Two Hundred Years of Textile Factories in the U.S. South

Method

The researchers used a three-step approach to this qualitative study and employed mixed methods for data collection and analysis. This approach follows guidelines established by Creswell (1994) for mixed-methodological research designs. In the first step, the researchers generated a census of textile factory buildings in North Carolina and Virginia. The researchers focused on these states because they contain some of the first textile factories in the South and represent one of the highest concentrations of textile factories in the South (American Fabrics and Fashion, 1980). For decades, North Carolina was the leading state in number of textile factories (American Fabrics and Fashion, 1980; U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2014b). A multitude of sources, including university archives, government agencies, private organizations, business records, personal knowledge, and Internet sources, were reviewed to generate the census. Creating the listing of factories was important because, as stated previously, no single government source is available for identifying U.S. textile factories. In this study, over 150 textile factories, ¹ or 10% of factories located in the two states, were examined (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2014a, 2014b).

In the second step, the researchers gathered details about the factories on the list. Chronotopic methods were used at this step to examine the textile factories identified in the researchers’ census. Chronotope is an approach used by those in the humanities and based on the work of Russian scholar Mikhail Bakhtin whose work was written in the 1930s (“Preface,” 2010). An assumption of chronotope is that time and place are interconnected and provide meaning to an object. Bakhtin is often quoted as saying, “Time, as it were, thickens, takes on flesh, becomes artistically visible; likewise, space becomes charged and responsive to the movements of time, plot and history” (Bakhtin & Holquist, 1981, p. 84). This assumption has been used to section types of literature by genre or similarity in characteristics (Bemong & Borghart, 2010). Implications from these literary procedures are that chronotope as a method can be employed to help researchers provide detail and meaning to other cultural objects and events. Suggestions made in recent studies (e.g., history of math, medical law, and folk narrative) are that chronotopic methods are applicable beyond literature (Anderson, 2011; Harrington, 2015; Ingemark, 2006). The chronotopic premise of time and space was used in conjunction with a vernacular approach to the historical review of architecture. In the vernacular tradition, researchers can study architecture to elicit cultural information associated with historic buildings and their materials (Glassie, 1990). A vernacular method of data collection and analysis explores the impact and cultural meanings attached to buildings and provides a context for these cultural objects (Vellinga, 2006/2007). For example, a historical study of architecture can reveal information about the cultural environment of the building materials (Hărmănescu & Enache, 2016). Using these theories to direct methodological choices for the study of textile factories, the researchers examined the factories for details and interconnections with events of time and space surrounding their building and continued use.

In the third step of this qualitative study, the researchers used the chronotopic technique of memory organizing packets. The concept of memory organizing packets is based on the neurological process of the human brain’s ability for generating groupings of objects relative to genre (Schank, 1999). To aid in forming groups via memory packets, the researchers used content analysis of the gathered factory information to seek and identify similarities. Open coding for the content analysis was similar to the process described by Tesch (1990), where reading, observations, and other review processes of the collected information are used to identify inductively key terms, phrases, and concepts. Through a reiterative process following suggestions by Strauss and Corbin (1990), each factory and associated vernacular impact was examined through an extensive array of primary and secondary sources including, but not limited to, newspaper archives, photographs—both those collected personally through site visits and those available on the Internet—and Internet sites for government and private history organizations (e.g., the U.S. National Park Service and the National Register of Historic Places). This step of the process continued until information about the factories was saturated.

Memory schema and personal observation by the researchers were also used in this stage of the data collection and analysis process. The role of researchers was important and relevant in this study as well as consistent with the explanation of researchers’ involvement in qualitative studies by Creswell (1994) and Marshall and Rossman (1989). Qualitative research, such as this study, is interpretive research—thus the information in the findings was filtered by the researchers’ knowledge, values, and judgment (Creswell, 1994; Jamshed, 2014). Researcher involvement is considered a benefit of the qualitative method and is consistent with clothing and textiles research (Hodges et al., 2007) and in other material culture research (Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, 2008). In view of the potential for bias, the researchers’ role is herein detailed. Both researchers have extensive personal experience and knowledge of the NC and VA textile manufacturing industries and have been physically located for many decades in this region saturated with textile factories. In addition to personal work in the industry, family members and friends of the researchers worked in the industry. These experiences enriched the study by not only adding details to the study that are not published but also providing access into factories and associated factory history through personal networking. To control further bias, triangulation of data was employed in the study. First, the researchers reviewed the data independently and compared analyses. Then, the researchers asked experts who had personal experience in architecture and in the textile industry to review the data. Five experts, with experience ranging from 10 to 40 years of work in either of the two fields, were used for triangulation reviewers. The findings were confirmed by these experts.

Under the chronotopic umbrella of interconnectedness of time and space, the researchers focused not only on factories in situ but also on issues of manufacturing technology. The researchers examined the external and internal architecture and manufacturing processes of each factory. This approach fits within the study of vernacular history and provides a depth of understanding of processes and events beyond historical documentation of a building’s architecture (Vellinga, 2006/2007). To frame and verify this portion of data analysis, the industrialization theory of cascading events was used. As technology and related manufacturing processes improve at one stage in a manufacturing pipeline, output volume and input demand generate need for improvements in associated manufacturing stages (Hsieh & Chen, 2011).

When data were clustered into memory packets, the researchers identified five clusters or groups of factories, which were confirmed by the industry experts. The time periods or dates of the groups were set based on the initial construction of factories in that period and/or initial operating dates of factories within each period. Dates for the five groupings of factories are as follows: 1815–1879, 1880–1929, 1930–1949, 1950–1969, and 1970–2015. Numerous factories with similar architectural features and vernacular impact were identified for each period; however, for space and clarity, only a few factories are enumerated and detailed.

1815 to 1879—The Early Years

As with the introduction of the textile industry into England and then into the U.S. northeast (Kulik et al., 1982), spinning was the first process to be housed in southern factories (American Fabrics and Fashion, 1980). In North Carolina, numerous cotton mills and a few woolen factories were built from 1817 to 1880 (American Fabrics and Fashion, 1980; Lefler, 1956). Two of the first NC cotton mills were the Schenek Mill in 1815, Lincolnton, NC, and the Battle Mill in 1817, Rocky Mount, NC (American Fabrics and Fashion, 1980; “North Carolina,” 2006). This finding provided initial confirmation of the industrialization theory of cascading events. Spinning mills built in the South helped maximize usage of the cotton crop from local communities, affording a faster time to market with lower distribution costs. From the researchers’ observation, these early spinning mills were copycats of the multistory factories built throughout the northeast (American Fabrics and Fashion, 1980; Candee, 1982).

For the South, brick was an inexpensive building material that reduced the possibility of fires and was readily made from local clays (Bisher, Brown, Lounsbury, & Wood, 1990). The factories in this period were constructed with low-pitched or flat roofs, high ceilings, and large, double-hung windows (Bradley, 1999). Large windows provided both light and ventilation, important considerations in the South because of the typically warm to hot spring and summer temperatures and the processing of the linty cotton fiber (Hall et al., 1987). Daylight was needed because, without electricity (McBride, 2015), open flames from burning candles or torches in a cotton mill were both dangerous and expensive (Dolkart, 2011).

A multistory building configuration had advantages, including being less costly to build and operate than a one-story plan of similar square footage (Paul, 1916). Cost consideration was of prime importance in the pre–Civil War South, as many factories were small, family-owned operations. The mechanized spinning process was placed on the lower floor with easy access to incoming raw materials and the river for available waterpower (Jordan, 1998). For the Saxapahaw (NC), plant spinning was below grade on the northwest side of the factory and open to the river on the southeast (observation, July 2, 2012). This geographic orientation follows the flow of most NC and VA rivers (Lefler, 1956). Timber framing and flooring for the interior was used, instead of brick or stone, as it is more structurally resistant to the constant repetitive vibrations of mechanized equipment (Paul, 1916), and easy access to local hardwoods was an advantage.

1880 to 1929—The First Boom

By the late 1880s, more textile factories, some for weaving and some for knitting, were built in the South to use the abundance of cotton fiber produced by the mechanized spinning mills (American Fabrics and Fashion, 1980; Lefler, 1956; Link & Wheeler, 1999). The researchers noted that this finding provided additional support to the industrialization theory of cascading events. Southern style factories began to evolve during this period, and changes in style can be seen in buildings created as early as the 1880s (observation, June 21, 2013). These factories are differentiated from their predecessors through size and shape of their footprints, now more spacious to accommodate the new manufacturing technologies of power looms for weaving and power-driven knitting machines (American Fabrics and Fashion, 1980; observation, June 21, 2013). These factories are generally two- or three-story, large-footprint buildings with high ceilings, utilizing “slow-burn” construction with heavy timber framing and sash windows (Ehrfurth, 2009, p. 7). Nods to architectural fashion can be seen in the occasional use of central towers, bracketed eaves, and segmental arches over the long rows of windows. An example of fashion-forward factories is the Roxboro Cotton Mill, with its bracketed eaves, highlighted in white to contrast with the red brick, and segmental arched windows (observation, July 10, 2014).

The large, rectangular factories were functional for the long fabric runs common from the late 1800s to the mid-1900s (Office of Technology Assessment, 1987). Additional examples built include the Picket Cotton Mill (knitted goods—Burlington, NC, observation, June 21, 2013). This factory has architectural features that distinguish these structures as turn-of-the-century southern factories. For example, the raised structure along the centerline of the roof, known as a roof monitor, is commonly used for additional light and ventilation (Figure 1; Bradley, 1999). In addition, a double row of soldier course bricks forming segmental arches over the windows provide relief from the otherwise linear fenestration (observation, June 21, 2013).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 1.

Examples of textile factories from 1889 to 1929. Pickett Mill, Burlington, NC, circa 1899 (left) and Lillian Mills, Albemarle, NC, sawtooth addition, circa 1900 (right). Photographs by E. Dull, 2014.

Multistory structures, a central feature of factories in this period, continued to take advantage of the vertical orientation (Jordan, 1998; observation, June 21, 2013). Various production steps were staged on separate floors, and product passed through the floors to the subsequent step for efficiency of time and ease for movement of weight, as finished rolls of fabric can weigh hundreds of pounds. These staged features are still present in the early sections of Cone Mills’ White Oak plant, in Greensboro, NC, built in 1902 (“White Oak,” 2017) with a portion of the building constructed into the hillside. Dyeing was on the lowest floor to access available water (observations, July 11, 2011; November 17, 2014). Liquefied dye was stored in large concrete vats sunk into the ground. Dyed yarns were raised with pulleys to upper floors for weaving. As the fabric was woven, the weight of the fabric carried it downward through slots in the floor where it was rolled, inspected, and readied for shipping. This plant still contains vintage looms from the 1940s for making premium denim (“White Oak,” 2017). As business grew to meet production demand, factories became large, rambling structures. Weaving and knitting production were expanded (Townes, 2005). Building additions were made to the central factory to house these new processes as well as provide adjacent space for warehousing. This factory sprawl was observed (July 11, 2011) in the White Oak plant. With growth, companies also became multilocational, with several factories located within a geographic area and close to raw materials, distribution points, or centers of available labor (Lefler, 1956; observation, November 17, 2014).

Among these, factory additions are one-story structures with sawtooth roofs, often used for knitting operations where individual machines, not long production runs, consumed the majority of the interior space (observations, July 5, 2010; November 17, 2014). This roof type is possible because of the introduction of trusses into factory construction, which provided a wider, more open interior space and eliminated interior columns (“Historic American,” 2005). Initially wooden, iron trusses for the roof support of factories in the late 1800s were utilized after first being used for bridge construction in the 1870s. Creating larger interior spaces generated a need for additional light and ventilation in central interiors (Lefler, 1956; observations, July 5, 2010, November 17; 2014). This need was satisfied by the sawtooth roof that contained awning windows in the horizontal or face wall of each sawtooth. Windows within the sawtooth structure provided both light and ventilation for the production floors. The Lillian Knitting Mill, in Albemarle, NC, has a sawtooth addition (see Figure 1; Lillian Knitting Mill, n.d.; observation, May 8, 2014). With this observation, the researchers support technological change as a motivating force from one innovation to additional changes—vernacular evidence of the environment in the South driving the design of the factory.

The long, hot summers of the South also affected the location of the dyeing and finishing processes. In the older factories (White Oak Plant, observation, July11, 2011), these were located on the first or ground floor but in later factories were placed in auxiliary buildings or built in a separate off-site facility (Carolina Dye and Finishing, Burlington, NC, observation, June 21, 2013). Building dye houses out of the main factory, owners took advantage of the still available cheap land in the South (Lefler, 1956; Link & Wheeler, 1999). Over time, if located near the main factory, these outbuildings were connected by breezeways or other forms of enclosure (Hall, et al., 1987; observation, June 21, 2013). In addition, factories in the South rarely had bars on windows, unlike those of the Triangle Shirtwaist Company factory (New York City; Dolkart, 2011). With the rapid growth of weaving and knitting capacity, additional spinning mills were also built during this period to satisfy the continued and strong demand for cotton yarns to feed the clothing and textiles supply chain (Lefler, 1956).

1930 to 1949—Growth From Government Contracts

Few factories were built in the two decades following the 1929 stock market crash and World War II (WWII) due to lack of available private capital and a dearth of consumer demand (American Fabrics and Fashion, 1980). This finding is consistent with the supply chain interconnection and economic relationship espoused by Ha-Brookshire and Hawley (2012). One VA textile factory exception is the Celanese Corporation factory, Narrows, VA. As the United States moved toward participation in WWII, supplies for the military became necessary. The VA Celanese Corporation factory was built in the 1940s with a government contract to supply rayon to the U.S. military (“Celanese Corporation,” 2012). As Celanese became a leader in the development of manmade fibers, this factory took economic advantage of regionally available southern cotton and lumber (Link & Wheeler, 1999).

With a government contract providing an influx of money, the Celanese plant reflected an increasing acceptance of the rational factory concept, popularized by Henry Ford for automotive plants (Biggs, 1996). The design of the Celanese factory marks a turning point in southern factory architecture from the classic style of the late 19th century to a more modern style of low, compact structures with square window openings (“Looking back,” 2015; observation, April 8, 2010). With new methods of construction, window types were no longer of the double-hung wooden sash type but instead were multilight steel windows with ventilators (Powers, 1989). The original windows with ventilators are still in place in the Celanese plant (see Figure 2; observation, April 8, 2010).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 2.

Example of textile factories from 1930 to 1949. Celanese, Narrows, VA, 1940. Photograph by D. Kincade, 2010. Windows on the far left building are steel frame windows with ventilators, and windows on the right, although painted, are also steel frame with ventilators.

1950 and 1969—Continued Growth

With demand growth by the apparel sector in the post-WWII United States, the textile industry responded with a growth in production to meet fabric demand (Donald, Lowenstein, & Simon, 1963; Office of Technology Assessment, 1987). The building of new textile factories was further fueled by the continued shift of apparel companies from the northeast to the South to be closer to fabric production and nonunion labor (American Fabrics and Fashion, 1980; Link & Wheeler, 1999). With these findings, the researchers continued to confirm the industrialization theory of cascading events. During this period, the NC and VA textile industry increased its numbers of factories, with new ones built in a new architectural style. These factories were larger than earlier buildings and were often windowless; the largest structures exceeded 500,000 square feet (Craver, 2013; Hanes, Mooresville, NC). Owners of the factories with significant, available capital investment used new building technologies (e.g., interior steel framing) as well as Fordist production theory in factory design (Braham, Hale, & Sadar, 2006). These factories’ primary ties to the past were traditional red brick exteriors, now a brick veneer over steel frame construction.

Although Bradley (1999) explains a process for generating electricity in a southern urban mill in the early 1890s, electrification did not come to most of the South, especially in rural areas, until after the Rural Electrification Administration expanded electrical power there (McBride, 2015). With a steady electrical supply of power for rapid-speed weaving and knitting machines, and with steel framing for long and low flat roofs, the factories of this period were built without sawtooth roofs (observation, November 25, 2014). Few windows, in any form, appear in the production areas as they were no longer needed for light or air, and air-conditioning of factories became more common with cheaper and more available electricity (Ehrfurth, 2009; Jordan, 1998). Natalie Knitting Mills (Chilhowie, VA) is an example of a knitting factory built during this period (see Figure 3; Vieth, 2002; observation, July 25, 2014). For these factories, front offices were centrally located along the front side of the factory, set out from the production area. The Natalie factory’s plain, unadorned exterior brickwork, without the Italianate brackets and segmental arched windows that graced earlier factories, is typical of postwar factories (observation, July 25, 2014).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 3.

Example of textile factories from 1950 to 1969. Natalie Knitting, Chilhowie, VA, 1955, closed 2001. Photograph by E. Dull, 2014.

The larger buildings of this period were functional for long fabric runs, common for an industry experiencing high-output demand (Donald et al., 1963). The researchers noted that demand for production capacity and innovations in building and production technology, in a cascading effect, appeared to be the driving forces behind many of these architectural changes. For example, changes in building materials permitted construction of large interior expanses, which allowed space for larger looms and longer fabric runs. A textile factory built in 1964, the Jefferson Yarns, Inc., Hill Plant (Pulaski, VA), covers multiple city blocks (“History of Jefferson,” n.d.; observation, November 25, 2014).

1970 to 2015—Continued Boom, Bust, and Reboom

U.S. employment for textile industries peaked in the 1970s; however, employment and numbers of textile factories continued to increase in the South into the 1980s (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2014a, 2014b). For a period, northeastern companies continued to relocate for lower taxes and union free workers. Advances in textile manufacturing technologies also required newer and larger factories to house now automated spinning and weaving machines (Barner, Berkstresser, Michel, & Williamson, 1985; Hodges & Karpova, 2008). By 1980, 1,412 textile factories were located in North Carolina and Virginia or over 20% of the total number of U.S. textile factories (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2014a, 2014b).

During this final period, the brick veneer disappeared for new textile factories. Most newly built factories in the early part of this period consisted of aluminum-sided, steel-framed buildings set on concrete slabs (observation, April 24, 2011). Aluminum factory buildings were cheaper to build even when red brick was still plentiful and local (“Building,” 2016). With climate-controlled conditions now available, most buildings had few to no windows, as observed in the Granite Plant, Cone Mills, Haw River, NC (observation, August 7, 2015). Metal factory structures allowed for open spaces for more efficient straight-through production lines—raw materials entering at one end and finished fabrics exiting the other end of the building. Cost factors from competing in a global market pressured companies’ owners to build factories providing the fastest textile production lines with the least amount of building (Aston, 1985). The cheap labor of the South was no longer a match for the low-cost labor and government support in developing nations. Factories were built with lower costs per square foot, without regard for architectural style or external environment (Granite Plant; observation, August 7, 2015).

Older, pre-existing, red brick textile factories received aluminum additions to increase production capacity without building totally new structures, and older brick portions were often painted to match any new aluminum additions. An example of this technique was seen in the American Yarn and Finishing complex (Albemarle, NC, observation, May 28, 2014). The researchers noted that construction techniques and materials in these additions were an example of the need for rapid expansion from the original red brick structure to the metal clad additions. This building style resulted in a factory with additions scattered across several blocks and all available space being used to advantage. This issue was documented by the Office of Technology Assessment (1987) in their review of the textile industry. The length of runs needed to thread the production line in these older factories with multiple additions was often much higher than the lengths requested by cut and sew customers to meet the changing U.S. market (American Yarn and Finishing complex; observation, May 28, 2014). The older equipment and the convoluted turns and twists needed to reach the additions lowered production speed and added quality control issues (Aston, 1985). These add-on, rambling factories were not able to compete with newly built structures in developing nations (Vieth, 2002). Factory growth in the South rapidly dropped for textile operations with offshore competition combined with the economic slowdown of the 2000s (Hodges & Karpova, 2008; U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2014a, 2014b). Even efficient, newly built textile factories were no longer competitive with cheaper labor in other countries, and thousands of plants have closed (Vieth, 2002).

In contrast to these closings, a resurgence in one sector of the textile industry appeared in the late 1990s and into the 2000s (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2014a, 2014b). The most viable new sector within the textile industry is in engineered fibers production. New factories have been and continue to be built and expanded to house this production growth in the South (Craver, 2015). With an investment in technology insuring the promise of superior quality goods with unique attributes, domestic production is again a feasible possibility (Clifford, 2013). The Parkdale Mills’ Magnolia plant (Hillsville, VA, observation, May 28, 2014) is one of these state-of-the-art textile factories (Figure 4). The Magnolia factory is what some refer to as a megafactory, with hundreds of thousands of square feet under one roof (Clifford, 2013). The Magnolia operation uses the latest technology for open-end spinning of cotton yarns, climate control, and lint collection. Its precast concrete panel construction is cost-effective and allows for flexibility in layout and planning (Yee, 2001). The factory is located in a business development park promoted by the local county, and although the number of employees hired in this factory is vital to the local community, these factories are basically lights-out facilities with very limited employment compared to textile factories of the 1960s (Clifford, 2013).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 4.

Example of textile factories from 1970 to 2015. Magnolia Manufacturing Company, Division of Parkdale Mills, Hillsville, VA, 1995. Photograph by D. Kincade, 2011.

Other megafactories are built for vertically integrated processes, from fiber to fabric, and have capacities for raw material processing as well as production of finished fabric and warehouse with distribution. An example of this megafactory type is Unifi’s largest U.S. manufacturing facility in Yadkinville, NC (Craver, 2015; observation, June 11, 2015). Opened originally in 1971, this facility was increased by 85,000 square feet in 2013. New construction houses a recycling process using plastic bottles and production waste from other manufacturers as raw materials for new fiber production. The total facility is over one million square feet.

According to observations and readings on the megafactories in Hillsville, VA, and in Yadkinville, NC, the researchers concluded that at least portions of textile production in the South have come full circle in flow of production process and reflect the vernacular impact of the industry. Both of these megafactories are in rural areas on large open sites necessary to accommodate the needs of updated and technologically advanced production facilities and provide convenient access to the interstate highways that replaced the rail transportation of the pre-WWII years (Magnolia, observation, May 28, 2014; Unifi, observation, June 11, 2015). With the volume of production from these factories, the output of these operations are viable for exporting goods, as proposed by Lu and Dickerson (2012) for the future for the U.S. textile industry. In addition, these factories are positioned to supply apparel factories opening in the United States as some companies decide to reshore operations (Clifford, 2013). Through observation and other documentation, the researchers noted again that factories in the South with advances in raw materials technology are leading the way in manufacturing for this industry.

Conclusions

North Carolina and Virginia were vital to the development of the textile industry in the U.S. South (Lefler, 1956; Link & Wheeler, 1999). This study is a comprehensive and detailed vernacular view of the textile industry for these two southern states. Examining factory numbers via the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (2014a, 2014b) documented the size of the industry, and further research (Lefler, 1956; Office of Technology Assessment, 1987; Vieth, 2002) provided a measure of the critical magnitude of the textile industry in this portion of the South. Previous comprehensive research was lacking, both in the coverage of time and the amount of detail on architecture and manufacturing technology. In addition, this study is documentation of the loss that is occurring with this cultural heritage (Bozick, 2011; Craver, 2013).

Using chronotopic methods, the researchers documented five groupings of textile factories by their architecture and the technological processes housed within the factories. In addition, the researchers observed that the factories were part of the material culture within a time and space by chronotope concepts (Bemong & Borghart, 2010). The vernacular aspects (Vellinga, 2006/2007) of the factories are also detailed in this study. For example, factories are first observed as copycat styles of northeastern factories. Next, factories exhibit a southern style, first with sawtooth roofs and then with low, rambling buildings, which reflect the environmental and economic conditions of the South, especially in North Carolina and Virginia.

With the use of the industrialization theory of cascading events (Hsieh & Chen, 2011), the researchers concluded that the features of factories built in the South from 1815 to 2015 are functions of cascading events of available raw materials, product and technology advancement, and other geographic or vernacular influences. With this study, the researchers have linked both time and space with the textile factory structures and with the manufacturing processes within these structures. The factories reviewed for this study were built based on the need to house production processes (e.g., separate dye house), in response to a range of environmental factors (e.g., from access to clay for building materials to climate considerations), and with evolution of construction technology (e.g., aluminum clad structures).

Study limitations include the confines of the census developed by the researchers, the selection of factories observed by the researchers, and influence of researchers’ interpretations. The involvement of researchers in the qualitative process is germane to the rich data collection process but does introduce bias. These limitations provide future researchers with opportunities for more research on this topic. The textile industry was a dynamic force within the entire South (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2014a, 2014b); therefore, textile factories can be reviewed in additional states using the chronotopic methods applied in this study. Future researchers can use the five periods to examine factories and associated manufacturing and vernacular impact in additional U.S. states to generalize findings. With additional census work, a more complete listing of textile factories, their dates of build, and their locations can be further documented. As this study concerned textile factories, similar studies in these states and in other southern states can be performed on factories housing apparel production.

The groupings of the five periods of textile factories and their associated manufacturing processes and technologies are unique to this study. The use of memory organizational packets and researcher observations with site visits and photographic documentation resulted in a rich detail of information for each period. With these groupings, the researchers provide an outline for improved cataloging of these historic structures, for documentation of technology changes in the textile industry in the U.S. South, and a theoretical foundation for examining textile manufacturing characteristics and influences. In addition, factories can be the setting for a more in-depth examination of work within the factories and the changes in technologies associated with each stage in the production aspect of the supply chain. Implications from this study are in line with the importance of studying history as noted by the American Historical Association (Stearns, 1998/2013). The textile industry was critical to these states, the architecture of these factories is tied to the technology and other vernacular aspects of the South, and the closure of these factories and the subsequent demolition or decay of these factories represent loss of this cultural heritage. More research, systematic documentation, and qualitative interpretation are needed before the heritage and material culture of the Southern textile industry are lost to future generations.