
that the
companies
had no interest in the
rural
market,
and that unless
pressure
was
brought
to bear
on the
industry
no
improvements
in service would be
forthcoming
in the cities or
countryside.
He criticized the state
government
for
poor
enforcement of its
authority
and
urged
better use of the state's
jurisdiction
over the
companies
in order to
guarantee
that the natural resources of South Carolina would be used for the
benefit of its citizens. He
expressed "particular
concern for the farmers
...
to make
possible
a
comprehensive
rural
program
on the
part
of the state to
transform
agriculture
from its
present
uneconomical and wasteful
processes."5
Meares was well known in the state. Born in 1858 in New York
City,
he
had studied law in
Greensboro,
North
Carolina,
and started
a law
practice
in Winston-Salem in 1879. After
only
three
years
of law he
quit
his
practice
and moved to
Ridgeway,
South
Carolina,
where he
pursued farming
and
invested in
manufacturing.
He was a
delegate
to South Carolina's historic
state constitutional convention in 1895. Over the next
twenty-five years
he
served in the state's house of
representatives
for several terms. He retired
from
political
life in 1920 and
opened
a
practice
as a
legal
consultant in
Columbia,
although
he maintained his home in
Ridgeway.
Meares was
seventy-one years
of
age
when he circulated his
petition
on behalf of rural
electrification.6
The
only previous attempt
to
promote
rural electrification in the state
had been the creation of the South Carolina Committee on Rural
Electrification in
Agriculture
(CREA)
in 1926. A
product
of the electrical
industry, specifically
the National Electric
Light
Association,
a trade
5R.A.
Meares,
"Proposed Investigation
of Public Utilities in the State of North
Carolina"
(1929),
p.
1,
R.A. Meares
Papers,
South Caroliniana
Library, University
of
South
Carolina, Columbia,
S.C.
6Geddings Hardy
Crawford, ed.,
Who's Who in South Carolina
(Columbia:
McCaw, 1921),
pp.
115-116.
association,
the national CREA
operated by establishing
such state
committees.
Membership
in the committees consisted of the state
agricultural
colleges, professional engineering
societies,
homemakers'
organizations,
and the electric
companies operating
in the state. The national CREA
genuinely
wanted to
bring electricity
to
farmers,
but
many
of the state
committees were
poorly organized
and financed.
Although they provided
educational material to farmers on
the
use
of
electricity
and conducted some
research,
the committees did not deal with the real barrier to rural
electrification,
the cost to farmers. Farmers
typically
had to
pay
the costs of
constructing
lines to their homes if
they
wanted service. At an
average
rate
of
$2,000
per
mile,
few farmers
sought
to obtain rural service. Rural
dwellers also
paid higher
rates than urban
residents,
about 6 to 10 cents
per
kilowatt-hour
compared
with the usual urban rate of 4 to 6 cents. In 1931
the South Carolina Power Rate
Investigating
Committee
reported
that rural
recipients
of service furnished
by privately
owned
companies paid
6 to 14
cents
per
kilowatt-hour.7
The South Carolina CREA
typified
the state CREAs around the
country.
It had little
funding
and could
only hope
that the state's
power companies
would show an interest in the rural market. The
Agricultural
Extension
Department
at Clemson
College,
the state's
land-grant
school,
had funded
a
survey by
J.T. McAlister,
agricultural engineer
in the
department,
of the
in the state. Results showed that fewer than
2,000 farms,
or 2
percent
of the
total,
had central-station
power,
and most of
them were close to towns. Other than
conducting
the
survey,
the South
Carolina CREA did
nothing;
it was so inactive that even the national CREA
complained
of its
apathy.8
Undaunted
by
the CREA's lack of initiative and the refusal of
privately
owned electric
companies
to
develop
the rural
market,
Meares
sought
to
convince the
people
of the state that a
public-works
distribution
program
was essential for the achievement of rural electrification. He needed to
mold
public opinion,
that of officialdom as well as the
citizenry.
Toward
this
goal
he
organized
a
coalition,
albeit a small
one,
of various
parties
having
common interests.
Among
his
supporters
were
J.T. McAlister,
who
had continued to
study
the
agricultural
uses of
electricity
at the Clemson
Experiment
Station;
Fitz
Hugh
McMaster,
editor of the Columbia
Record;
7South Carolina Power Rate
Investigating
Committee,
Report
on the Electric
Utility
Situation in South Carolina (Columbia:
South Carolina General
Assembly,
1931),
pp.
455-456.
8J.T. McAlister,
"Agriculture Engineering,
Its
Origins
and Growth in South
Carolina"
(paper presented
at the First Annual
Meeting
of the South Carolina
Section of the American
Society
of
Agricultural Engineers,
Clemson
University,
Nov.
22,1957),
pp.
5-6,
copy
at R.M.
Cooper Library,
Clemson
University;
Committee
on the Relation of
Electricity
to
Agriculture,
Sixth Annual
Report (Chicago,
1929),
p.
15.
John
Aull of the South Carolina Natural Resources
Commission;
and
Harold C. Booker of the Power Consumers Association. A few members of
the
legislature
were
part
of his
coterie,
with
Representative
Alfred
Scarborough being
the most
important.
Their work would be strenuous
because,
as Meares told a
friend,
the want of
appreciation
for such an advanced and
unique
mode of distribution of
energy
statewide must be cured
only by
education and
experience...
for it is but natural that
especially
in the South the
point
of view is backward rather
than
forward-looking,
due to
past
influences of the utilities
upon
our State and industrial leaders
individually.9
Meares had the advice and counsel of Morris L.
Cooke,
a
Pennsylvania
progressive Republican
who became known as the "father of rural
electrification." Born in
1872, Cooke,
a mechanical
engineer by profession,
was
appointed
director of the
Philadelphia
Public Works in 1912. He
gained
attention when he won a suit
against
the
Philadelphia
Electric
Company,
forcing
it to reduce rates in the
city.
In 1924
Pennsylvania
Governor Gif ford
Pinchot
appointed
him director of the state's
proposed
Giant Power
Project,
a
large-scale
electrical
system
that would make electric service more available
and reasonable in cost to the state's residents. It included
a
specific plan
to
provide
rural areas with
electricity.
"One of our chief
ends,"
Pinchot had
stated,
"is the
supply
of electric service to the farms." Without the benefits
of
electricity
in the
home,
he
said,
farmers continued to live a
preindustrial
life,
"and a
decay
of rural life resulted." The Giant Power
Project
never
succeeded,
stopped by opposition
from the
in
the
state,
but Cooke's
reputation
as one who understood both the
political
and technical
aspects
associated with
public power
was established.10
In 1931 New York Governor Franklin D. Roosevelt
appointed
Cooke to
the New York Power
Authority. Although
a
Republican,
Cooke endorsed
Roosevelt for
president
in 1932 and then
joined
the New Deal as Roosevelt's
advisor
on
power
and conservation. Cooke maintained an extensive
correspondence
with
public-power proponents throughout
the United
States and assisted
anyone trying
to
equip
farms and rural homes with
9
Albert N.
Sanders,
"State
Regulation
of Public Utilities
by
South Carolina 1879
1935"
(Ph.D. dissertation,
University
of North
Carolina, 1956),
p.
397; Wellwood,
Survey of
Rural
Electrification, pp.
101-104;
quotation
in Meares to M.L.
Cooke, June
28, 1932,
Box
134,
Morris L. Cooke
Papers,
Franklin D. Roosevelt
Library
and
Museum,
Hyde
Park,
N.Y.
10Brown,
Electricity for
Rural
America,
p.
23;
Pinchot
quotation
in Cooke
Papers,
Box
188,
Roosevelt
Library; Philip
P. Wells to
J.T.
Worthley,
Oct.
19,1926,
P.P. Wells
Correspondence,
Gif ford Pinchot
Papers,
Box
1698,
Manuscripts
Division,
Library
of
Congress.
service. Meare's
relationship
with him extended
only
to their
correspondence,
but it shows the reliance of the South Carolinian on his
advice,
especially
for
supporting
evidence of a technical nature and for
contacts with
public-power sympathizers.
Meares
designed
his own
political
strategy,
but he turned to Cooke for assistance.11
MEARES KNEW THAT HIS CAUSE COULD HAVE POLITICAL
importance
in the
state,
and it was no accident that he made his move on the
eve of South Carolina's 1930
gubernatorial
race. In
May,
the month before
campaigning normally
started,
Fitz
Hugh
McMaster featured a
daily
series
in the Columbia Record of
hard-hitting
articles that dealt with
public power
and rural electrification. Written
by
John J. McMahan,
editor of The
People,
a consumer-affairs
paper, they
included
excerpts
from articles that had
appeared
elsewhere on the
subject. Typically they
discussed various
public-power systems, including
the Los
Angeles municipal plant
and the
Ontario
public
rural-electrification
project
in Canada. In each
case,
according
to the
articles,
the cost of service was lower than
comparable privately
owned service furnished in the United States.
Improvements
in farm and
home life received considerable attention in the articles.
By combining
editorial comments with these
columns,
McMaster drew attention to the
subject
of rural electrification and
suggested
that it could be a
legitimate
area of
public enterprise.
One
reader,
noting
the unusual amount of
space
in the
newspaper
devoted to the
subject,
commented:
"already
one or more
candidates are
announcing
in advance their
advocacy
of a form of rural
electrification."12
While McMaster tried to stir
public
enthusiasm,
Meares lobbied for
stiffer use of the
regulatory agencies
of the state. In order to entice the
lawmakers to commit themselves to that
direction,
a favorite tactic of
Meares was to
place maps
of the state electric-transmission
system
in
strategic spots
in the
capitol building
so that lawmakers could visualize the
possibilities
of rural lines in their home districts. There
appeared
to be little
interest, however,
until late 1930 when Meares drew the attention of
Governor-elect Ibra C. Blackwood in the
project. Outgoing
Governor
John
G. Richards had shown some
sympathy
for rural
electrification,
but
Blackwood
brought
fresh
vitality
to the
subject
because he saw that the
proposal
offered an
opportunity
to stimulate
employment through public
works while
improving
the
quality
of rural life.13
11
Jean Christie,
Morris
Elewellyn
Cooke:
Progressive Engineer
(New
York: Garland
Publishing,
1983),
pp.
100-105;
Arthur
Schlesinger,
Jr.,
The Politics
of Upheaval
(Boston:
Houghton
Mifflin, 1960),
p.
381. For Cooke's endorsement of
Roosevelt,
see
his
original typescript
in Box
126,
Cooke
Papers.
12Meares to
Cooke,
Feb.
23,1932,
Box
134,
Cooke
Papers; quotation
in Columbia
Record,
May
21,1930.
13Meares to
Cooke,
Feb.
5,1931,
Box
121,
Cooke
Papers.
With the added
impetus
of the
governor's
interest,
the General
Assembly
created the South Carolina Power Rate
Investigating
Committee in
June
1931 and ordered it to make a
thorough
examination of the
power industry
in the state. The committee was
expected
to show if the electrical
companies
ignored
the
public
interest or
provided
their services at a fair and reasonable
price.
The results of the
study
either would advance the notion of
public
rural electrification or set it
back,
perhaps permanently.
The committee
reported
to the General
Assembly
in December
1931,
and even
though
all
aspects
of the
industry
were
covered,
the section on rural electrification was
the most
startling
and
strongly
worded.
Wisely taking
a broad socioeconomic
approach
to the use of
electricity,
the committee stated that
agriculture,
namely
cotton
farming,
was the chief
mainstay
of South
Carolina,
but with
the decline in cotton
prices,
due to worldwide
conditions,
farming
"is in
backward condition and
requires
modernization in fundamental
respects.
It is
vitally important,"
the
report
continued,
"for this State to lend its active
assistance in the transformation of
agriculture
from
predominant
cotton to
a diversified
system." Pointing
to the
inability
of the state to
produce
enough
milk,
eggs,
and meat for its own
consumption,
the committee
restated the need for diversified
farming
and concluded that rural
electrification more than
anything
else would enhance the
opportunities
for
those
sorely
needed
improvements.
But,
it
added,
the electrical
industry
was
doing nothing
to make its services available to the farmer.14
The committee
urged
state action because "it is
particularly inadequate
to
rely
on individual initiative to
bring
about the transformation that is
necessary
insofar as
power
is concerned. The State must lead. It must
help
in
every practical way." Specifically
the committee recommended the
creation of a
regulatory body
whose sole
purpose
would be the
promotion
of rural electrification. No
proposal
for a
public-works program
was
mentioned,
nor did the
report
describe how the
proposed
new
body
should
function. In essence the committee
only urged
the use of
governmental
power
to force electric
companies
into
action,
but the
report implied
that a
special
state
program
of rural line construction would be
appropriate.15
These recommendations
provided
an
important
boost to the
public
power campaign.
Governor Blackwood
quickly
sent a
special message
to
the General
Assembly
in
February
1932,
calling
for
"appropriate legislation
to establish a definite
policy
of statewide rural electrification." Lawmakers
responded
with
equal speed, creating
within two months the Electric
Utilities Division of the Railroad Commission. The new
agency
was
empowered
to
investigate
all
aspects
of the electrical
industry
in the
state,
but its real
purpose
was to
promote
rural electrification
through
its
regulatory
14S.C.P.R.I.C,
Report
on the Electric
Utility
Situation, #14,
pp.
43-44,
447-448
(quotation),
449.
15Ibid.,
p.
450.
powers.
The new division had the
authority
to set rural
rates,
to hear
pleas
for the construction of rural
lines,
and to order
power companies
to build
such lines whenever
they
were
judged
to be derelict in
serving
the market.16
Almost
immediately
the Electric Utilities Division was beset with
petitions
for the construction of rural lines. The
first,
which was a test of the
willingness
of the
newly
created division to
pressure
electric
companies
into
action,
was filed
by
the Eastover Rural Electrification
Committee,
a
contingent
of farmers in Richland
County
led
by
state
representative
Alfred
Scarborough
and R.A. Meares. Farmers in the Eastover area had tried since
1925 to
get
service from the Broad River Power
Company,
which held the
franchise in Richland
County. Scarborough
was a resident of Eastover and
president
of the Columbia Bank for
Cooperatives,
a small
co-op
bank for
South Carolina farmers. He believed in
cooperative
action as the solution
to farmers'
ills,
and with the aid and
support
of Meares he
brought
the
Eastover
petition
before the Utilities Division.17
The division ruled in favor of the
petitioners
and instructed the Broad
River
Company
to extend a line to Eastover.
During
the next
year
101
petitions
were
presented,
of which
forty-four actually
resulted in the
extension of electric service. The remainder were held in
abeyance
or
declared
economically
unfeasible. In most cases the division
negotiated
with the
respective power companies
instead of
issuing
formal
decrees,
indicating
that
despite
the
regulatory power
of the
state,
the
power companies
could not be forced into
serving
areas which
they
wanted to avoid.18
These
actions,
the creation of the Utilities
Division,
and the
rapid
presentation
of
petitions
for service indicated the
growing
conviction of the
public
that
political
and
regulatory pressure
would be needed to induce the
electric
utility corporations
in the state to
expand
their services. As the
Depression
worsened,
public opinion
shifted in favor of a
larger
governmental
role in economic
life,
and rural electrification
was
increasingly
regarded
as a
legitimate
area for
governmental
intervention,
especially
since the electrical
industry
had shown no interest in it.
Large corporations
and
utility companies
in
particular
became the
targets
of critics
during
the
Depression.
"It has been
wholesome,"
stated National
Grange president
Louis
J. Taber,
"to debunk the
myth
that
great captains
of
industry
and
great
wizards of finance could build
powerful
institutions that would
grow
like
mushrooms and
drop
their fruits like manna to a
waiting
world."19 In
^Journal of
the House
of Representatives of
South
Carolina, 1932,
Second
Session,
Feb.
10,1932,
p.
408.
17Sanders,
"Regulation
of Utilities in South
Carolina," p.
398;
The State
(Columbia,
S.C), June 26,1932;
Columbia
Record,
July
28,1932.
18Wellwood,
"Survey
of Rural
Electrification,"
p.
105;
The
State,
Sept.
10,1934.
19Quotation
in Winston-Salem
(N.C)
Journal,
Oct.
6,
1932. For an
example
of
public outrage
directed at the electric
industry,
see New York
Times,
Oct.
10,1932, p.
12.
assessing
the shift in the
political
climate toward the use of
public power,
the
promotional
work of men like Meares was
important,
to be
sure,
but the
growing public
demand that the electrical
industry
show a
stronger
interest
in
serving
the
general public,
an attitude evident
throughout
the United
States,
was
essential.
DESPITE THE ACHIEVEMENTS OF THE UTILITIES
DIVISION,
many
observers felt the tactics of
petition
and decree would not
promote
electrification fast
enough.
Therefore
steps
were taken to commit the state
government
to a
plan
that would furnish
many
of South Carolina's rural
inhabitants with the convenience of
electricity. Again
it was Meares who
led the
way.
Early
in 1932 he
presented
a
statewide
program
to the
Highway
Department,
the Natural Resources
Commission,
the Extension
Department
of Clemson
College,
and the Railroad Commission. Meares had devised a
plan
to combine
highway lighting
with rural extension lines: he
proposed
that distribution lines be built
along
the
rights-of-way paralleling
state
highways, thereby enabling
farms on the roadside to be connected with
them. A Clemson
College
Extension
Department survey
showed that
11,952
subscribers could be served
immediately through
such a
plan.
The
idea was not
unique
to South
Carolina,
but it received more attention there
than elsewhere.20
In
working
out his
plan,
Meares had the assistance of the
Department
of Electrical
Engineering
at the
University
of South Carolina.
Department
chairman T.F. Ball had
long
believed that the solution to the
energy shortage
in South Carolina was the
development
of
water-power
sites and
published
a book on
the
subject
in 1932. Several of his students wrote theses on the
subject.
Another focused
strictly
on rural
electrification,
showing
the benefits
to be derived from the construction of lines
along highway
routes. "A
constructive
idea,"
the student
concluded,
"would be for the state to
...
electrify
its
highways
and at the same time serve the farmers and rural
districts." That Professor Ball and his students worked
closely
with Meares
was evident in 1933 when the
Highway Department
filed
a
report
on the
feasibility
of such a
project;
it reiterated much of the data contained in the
thesis and in some instances even
repeated
the material verbatim.21
20Winston-Salem
Journal,
Oct.
6,1932,
p.
10. Preston S.
Arkwright, president
of
Georgia
Power
Company,
had stated in 1929 that "there are
great possibilities
in
combining highway lighting
facilities with rural electric transmission lines... and
by
using
the lines for a dual
purpose,
the cost to the farmer will be
greatly
reduced." See
Meares to
Cooke,
Feb.
5,1931,
Box
121,
Cooke
Papers.
21W.S.
Smith,
"Rural Electrification in South Carolina"
(Master's thesis,
University
of South
Carolina, 1932),
pp.
13,193
(quotation).
Smith was the co-author of Section
E of the
Highway Department's report
;
portions
of his thesis
appeared
in other
parts
of the
report.
See
Wellwood,
Survey of
Rural
Electrification
in South
Carolina,
p.
93.
Of course
graduate-student
research was not sufficient evidence for the
legislature
to
approve
Meares's
plan.
A more
comprehensive
and
authoritative
study
was
required,
and Meares
arranged
with Governor
Blackwood to have a
cooperative
statewide
survey
made
by
the Clemson
College
Extension
Department
and the Railroad Commission. Professor
J.T.
McAlister was a member of the
survey
team. Their
object
was to determine
the number of
possible
customers
along
state
highways.
Meares had
already prepared
his
strategy
for the
governor
on
getting approval
of his
plan
.
He told Cooke that he and the
governor
had
arranged
for the
survey
to be
made,
that the
governor
would
appoint
a
special
committee to review
the
results,
and that the committee was
expected
to "recommend" a state
program.
"With this information at
hand,"
Meares
wrote,
the
"governor
will in
January report
to the
legislature
recommendations for
...
real rural
electrification." For the most
part
the
legislature
had
already agreed
on the
proposal;
earlier that
year,
Meares told
Cooke,
"the whole of the
legislature
is of one mind about it and I have written the form such
legislation
should
assume."22
Each
step
of Meares's
strategy proceeded
on schedule. The
special
committee recommended a construction
program,
and Governor Blackwood
in his annual
message
in
January
1933
again
reminded the
legislature
of
South Carolina's need for rural electric service. The next month
Representative Scarborough
introduced a bill
creating
the
program.
Almost
immediately
the
governor
sent a
special message endorsing
the
bill,
asking
for "serious consideration of means of
extending
to
agriculture
the material
benefits and comforts of
electricity."
The bill encountered few
impediments
and
was
passed
in
April
1933 as
part
of a
plan
to establish the first
wholly
public
rural-electric construction
program
in the United States.
Although
it was limited to
serving only
those farms
along
state
highways,
the
plan
was the first of its kind in the United States and it
would,
if
finished,
provide
electricity
to more than
11,000
homes.23
The South Carolina Rural Electrification Act
(REA)
placed
the
responsibility
for
implementing
the
program
on the South Carolina
Highway
Commission. Each commissioner
doubly
served as a "Public
Utility
Trustee";
the commission was even declared
a "Board of Public Utilities."
Wording
of the law was
tricky,
for it first
required
that a
highway-lighting system
be
installed,
but the measure authorized the commission to establish a
system
of statewide rural electrification.
Requirements
for
highway safety,
however,
did not lessen the
importance
of the electrification features. When formal
22Meares to
Cooke,
Nov.
21,1932,
Box 129
(first
quotation),
Meares to
Cooke,
Jan. 18,1932,
Box 121
(second
quotation),
both in Cooke
Papers.
23The
State, Jan. 7,1933; Journal
of
the House
of Representatives of
South
Carolina,
1933,80th
General
Assembly,
First Session
(Feb. 16,1933),
pp.
388,543
(quotation),
1629;
Meares to
Cooke, Jan. 7,1933,
Box
129,
Cooke
Papers.
steps
were taken later to
implement
the
plan,
the commission stated that
"one of the
primary purposes...
is the rehabilitation of
agriculture
in South
Carolina
through
betterment of the farmers' social and economic life."
Before
any
lines could be
erected,
engineers
from the Electric Utilities
Division and the
Highway
Commission had to
survey
each
proposed
line,
determine the
cost,
and decide if it could be
self-liquidating.
The latter
requirement
referred to the state's insistence that the customers on
each line
had to
pay
for the cost of construction
through
a fee attached to their
monthly
electric bills. In
1935,
when the federal REA went into
operation,
it used the same method to cover construction-line costs. The commission
would
purchase electricity
from
power companies
at a wholesale rate and
resell it to farmers.
Again,
this was similar to the REA
system
that would
be established
a few
years
later.
However,
one
stipulation jeopardized
the
South Carolina
plan:
the
money
had to come from federal coffers.24
EVENTS IN WASHINGTON WERE PARTLY RESPONSIBLE FOR
the
speed
with which
Scarborough's
bill went
through
the
legislature; they
also
explained
the
stipulation
that funds for the
program
would come from
the federal
government.
In
July
1932 the U.S.
Congress
had
passed
the
Emergency
Relief and Construction
Act,
an amendment to the Reconstruction
Finance
Corporation
(RFC),
authorizing
loans to the states for
self-liquidating
public projects.
The
purpose
was to stimulate
employment,
and Governor
Blackwood saw a chance to obtain federal funds for his state while
promoting
rural electrification. In his address to the lawmakers
recommending
passage
of the
Scarborough
bill,
the
governor
had stated that with "the
provisions
of the
Emergency
Relief and Construction Act of 1932
...
it
appears
that funds
might
be secured for the construction of rural electric
lines."25
The move for
public
electrification should not be understood as
merely
a
pretense by
South Carolinians to
qualify
for federal
expenditures. Agitation
had started before the new federal law was
enacted,
and the
public
insistence
on
action had
already produced
some
progress.
Funds were not available
in South
Carolina, however,
and
admittedly
the
requirement
that "funds for
the construction of such a
system
must be obtained from Federal sources"
demonstrated that the
willingness
of the lawmakers to authorize the
program
owed
something
to the likelihood of
getting
dollars from
Washington,
D.C.26
24South Carolina State
Highway Department, "Application
of the South Carolina
Highway Department
for a Loan of
$5,912,800
from the Federal
Emergency
Administration of Public Works"
(December 1933),
p.
vi,
copy
at R.M.
Cooper
Library,
Clemson
University.
25House
Journal,
Feb.
16,1933,
p.
543.
26Wellwood,
Survey of
Rural
Electrification, p.
5.
In order to make formal
application
for the
funds,
the
Highway
Commission had to conduct its own
feasibility survey.
This
requirement,
while
appearing
to be
justification
after the
act,
would
give
the RFC concrete
evidence that the
plan
was
workable,
something already accepted
if not
scientifically proven
in South Carolina. It would also enable the
Highway
Commission to
gather
technical and
engineering
data to use once construction
started. Electrical
engineer
A.R. Well wood of Columbia was commissioned
to make the
survey
in
conjunction
with the State
Highway Department.
Along
with
engineers
from the
department,
he held conferences with the
power companies,
which furnished information on
rates,
load
factors,
voltage requirements,
and similar issues.
They surveyed ninety-seven
communities
comprising
4,887
subscribers who were
ready
for service.
This was in addition to the
11,952
farmsteads that the Clemson
College
Extension
Department
had
reported
were
ready
for immediate service.27
Statistics alone did not show the
public's eagerness
for
service;
the real
drama was the
response
to the
Highway
Commission's
hearings
at which
rural residents could
apply
for service. Well wood extended invitations
through
the
press
to communities and individuals
wanting
service and
instructed them to send
delegations
to the
hearings,
or to
appear individually.
These
hearings generated
excitement. The
petitioners
exhibited an
enthusiasm seldom
displayed
at such functions.
Farmers, housewives,
small-town
mayors,
town councils
?
rural inhabitants of all
types
?
crammed the
hearing
rooms, corridors,
and
hallways
in
hope
of
speaking
to the
panel.
In some instances the
hearings
could
hardly proceed
because
of
petitioners pushed
forward to
present
their
requests.
Towns unable to
send
delegates
sent
telegrams
or letters to Well wood and his associates
expressing
their desire for
electricity.
Such an emotional
display, reported
Wellwood,
demonstrated "a
genuine
desire on the
part
of the farmers and
rural dwellers of South Carolina for
electricity."28
With its
investigation
finished in December
1933,
the
Highway
Commission
prepared
to
apply
to the Federal
Emergency
Administration
of Public Works
(PWA)
for
$5,912,800
to
begin
construction of a rural
electric
system
in South Carolina. It
hoped
that the PWA would furnish
$1,452,000
as an
outright grant;
the balance was to be
paid
back to the federal
government by
1956 with revenues from the sale of
energy. Engineers
estimated that it would take three
years
to construct lines to the
ninety
seven communities that had been
surveyed;
that
was considered
only
the
beginning
since the
commission,
pressed
for
time,
had
only surveyed
sites
2Tbid.,
p.
10;
Charleston News and
Courier,
Sept.
16,21-22,1933;
Thomas F.
Ball,
"State to Build and
Operate
its Own Rural Electric
Lines,"
Public Utilities
Fortnightly
13
(June 1934),
p.
774.
28Ball,
"State to
Build,"
p.
774; Wellwood,
Survey of
Rural
Electrification, p.
10,
(quotation).
where electric service could be started with a minimum of
planning
and
construction. The
ninety-seven community
areas were
widely
scattered
throughout
the
state,
which demonstrated from the
proponents'
view that
rural residents
throughout
the state wanted
electricity. Highway
commissioner Ben
Sawyer
told
reporters:
"It is a
step
in the
development
of
an ultimate
system
that will furnish electric service to
practically
the entire
rural
population
of the state. The estimated cost of this ultimate distribution
system
is
approximately
$25
million."29
The
Highway
Commission
applied
to the
newly
created PWA instead
of the RFC because of recent
developments
in
Washington.
When the South
Carolina
legislature
authorized the
program
in
April
1933,
the RFC was still
the
appropriate agency
to
provide
funds for state
public-work projects.
But
during
the interim
period
when the
Highway Department hastily surveyed
potential
rural electric
sites,
Congress
had created the
PWA,
which was
designated
as the
agency
to
dispense
funds for
projects along
the lines of the
South Carolina
proposal.
President Roosevelt had
redesigned
the RFC to
work
primarily
with established interests and
agencies,
and it was
only
logical
for South Carolina to
apply
to the new
agency.
None of the state's
power companies protested
the
plan, although they
expressed
doubts over its
feasibility
and likelihood of success. Public
Utilities
Fortnightly,
a
publication sympathetic
to the electrical
industry,
questioned
the wisdom of
giving
the
responsibility
for
constructing
the
rural distribution lines to the state
Highway
Commission. Electrical
engineers
rather than
highway engineers
should be
used,
according
to one writer for
the
journal. Although
the
industry accepted
the social
desirability
of rural
electrification,
it raised concern over the
"self-sustaining"
features of some
of the
projected
areas to be
served;
in other
words,
would rural residents in
particular
areas use
enough electricity
each month to make them viable
customers? The
plan
also would make the
power companies
liable for
damage
suits for accidents on the state's distribution
lines,
a feature the
power companies
detested. These
questions
had been addressed
by public
power
leaders for some
time,
and Cooke had dealt with them in his Giant
Power
Survey
in
Pennsylvania.
The
plan
had
shortcomings,
but
proponents
such as Meares felt confident that
they
could be overcome.30
Officials in
Washington
also were
skeptical
about
programs
administered
by
the
states,
but for different reasons. For one
thing, public
rural
electrification,
despite
the
growing
evidence of its
probable feasibility,
was still in the
experimental stage.
Officials within the New Deal were
reluctant to
expend
funds on
something
that
conceivably
could
prove
to be
unsuccessful. A failure with such
a
popular project
would have
devastating
29S.C
Highway
Commission,
"Application
...
for a loan of
$5,912,800,"
pp.
iv
vi;
quotation
in Charleston News and
Courier,
Dec.
16,1933.
30Ball,
"State to
Build,"
pp.
772-780.
political
ramifications.
Perhaps
more
plausible
was the
tendency
of PWA
administrator Harold Ickes "to
operate
the
agency,"
as one writer
noted,
"with such extreme caution that it did next to
nothing
to stimulate the
economy."
Most
likely
the South Carolina
application
conflicted with the
federal rural-electrification
program
under consideration
by
some of the
president's
inner circle of advisors and cabinet officers. Cooke
was
energetically campaigning
for a nationwide
program,
and he
proposed
several alternatives before the REA was
finally
established in 1935. The
PWA
figured prominently
in his
proposals,
and
Ickes,
perhaps
to the
dismay
of the South
Carolinians,
supported
Cooke. As
long
as there was a
possibility
of federal
action,
there was a natural
tendency
not to commit the
resources of
any agency
to a state for the same
purpose.
Cooke, too,
recommended that the state be
put
off because if he were successful with his
campaign
within the Roosevelt Administration he wanted to avoid
dealing
with
intermediaries,
especially
at the state level. When he later became head
of the
newly
founded
REA,
his
animosity
toward them was well known.31
South Carolina also had
requested funding
of a
Santee-Cooper project.
Located in the
Lowcountry
north of
Charleston,
the Santee and
Cooper
rivers
provided opportunities
for
navigation
as
well as
hydroelectric
development.
As far back as 1785
entrepreneurs
had
begun
work on a six
mile canal to connect the two rivers for
navigational purposes.
Given the
federal
encouragement
of
public-works programs
in the
1930s,
interest in
the
Santee-Cooper project
was revived. Promoters wanted to construct a
public project along
the lines of the Tennessee
Valley Authority
(TVA).
Hope
for the
project
waned when the
sponsors
realized that
Congress
frowned on the idea.
Sponsors
of the
then
applied
to
the PWA for
$34,000,000
to build two
reservoirs,
a
linking
canal,
and a
hydroelectric plant. Requests
for both the rural electric
system
and the
were
pending
before the PWA at the same
time,
and
the fate of one
probably depended
on the decision
regarding
the other.
South Carolina
won federal
approval
of the
in
1935,
but construction did not start until 1939 after several lawsuits filed
by power
companies
were defeated.32
When the South Carolina Railroad Commission in
early
1934
applied
to
the Federal
Emergency
Relief Administration
(FERA)
for funds to
complete
the
survey
started
by
Wellwood,
it received no
reply.
Not until U.S. Senator
James
F.
Byrnes
of South Carolina intervened did the FERA allot these
particular
funds. Results of the
completed survey brought
even more
31
William E.
Leuchtenburg,
Franklin D. Roosevelt and the New Deal
(New
York:
Harper
Torchbooks, 1963),
p.
70
(quotation);
Brown,
Electricity for
Rural
America,
p.
71.
32Thomas F.
Ball,
"South Carolina Goes into the Power
Business,"
Public Utilities
Fortnightly
13
(June 1934),
pp.
271-275.
evidence that the
proposed system
was
economically
feasible. Still no
action came on the
all-important application
of the
Highway Department.
Meares asked the directors of the TVA to consider
funding
the
project,
but
they
refused;
he asked Cooke to
go directly
to the
president
on behalf of the
application.33
Tired of
waiting
for a
reply
and unaware of
developments
within the
Roosevelt
Administration,
a
special delegation
of the South Carolina Electric
Utilities Division went to the PWA offices in
Washington
in
early
1935.
They hoped
that the data obtained from the recent FERA-funded
survey
would make their case more
convincing.
PWA officials
insisted, however,
that the state create a
special agency separate
from
regulatory
bodies and
authorized
solely
for the
purpose
of
handling
rural electrification. In
hopes
of
receiving
the
requested
funds,
the South Carolina
legislature
established
a Rural Electrification
Authority
that became
operative
on March
14,1935.
It had the
single responsibility
of
encouraging
and
promoting
the use of
electricity. Suddenly,
however,
the
question
of
using
federal funds was
resolved,
and indeed even the continuation of the
newly
created state REA
seemed needless because less than two months
later,
on
May
11, 1935,
President Roosevelt created the federal REA
by
executive order. After its
creation,
the REA
preempted
all state rural electric
agencies.34
All
impetus
for rural electrification shifted to
Washington,
and the state
waited for federal action. When
Congress gave
the REA statute
authority
in 1936 and
provided
it with annual
appropriations,
the electrification of
rural areas
jumped
forward
immediately
in South Carolina and all states.
Administrators of the federal
agency preferred,
however,
to work
directly
through
REA electric
cooperatives
and avoid intermediaries such as South
Carolina's Rural Electrification
Authority
because the
power companies
usually
exerted considerable control over them. It was not unusual for state
agencies
to thwart REA's
operations
in order to save the more lucrative
areas of the
respective
state's rural market for the
private companies.35
South Carolina was an
exception
in this
regard.
To be
sure,
the state's
Rural Electrification
Authority
was an
intermediary
between the REA and
the
farmers,
but it assisted farmers as
they
conducted
surveys
for
starting
electric
cooperatives;
it
provided legal
advice;
it acted as a liaison with the
South Carolina Railroad Commission in
setting
electric
rates;
and it recruited
33Sanders,
"Regulation
Carolina," p.
400;
Meares to
Cooke,
n.d.,
Box
121,
Cooke
Papers.
34Sanders,"
Regulation
Carolina," p.
401.
35D.B. Hardeman and Donald C.
Baron,
Rayburn:
A
Biography
(Austin:
Texas
Monthly
Press, 1987),
pp.
201-203;
REA
Memorandum,
Mercer G.
Johnston
to
Cooke,
July
24,1936,
Box
7,
Record
Group
221,
Cooke Files. Mercer told Cooke that
state rural electric
agencies
could "be looked
upon
as a curse or a
blessing
to the REA
program."
Throughout
the 1920s and
1930s, power
lines
began
to
appear along
South
Carolina roads and
bridges, carrying electricity
to rural areas.
Photo, top left,
from a
Stoney Family
Photo Album
(24-20-3),
South Carolina Historical
Society,
Charleston.
Top right:
Cove Inlet
Bridge,
Route
703,
Charleston
County,
1934. Bottom
photo:
unidentified
bridge
and road
(possibly
Gervais
Street, Columbia),
ca. 1927.
Top right
and bottom
photos
from the South
Carolina
Department
of
Highways
and
Transportation Collection, courtesy
of
the South Carolina
Department
of Archives and
History,
Columbia.
skilled
personnel
for the
cooperatives.
In a 1936 internal
report
on the
attitude of state
agencies
toward the
REA,
C. Mercer
Johnston,
a member of
Cooke's
staff,
described the South Carolina Rural Electrification
Authority
as a
positive
force and considered it "essential to the
physically
difficult
REA
program
in that
particular
state."36
Through
the
aegis
of the federal
REA,
rural areas
throughout
the Palmetto State
began receiving
service. So
well did the
program
work that in 1939 the state's
authority
was
put
on
inactive status.
Recipients
of service
enjoyed
the new "luxuries" associated
with
electricity
and cared little which
agency
made it
possible.
In some areas of the state farmers obtained service from other
power
projects:
the Greenwood
County
Electric Power
Commission,
a
federally
developed hydroelectric project
built
during
the
1930s,
erected 443 miles of
line
by
June
1942. Some
municipalities
had extended service into the
countryside, amounting
to a total of 472 miles
by
that same time. The
did not
generate electricity
until
1942,
but
by
that
year
the REA
cooperatives
were well
underway
with their
program, having
built
9,852
miles of
line,
or 56
percent
of the total. An
impressive portion,
about 36
percent,
of the farms that
acquired electricity during
this same
period
were
served
by privately
owned
power companies.
Their sudden
interest was not an isolated case.
Throughout
the United
States,
the
companies, seeing
the
competition
of the REA
co-ops,
set about
acquiring
the more lucrative rural customers for themselves. This
practice,
known as
"skimming
the
cream,"
brought
heated battles between
public
and
private
developers. By
the close of fiscal
year
1942 rural electrification had made
great
strides in South Carolina and
throughout
the United States until it was
interrupted by
World War II.37
USE OF ELECTRICITY HAD AN IMMEDIATE IMPACT. FAMILIES
typically
first installed incandescent
lights,
then
bought
a radio and an
electric iron for
pressing
clothes. More
expensive improvements
such as
running
water and indoor bathrooms came
later,
but once installed
they
ended the
drudgery
of
pumping
and
carrying
water. Radio enhanced
evening
recreation and
heightened
families'
general
awareness of
contemporary
events.
Improvements
in farm
operations
were slower in
coming,
but studies conducted
by
the REA showed an increase in both the
number and
productivity
of
poultry
and
dairy
farms and that farmers made
use
of small
power equipment.
One South Carolina
study reported
a 30
percent
increase in winter
egg production
at one commercial
poultry
farm
by keeping
the
buildings
lit at
night.
Winter milk
production
on a
dairy
farm
improved
about 5 to 15
percent
when
plumbing
was installed and cows
36REA
Memorandum,
C. Mercer
Johnston
to
Cooke,
Aug.
8,1936,
Box
7,
Record
Group
221,
Cooke
Papers.
37Sanders,
"Regulation
Carolina,"
p.
402.
were furnished indoor
drinking cups. Nearly
all farmers
surveyed
in the
South Carolina
study reported savings
in fuel and labor with the use of
electricity.38
The state's
campaign
for rural electrification
originated among
individuals with
experience
in the
political
arena,
but it reached into other
areas of
public
life,
too. Due to his
long
service in South
Carolina,
Richard
A. Meares was
acquainted
with the machinations of
government bureaucracy
and had the
political sophistication
to deal with state leaders. His connection
to Morris
Cooke,
the "father of rural
electrification,"
gave
his work a sense
of
legitimacy
and reinforced his claim that rural electrification had to be
developed.
Governor Ibra Blackwood's
support provided
the force of the
state's executive
office,
and state
Representative
Alfred
Scarborough,
who
had
strong
rural
ties,
carried the
fight
into the
legislature.
Questions
over the technical and
engineering
merits of
public
electrification were another dimension to be
considered,
and
J.T.
McAlister
at Clemson
College
and Thomas F. Ball of the Electrical
Engineering
Department
at the
University
of South
Carolina,
along
with
graduate
students,
particularly
Wilbur S. Smith and Carol D.
Coughman, compiled
and
analyzed
the data needed to
justify
the state effort. For
publicity,
an
ingredient necessary
for
any public
cause,
the
proponents
included Fitz
Hugh
McMaster of the Columbia Record.
The most essential
ingredient
for
starting public
electrification, however,
was
public
demand,
and
by
the
early
1930s the state's rural
population
had
lost its
patience
with the
privately
owned
power companies.
"Sometime
around later 1927 and
early
1928,"
wrote one
observer,
"a subtle
change
had
come over the
public's
attitude toward electric utilities."39 Demand for relief
came from the rural
citizenry
who would no
longer accept
their
preindustrial
lifestyle. Admittedly
the
public's
dissatisfaction was not
expressed
in
outrage
or
any organized
form of
protest,
but
political
leaders nonetheless
understood their disenchantment. No factor was more
important,
however,
than the common-sense realization that rural inhabitants had to have
electricity
to
improve
their health and modernize their homes and businesses.
It was for that reason that Meares and his cohorts had undertaken their
cause. Even
though
the federal REA took over the
responsibility
for
electrifying
farms and rural
homes,
the South Carolina
experience
must be
considered one of the
driving
forces that modernized rural life.
38Smith,
"Rural Electrification in South
Carolina,"
pp.
73-85.
39Sanders,
"Regulation
Carolina,"
p.
360.

Electrification in South Carolina in 1920s

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Electrification in South Carolina in 1920s

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Modernizing Rural Life: South Carolina's Push for Public Rural Electrification

Author(s): D. Clayton Brown

You might also like