An historical geography of economic development in Appalachian Kentucky, 1800-1930

This study hypothesizes that Appalachian Kentucky's nineteenth century commercial economic development was as significant as coal mining in shaping economic patterns which appeared during the depression years of the 1930's. Testing of this hypothesis permits the evaluation of widely-held views of the region's development. The economic landscape of the 1800's has generally been thought of as a rather homogeneous unit, isolated from outside commercial linkages, and almost wholly dominated by subsistence agriculture. This study concludes that the region's nineteenth century economy was: 1) spatially and structurally more complex than has previously been recognized, 2) not by-passed by national economic growth in 1850, as previous research indicates; and, 3) characterized by some commercial agriculture rather than the subsistence stereotype presented in other works. Agriculture characterized many areas, but industrial patterns were also based on iron, timber, and salt, as well as coal. Uneven development of these resources produced subregional economic patterns as early as 1850. As late as 1870, the region's charcoal iron, salt, coal, and livestock were marketed in central Kentucky, the lower Ohio River Valley and the Upland South. At this point in its development, eastern Kentucky was more like many rural areas than it would later be and was certainly economically less homogeneous than previous studies have suggested. Two conclusions are drawn from the evaluation of conventional views of the area's twentieth century economic development: 1) the industrial transformation that coal brought to an agrarian economy was valid only for certain areas at certain times, and, 2) economic patterns continued to develop unevenly, as they had in the 1800's. By 1920, mining was the chief economic enterprise in only ten of the region's thirty-one counties and was strongly concentrated in the southeastern part of the area. That development has erroneously been interpreted as represen-tative of the entire region. Appalachian Kentucky did not develop as a unified economic entity. Complexities of the region's development have been masked by generaliza-tion and by stereotypes formed on impressions from limited areas. A clearer understanding of Appalachian economic development may be achieved if conventional assessments of the region are interpreted with caution.