Reformers to Radicals (11 page)

What is interesting about Hampton's article is that it constitutes a graphic illustration of the way in which many Americans saw Appalachia, the region's problems, and the solutions to those problems. In short, Hampton provides more information about modern America than about the Southern mountain region and its people. Propagating a view that was by the early 1960s nearly a century old, he characterizes Mill Creek as a “settlement” that was “locked” in the “mold of yesterday” and would clearly remain so until outsiders, representatives of the modern world, intervened to “lift” it “out of backwardness.” Clearly, a setting such as Hampton's Louisville represented better than anything Mill Creek had to offer proper American culture and values.

Surface confirmation at least that the community approved of the program
arrived in early fall. Between September 1 and September 5, 1964, Messer received five letters of appreciation from town residents. While this alone may not be unusual, the style and form of the letters call into question their honesty. Each adhered to the same formula and addressed the same issues in the exact order. All five correspondents stated how much they enjoyed the teachers, how much the children learned, how all could now write their own names, and how they hoped that the Appalachian Volunteers would conduct a summer school at Mill Creek the next year. Of course, they may, in fact, have felt positively about the program. But it seems just as likely that they were coached and, thus, that their thanks were not sincere. Because the letters were dated after the two volunteers left, it is impossible to determine who guided their authors. Probably it was the emergency teacher who coordinated the effort.
²⁸

Unlike the first two volunteers, Carol Irons, the CSM-sponsored VISA volunteer, did not enter Clay County until the end of the summer, having committed herself to a year of work in Mill Creek starting early that fall. It is her experience that most directly calls into question the letter writers' candor. Because Irons offered her time and talents to Appalachia, the AFSC relied heavily on the CSM's Appalachian Volunteer program to instruct and guide her while she resided in Clay County. In this way, she was as much a representative of the AVs as she was of the AFSC. Throughout the autumn of 1964, Irons reported that she assisted people with only those things that they could have done on their own anyway, for example, driving them to doctor's appointments in Manchester or helping them around their homes. This, however, was less than satisfying, and she informed Robert Sigmon, the director of the AFSC-VISA program, that she hoped to provide the community with services that they could not get otherwise and that, in order for her to do this, Mill Creek needed a community center. Originally, she had hoped to use the local church as a combination residence and project center, but the preacher balked at this idea. As a result, Irons lived with Amelia Messer, Flem Messer's aunt, and pushed the idea of a new neighborhood center. This center would allow her to conduct what she considered to be two of the more important aspects of her program, a literacy project and instruction in healthier ways of cooking.
²⁹
Unfortunately, controversy surrounding the project—such as where to build the proposed community center and to what uses it would be put—spelled disaster for the Mill Creek project.

Responding to her desire to do more with her time in Mill Creek, Milton Ogle told Irons to let the community people lead, that is, to let the desires of those she was there to help dictate what actions she would take. Her focus, then, remained where that of the two departed AVs had been—on academics. After she finally gained permission to use the local church building, Irons conducted kindergarten classes for two hours each weekday throughout the fall and prepared for a community Christmas pageant. While these efforts achieved acceptable results, by the end of January 1965 problems had surfaced.
³⁰

On February 1, 1965, Irons wrote to Ogle about Flem Messer, the AV fieldman in Clay County. Her concern was Messer's actions, both as a private citizen and as a representative of the CSM. Apparently, because she had permission to use the local church for her kindergarten classes, she was no longer a fervent advocate of the construction project. Messer, however, vigorously pushed for a community center to be built on land owned by his relatives and with only outside funding. Moreover, according to Irons, he “kept proposing more complicated plans,” with the result that the community “got bewildered” and withdrew its support for the project.
³¹

While it is true that the reasoning behind Messer's position is not entirely clear, his actions suggest certain motivations. The most obvious is that, should the community center be built on Messer family land with outside funding, the building would belong to the Messer family on the departure of the VISA volunteer. In fact, at the end of May, Irons reported that the community rejected the project for precisely that reason.
³²

Another motivation was Messer's political ambitions. Independently of his work with the Council, Messer had become a political activist in Manchester. Specifically, he was a member of a citizens' action group working toward improved education in the county. As most Council members would certainly attest, this was a worthy cause. Nonetheless, Messer's involvement with it made Irons's job even more difficult. As Loyal Jones described the situation: “The school superintendent and the political boss of Clay County . . . accused [Messer] of using his office with the Council to further his own private political ambitions. Thus the word was sent out . . . that local teachers and others should not work with the Appalachian Volunteers.” Evidence indicates not only that the “word” was sent out but also that it reached Mill Creek. In a report on her activities in late 1965, Irons expressed anxiety
about Messer and his presence in Mill Creek. Though working with a “native” was, she felt, instrumental in getting situated at first, associating with that particular native had, “because of his political activities,” become a “handicap.”
³³

Messer, for his part, did not want to jeopardize Irons's work. Hoping to ease the situation, he suggested to the CSM leadership that it terminate his official duties in Clay County and that he join the staff at the Berea headquarters. Tensions did diminish after Ayer and Ogle met with county officials, but this failed to ease Irons's concerns. “At this time,” she wrote to Ogle in early 1965, “I am not sure that there is any value in my remaining in Mill Creek to work not just because [of] what has happened but because the past events indicate a trend in the future.”
³⁴

Irons's troubles forced Robert Sigmon (the AFSC-VISA director) to question the leadership and supervision that the Appalachian Volunteers were providing. Since the early fall, Sigmon contended, “there has been a little confusion about direction and guidance.” Responding that he knew that “the indecisiveness in the community” and the “unsolicited ‘assistance' . . . created some problems” in Mill Creek, Ogle tried to maintain closer contact with Irons, and she began to submit weekly reports to him. This arrangement did result in an improved relationship between the VISA volunteer, the AVs, and Mill Creek. On February 13, 1965, the community residents finally agreed to construct a “church education building.” A committee of religious and lay leaders worked on the details of its specific uses and its location. Moreover, Irons met with the local preacher to discuss her ideas on “certain methods of community development.” She also informed him of her objections to the plan for the new church building, yet both agreed to keep the best interests of the community at heart.
³⁵
Yet, from this not very high point, the situation began to deteriorate once again.

While it was not initially clear why Irons had come to object to a community building, her next few reports to Ogle contained a clue. After the townspeople approved the project, they waited for the preacher “to take definite steps for plans and funds.” Evidently, Irons feared that, if the structure was on church property, it would be not just part of the church but entirely the responsibility of the church—and, thus, not truly a community center, just as if it had been built on Messer family land. Confirmation that this was the case came in early March. By that time, Irons revealed to Ogle,
the community “seem[ed] to have given up.” While the people of Mill Creek felt that a community center would solve all their problems, having voted on the issue they wanted to do nothing more than sit back and wait for someone—the preacher—to get the work done. When specific plans and resources failed to materialize, they simply resigned themselves to the project's failure. This resignation significantly eroded Irons's influence in the community. Residents would no longer discuss possible new projects with her, nor did they suggest new ideas. When at one point Irons herself introduced a new idea, “there [was],” she reported, “no reaction, no response.” Moreover, her proposal for a second summer school project met with only negative reactions.
³⁶

Perhaps the reasons why the Mill Creek community development project failed to live up to expectations, despite CSM attempts to ensure a smoothly run program, lay in the fact that neither the Council, the VISA volunteer, nor the townspeople had a clear notion of what they meant by
community development
. It is possible, for example, that Mill Creek wanted improvements made to its church more than it desired a community center. Unfortunately, the record provides no clear answer. In fact, Sigmon wrote to Ogle on this very subject. Revealing that he himself considered community development to be equivalent to educational improvement, Sigmon asked whether “it would be in the best interests of the assignment and the community if Carol could see her objectives extended to include something more than just ‘community development'”: “That is, would it be possible to define another . . . role to [her], say . . . as a teacher's aide?” In short, the AFSC-VISA director asked the AVs to give the inexperienced volunteer a
specific job
rather than just sending her out into the field with the vague order to “develop the community.”
³⁷

Sigmon's desire that Irons's time in Mill Creek be both productive and rewarding highlighted a challenge facing the entire AV program—how best to utilize the services of young, relatively inexperienced volunteers in admittedly difficult situations. Citing Irons's frustrations with the project, Sigmon added that his suggestion for a more specific job description would profit the AVs, the community, and the individual volunteers “because long term voluntary service among young persons not particularly trained in community development has a history of proving futile for many who have attempted it.” According to Sigmon, this was the case with Irons in Mill
Creek. While she did not want to abandon her assignment, she could, Sigmon informed Ogle, “find no valid reason for remaining.”
³⁸

What was Carol Irons's conception of community development? The evidence of her reports suggests that it was more inclusive, more comprehensive than Sigmon's notion of simple educational enhancement. Moreover, coupled with the results of her efforts, it should have provided the Appalachian Volunteers with a guide for future activities.

Central to Irons's efforts, of course, was the kindergarten. She decided to augment her academic curriculum with a drama program, arguing that this would teach the children to speak in front of groups and help them gain self-confidence. While this aspect of her program did reflect the presuppositions on which the project was based—that the mountaineers were shy, reticent people lacking the ability to assert themselves—others transcended purely cultural concerns. Coupled with the academic program was an economic initiative that called on Mill Creek residents to grow cucumbers to sell to a pickle plant that was, reportedly, coming to Manchester. This enterprise, unfortunately, failed to bear fruit. At once the townspeople found reasons to reject the plan. Some, Irons reported, refused to cooperate because they feared that the program would adversely affect their welfare and social security benefits. Others simply manufactured “reasons for not trying it.” One resident did, eventually, agreed to plant the new crop. Irons's success was short-lived, however. Antagonism, probably due in part to the residual ill feelings over the building project, grew between Irons and the Messers. Late in the winter of 1965, Irons was desperate to move out of Amelia Messer's house. During the adverse weather conditions associated with the month of February, Irons informed Ogle that “private housing [was] a necessity” and that she was willing to live anywhere, including a small mobile home or even an army surplus tent, rather than in her present quarters.
³⁹

In April, Irons embarked on a project that involved marketing locally produced crafts, but her influence with the community continued to diminish. When Susan Black, the director of the Crafts Division of the State Department of Commerce, visited Mill Creek that month to offer advice about marketing strategies for homemade quilts, her presentation met with exceptionally poor attendance. Moreover, the “community leader,” the local resident who served as the on-site administrator of the CSM-sponsored
project, failed to call a meeting that month. Taking matters into her own hands, Irons, during the last week of April, traveled to Manchester to discuss the community's problems with county officials. This action inspired at least one Mill Creek resident, Crit Gambrel, to visit the county Health Department to request the establishment of a dump site for the town's refuse. Not only did the Health Department reject the request, but it also told the townsfolk not to dump their trash in the nearby creek.
⁴⁰

While the benefits of a clean stream were obvious, this response did not address the issue at hand. Mill Creek needed a place to dispose of its waste, and the county had failed either to provide such a dump site or to haul away garbage. Again seizing the initiative, Irons proposed a community cleanup project. Nearly everyone in Mill Creek, she reported, understood the need for this type of effort, as evidenced by the fact that they blamed the polluted conditions of their immediate environment for most of their health problems. One person, however, opposed the community effort. That individual was Irons's old nemesis, Amelia Messer.
⁴¹