1. “Excerpt–MCV Annual Report, July 1, 1951–June 30, 1952.” 30 June 1952. American Tobacco, http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/xzd54f00.

2. “First World Tobacco Congress, Section V, Resolutions,” 1951. American Tobacco, http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/ybu44f00.

3. “Tobacco Congress Maps World Body,” New York Times, 24 September 1951; Womach, Jasper, U.S. Tobacco Production, Consumption, and Export Trends (Washington, D.C., 2003)Google Scholar.

4. “Eric Mortensen of the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization noted a general increase in smoking since World War II, and a correlation between tobacco consumption and living standards.” “Tobacco Congress Maps World Body,” New York Times, 24 September 1951.

5. Tobacco Associates, “Annual Report,” 1979. Tobacco Institute, http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/aor59b00.

6. Brandt, Allan, The Cigarette Century: The Rise, Fall, and Deadly Persistence of the Product That Defined America (New York, 2007), 449–91.Google Scholar

7. For a review of recent literature, see Edward Balleisen, “Rights of Way, Red Flags, and Safety Valves: Business Self-Regulation and State-Building in the US, 1850–1940,” Working Paper No. 1, October 2012, Rethinking Regulation Working Paper Series. See also Brian Balogh, A Government Out of Sight (New York, 2009); Novak, William J., “Myth of the ‘Weak’ American State,” American Historical Review 13, no. 3 (2008): 752–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar My analysis also rests on an older body of literature on organization and state building, nearly all of which confine their analyses to the New Deal state and its antecedents. Hawley, Ellis Wayne, The New Deal and the Problem of Monopoly: A Study in Economic Ambivalence (Princeton, 1966)Google Scholar; Wiebe, Robert H., The Search for Order, 1877–1920 (New York, 1967)Google Scholar; Galambos, Louis, ed., The New American State: Bureaucracies and Policies Since World War II (Baltimore, 1987)Google Scholar; Galambos, “The Emerging Organizational Synthesis in Modern American History,” Business History Review 44, no. 3 (1970): 279–90; Galambos, “Technology, Political Economy, and Professionalization: Central Themes of the Organizational Synthesis,” Business History Review 57, no. 4 (1983): 471–93. In a review essay of Stephen Skowronek’s Building a New American State, historian Julian Zelizer has elaborated on the connections between the older historiography of social organization and the relatively young subfield of American Political Development. Zelizer, Julian E., “Stephen Skowronek’s Building a New American State and the Origins of American Political Development,” Social Science History 27, no. 3 (2003): 425–41.Google Scholar

8. Waterhouse, Benjamin C., “Mobilizing for the Market: Organized Business, Age, Price Controls, and the Politics of Inflation, 1971–1974,” Journal of American History 100, no. 2 (2013);CrossRefGoogle Scholar Waterhouse, “The Corporate Mobilization against Liberal Reform: Big Business Day, 1980,” in What’s Good for Business: Business and Politics since World War II, ed. Kim Phillips-Fein and Julian E. Zelizer (Oxford, 2012); Wendy Wall, Inventing the “American Way”: The Politics of Consensus to the New Deal to the Civil Rights Movement (Oxford, 2008). Phillips-Fein, Invisible Hands: The Making of the Conservative Movement from the New Deal to Reagan (New York, 2009); McQuaid, Kim, Big Business and Presidential Power: From FDR to Reagan (New York, 1982)Google Scholar.

9. Cullather, Nick, The Hungry World: America’s Cold War Battle against Poverty in Asia (Cambridge, Mass., 2010)Google Scholar; Ekbladh, David, The Great American Mission: Modernization and the Construction of an American World Order (Princeton, 2009)Google Scholar; Philips, Sarah, This Land, This Nation: Conservation, Rural America, and the New Deal (Cambridge, 2007)Google Scholar;

10. Brandt, The Cigarette Century; Kluger, Richard, Ashes to Ashes: America’s Hundred-Year Cigarette War, the Public Health, and the Unabashed Triumph of Philip Morris (New York, 1996);Google Scholar Oreskes, Naomi, Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming (New York, 2010)Google Scholar; Proctor, Robert N., Golden Holocaust: Origins of the Cigarette Catastrophe and the Case for Abolition (Berkeley, 2011)Google Scholar; Proctor and Londa Schiebinger, eds., Agnotology: The Making and Unmaking of Ignorance (Palo Alto, 2008); Rego, Brianna, “The Polonium Brief: A Hidden History of Cancer, Radiation, and the Tobacco Industry,” Isis 100 no. 3 (2009): 453–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Robert L. Rabin and Stephen D. Sugarman eds., Regulating Tobacco (Oxford, 2001).

11. World Health Organization, “Tobacco: Fact Sheet” (last modified May 2014), http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs339/en/.

12. Progressive Farmer, December 1933, 18. In a detailed study of tobacco policy formulation during the New Deal, historian Anthony Badger concluded that “in no other major commodity were the benefits of the New Deal in terms of prices and cash receipt for crop seen so tangibly or quickly.” Badger, Anthony, Prosperity Road: The New Deal, Tobacco, and North Carolina (Chapel Hill, 1980), 65Google Scholar.

13. R. J. Reynolds, Liggett & Myers, Lorillard, and American Tobacco Company were successors to the “Tobacco Trust,” which was broken apart by the Supreme Court’s 1911 antitrust decree in United States v. American Tobacco Company. In place of a tobacco monopoly, these “Big Four” firms operated as an oligopoly. Philip Morris gained market share through the middle decades of the twentieth century on the success of its Marlboro brand. In 1994, American Tobacco, which had operated as a subsidiary of American Brands since 1969, sold its operations to Brown and Williamson, as both companies were acquired by British American Tobacco. In 2004, R. J. Reynolds merged with Brown and Williamson. Today, the American tobacco industry operates as a three-firm oligopoly with Altria (Philip Morris), R. J. Reynolds, and Lorillard accounting for the vast majority of cigarette market share.

14. Badger, Prosperity Road, 196–98.

15. Creek, Laverne, Capehart, Tom, and Grise, Verner, U.S. Tobacco Statistics, 1935–1992 (Washington, D.C., 1994), 73.Google Scholar

16. Ibid.

17. Robert E. Martin, “The Referendum in the Agricultural Adjustment Program of the United States,” Agricultural History 25, no. 1 (1951); Martin, “Negro-White Participation in the A.A.A. Cotton and Tobacco Referenda in North and South Carolina: A Study in Differential Voting and Attitudes in Selected Areas” (Ph.D. diss., University of Chicago, 1947). Elizabeth Brake, “Uncle Sam on the Family Farm: The Building of the ‘Farm State’ and the Business of Southern Agriculture, 1933–1965” (Ph.D. diss., Duke University, 2013).

18. The failed 1938 referendum and its disastrous economic aftermath led to program revisions in favor of smaller-scale producers, who subsequently voted for control. Badger, Prosperity Road, 175–80.

19. Clark, Dale, “The Farmer as Co-Administrator,” Public Opinion Quarterly 3, no. 3 (1939): 482–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

20. Campbell, Christiana McFadyen, The Farm Bureau and the New Deal: A Study of Making of National Farm Policy, 1933–40 (Urbana, 1962)Google Scholar; For a critical account, see Berger, Samuel R., Dollar Harvest: The Story of the Farm Bureau (Lexington, Mass., 1971)Google Scholar.

21. Benedict, Murray and Stine, Oscar, The Agricultural Commodity Programs: Two Decades of Experience (New York, 1956), 70.Google Scholar

22. Despite overseeing one of the New Deal’s original commodity sections, Jack Hutson has been largely neglected as a historical figure. He makes one appearance in Kirkendall’s Social Scientists and Farm Politics in the Age of Roosevelt, and is largely absent from Jesse Gilbert’s studies of networks of agricultural economists within the New Deal. Richard Stewart Kirkendall, Social Scientists and Farm Politics in the Age of Roosevelt (Columbia, Mo., 1966); Gilbert, Jess and Baker, Ellen, “Wisconsin Economists and New Deal Agricultural Policy: The Legacy of Progressive Professors,” Wisconsin Magazine of History 80, no. 4 (1997): 280–312;Google Scholar Gilbert, Jess, “Eastern Urban Liberals and Midwestern Agrarian Intellectuals: Two Group Portraits of Progressives in the New Deal Department of Agriculture,” Agricultural History 74, no. 2 (2000): 162–80.Google Scholar

23. For more on the relationship between ideas that originated in the BAE during the 1920s and New Deal agricultural policy, see Daniel Rodgers, Atlantic Crossings: Social Politics in a Progressive Age (Cambridge, Mass., 1998), chap. 8. McDean, Harry C., “Professionalism, Policy, and Farm Economists in the Early Bureau of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural History 57, no. 1 (1983): 77Google Scholar; Tenny, Lloyd S., “The Bureau of Agricultural Economics, The Early Years,” Journal of Farm Economics 29, no. 4 (1947): 1017–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar For more on BAE, see Hamilton, David E., From New Day to New Deal: American Farm Policy from Hoover to Roosevelt, 1928–1933, 20–25Google Scholar, Carpenter, Daniel P., The Forging of Bureaucratic Autonomy: Reputations, Networks, and Policy Innovation in Executive Agencies, 1862–1928 (Princeton, 2001), 323–25Google Scholar, Shideler, James H., Farm Crisis, 1919–1923 Berkeley, 1957), 133–35Google Scholar. Skocpol, Theda and Amenta, Edwin, “States and Social Policies,” Annual Review of Sociology 12 (1986): 131–57Google Scholar; Skocpol, Theda and Finegold, Kenneth, “State Capacity and Economic Intervention in the Early New Deal,” Political Science Quarterly 97, no. 2 (1982): 255–78;CrossRefGoogle Scholar Skocpol and Finegold, State and Party in America’s New Deal (Madison, 1995).

24. Hutson, John B., Consumption and Production of Tobacco in Europe (Washington, D.C., 1937).Google Scholar

25. Hines, Joseph W., “Recent Trends and Developments in the Flue-Cured Tobacco Export Trade,” Southern Economic Journal 18, no. 3 (1952): 381–90Google Scholar.

26. Badger, Prosperity Road, 189–90.

27. “Allotment Move Is Urged on OPACS,” New York Times, 22 June 1941, F1.

28. “Tobacco Future Is Meeting Topic,” Raleigh News and Observer, 29 September 1945. Folder “Clippings,” box 55, North Carolina Department of Agriculture Records (hereafter NCDA), North Carolina Department of Archives and History, Raleigh (NCDAH).

29. “The Price Outlook for Flue-Cured Tobacco,” Progressive Farmer, June 1947, 82.

30. In October 1945, Governor R. Gregg Cherry named Scott the chairman of a “special committee” to “promote the welfare of tobacco in North Carolina.” Others named to the committee included the state’s Grange Master, the Farm Bureau president, a former statewide AAA committee chair, a former governor, and two professors—one from Duke and one from North Carolina State, the agriculture college. R. Gregg Cherry to W. Kerr Scott, 2 October 1945, Folder “Correspondence,” box 55, NCDA, NCDAH.

31. “Agricultural Review,” 1 April 1946, folder “Clipping File,” box 55, NCDA, NCDAH. W. Kerr Scott to Dr. W. E. Colwell, 19 July 1946, folder “Clippings,” box 55, NCDA, NCDAH.

32. Tobacco Associates, Articles of Incorporation, 1947. North Carolina Department of the Secretary of State. http://www.secretary.state.nc.us/search/CorpFilings/4645662.

33. Proctor, Golden Holocaust, 32–33. Tobacco that has been flue-cured has a higher sugar content and is far less alkaline than pipe or cigar smoke. This “mildness” of taste is what makes cigarette smoke so dangerous. Flue-cured tobacco smokers can inhale more easily and with less coughing. Inhaled smoke encounters a large surface area in the lungs, which become the site of nicotine absorption, and therefore addiction. At the same time, the inhalation of tobacco smoke over this large surface area exposes the body to diseases of the lungs, such as cancer, bronchitis, and emphysema.

34. Between 1975 and 1994, U.S. exports of manufactured cigarettes tripled. Creek et al., U.S. Tobacco Statistics, 12.

35. Historians of tobacco and public-health scholars point to the 1980s as the era in which modern tobacco companies became transnational, citing regulatory pressures at home and liberalized trade relations with Asia and Europe. Brandt, The Cigarette Century, 450.

36. R. Flake Shaw to Gentlemen, 19 February 1947, folder 1, box 1, North Carolina Farm Bureau Papers (hereafter NCFB Papers), North Carolina State University Special Collections (NCSU), Raleigh.

37. “U.N. and City Hail Gen. Bor as Hero,” New York Times, 25 Mary 1946, 9; “Gromyko Protests Welcome to Bor by Official of U.N.” New York Times, 26 May 1946, 1; “Lie to Reorganize U.N. Cabinet Soon,” New York Times, 21 June 1946, 1; Reminiscences of John B. Hutson, 501–4, in the Oral History Collection of Columbia University, New York (hereafter Hutson, COHC).

38. “Memorandum in Connection with Meeting of Producers,” 17 February 1947, folder 1, box 1, NCFB Records, NCSU.

39. Tobacco Associates domesticated in South Carolina, Virginia, Georgia, and Florida the following year, where referenda were also held.

40. Interview with Frank Jeter, 28 April 1947, folder 1b, box 1, Papers of John B. Hutson (hereafter Hutson Papers), Special Collections Division, J. Y. Joyner Library, East Carolina University, Greenville, N.C. (ECU).

41. Ibid.

42. “Farmers Cast Votes in Leaf Referendum Today,” Dispatch (Lexington, N.C.), 23 July 1949, 1.

43. See, for instance, “Leaf Growers Will Vote on Assessment,” Loris Sentinel (Conway, S.C.), 10 December 1958, 1.

44. Interview with Frank Jeter, 28 April 1947, folder 1b, box 1, Hutson Papers, ECU.

45. Hutson, COHC, 528.

46. “The Tobacco Export Situation,” Before the North Carolina Farm and Home Convention, 28 August 1947; “Maintaining Agricultural Exports,” Address of J. B. Hutson, 29th Annual Convention of American Farm Bureau Federation, 15 December 1947; “Notes on Talk at Nashville (Nash County Farm Bureau),” 15 January 1948; “Concerning Tobacco Exports,” Remarks of J. B. Hutson Before Board of Governors, Tobacco Association of the United States, 30 January 1948; “Agricultural Outlook for 1948,” Talk by J. B. Hutson at North Carolina Farm Bureau Convention, 1 February 1948. All folder 1c, box 1, Hutson Papers, ECU.

47. Congressional Record, 94 Cong., 2nd sess., part 4, 5341.

48. After all, tobacco was not one of the necessities shipped to Europe through the United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration during the three years of that program’s aid work. For more on UNRRA, see Hitchcock, William I., The Bitter Road to Freedom: A New History of the Liberation of Europe (New York, 2008), 212–14.Google Scholar

49. Cooley held the chairmanship of the House Agricultural Committee from 1949 until the Democrats lost control of the house in 1953. He again served from 1955 until he lost his house seat in 1967.

50. “Lucius Clay Dies,” New York Times, 17 April 1978.

51. J. Con Lanier Oral History Interview, 19 March 1973, Special Collections, ECU.

52. The Marshall Plan: A summary prepared by J. B. Hutson of Tobacco Associates,” undated (1947), folder 1b, box 1, Hutson Papers, ECU.

53. Ibid.

54. Hutson did not always think that his activities rose to the level of lobbying as defined in the Lobby Reorganization Act of 1946. During 1947–48, the years in which the ECA package was being put together, Hutson did register as a lobbyist. He noted in his oral history that his goal in the Marshall Plan package was to remedy what the “tobacco people” saw as a historic discrimination against tobacco by the crop’s exclusion from UNRRA aid. Hutson, COHC, 530.

55. Lanier Oral History, ECU.

56. In 1951, as Marshall Plan operations were drawing to a close, FitzGerald and Cooley once again worked together to bolster the American tobacco trade in West Germany. They authorized a trade mission to rectify the “falling off in tobacco exports to Germany” in spite of a “demonstrated preference on the part of German consumers for American tobacco products.” “Tobacco Trade Mission to Germany,” 5 May 1951, folder 1359, box 33, Papers of Harold D. Cooley (hereafter Cooley Papers), Southern Historical Collection, Louis Round Wilson Library, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill (SHC).

57. Remarks of J. B. Hutson Before Board of Governors, Tobacco Association of the United States,” 30 January 1948, folder 1c, box 1, Hutson Papers, ECU.

58. John Flannagan, “Tobacco and the European Recovery Program in General,” U.S. Cong., House, Congressional Record, 80th Cong., 2nd sess., 31 March 1948, 3881.

59. Proctor, Golden Holocaust, 46.

60. Hutson, “Maintaining Agricultural Exports,” Address of J. B. Hutson, 29th Annual Convention of American Farm Bureau Federation, 15 December 1947, folder 1b, box 1, Hutson Papers, ECU.

61. Ibid.

62. New York Times, 16 December 1947, 8.

63. U.S. Department of Agriculture, “The Tobacco Situation,” July 1948 (Washington, D.C.), 3. An unintended but unsurprising result of the rise of flue-cured tobacco in an era of dollar scarcity was the rise of new geographies of production. As noted previously, the British government sought to conserve currency by encouraging the cultivation of flue-cured leaf within the empire. Between 1960 and 1990, world tobacco production tripled. While the United States’ share of total exports declined dramatically after 1960, the value of production continued to rise because the overall “pie”—total demand for cigarette tobacco—grew. Creek et al., U.S. Tobacco Statistics, 4.

64. The United States exported 156 million pounds to the United Kingdom, versus 51 million pounds for Southern Rhodesia and Nyasaland together. “The Sources and Nature of Statistical Information in Special Fields of Statistics: U.K. Tobacco Statistics,” Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series A (General) 113, no. 4 (1950): 489.

65. “The Flue-Cured Tobacco Situation,” 12.

66. Proctor, Robert N., The Nazi War on Cancer (Princeton, 1999)Google Scholar.

67. “Aus als armem Lande,” Der Spiegel, 18 August 1949.

68. Elliott, Rosemary, “Smoking for Taxes: The Triumph of Fiscal Policy over Health in Postwar Germany, 1945–1951,” Economic History Review 65, no. 4 (2012): 1458–60.Google Scholar

69. “Tabakwaren Ausverkauft,” Der Spiegel, 12 November 1948.

70. Hines, “Recent Trends and Developments, 386–88, esp. appendix, figs. 4.2 and 4.3.

71. “Bei aller Dankbarkeit,” Der Spiegel, 13 August 1952, 19.

72. Godeau, Éric, Le tabac en France de 1940 à nos jour: Histoire d’un marché (Paris, 2008), 58Google Scholar.

73. Lanier Oral History, ECU.

74. Godeau, Le tabac en France de 1940 à nos jour, 119.

75. “Untitled Speech at Washington, N.C.,” undated (1947), folder “Speech Folder, box 1, Papers of J. Con Lanier (hereafter Lanier Papers). ECU.

76. Ibid.

77. Ibid.

78. Sullivan, Robert R., “The Politics of Altruism: An Introduction to the Food-for-Peace Partnership between the United States Government and Voluntary Relief Agencies,” Western Political Quarterly 23, no. 4 (1970): 763.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Wallerstein, Mitchel B., Food for War/Food for Peace: United States Food Aid in a Global Context (Cambridge, Mass., 1980).Google Scholar

79. “Policies and Operations Under Public Law 480,” Hearings Before the Subcommittee on Agriculture and Forestry, United States Senate, 85th Cong., 1st sess., 512.

80. “The Public Law 480 Market Development Program, 11 July 1958, folder 1g, box 1, Hutson Papers, ECU.

81. “Policies and Operations Under Public Law 480,” 668.

82. Tobacco Associates Annual Report,” 25 February 1969. Tobacco Institute, http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/kor59b00/pdf.

83. Ibid.

84. “Tobacco Associates Annual Report,” 7 March 1961. Tobacco Institute. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/qor59b00.

85. “What Tobacco Associates Is Doing in Leipzig,” Tobacco Reporter, January 1967, 34–35.

86. Gross, Stephen, “Selling Germany in South-Eastern Europe: Economic Uncertainty, Commercial Information, and the Leipzig Trade Fair, 1920–40,” Contemporary European History 21, no. 1 (2012): 29–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

87. Crew, David F., ed., Consuming Germany in the Cold War (Oxford, 2003).Google Scholar

88. “What Tobacco Associates Is Doing in Leipzig,” 35.

89. Ibid.

90. “Tobacco Associates Annual Report,” 2 March 1971. Tobacco Institute. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/mro6aa00.

91. “Tobacco Associates Annual Report,” 25 February 1969. Tobacco Institute. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/kor59b00/pdf.

92. The Public Law 480 Market Development Program, 11 July 1958, folder 1g, box 1, Hutson Papers, ECU.

93. “Problems Selling Tobacco in the Export Markets,” undated (late 1950s), folder 1g, box 1, Hutson Papers, ECU.

94. Tobacco Associates Annual Report,” 7 March 1967. Tobacco Institute. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/mor59b00/pdf.

95. “USDA Trade Mission Reports on Overseas Markets,” Tobacco Reporter, February 1969, 70.

96. Hirayama, Takeshi, Smoking in Relation to Death Rates of 265, 118 Men and Women in Japan (Tokyo, 1967)Google Scholar. Repace, J. L., “A Quantitative Estimate of Nonsmokers’ Lung Cancer Risk from Passive Smoking,” Environment International 11, no. 1 (1985): 3–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

97. Japanese women also smoked fewer cigarettes than Japanese men. Data from the early 1970s suggest that male smokers consumed an average of seventeen cigarettes per day, while female smokers consumed around two. Forey, Barbara, Hamling, Jan, Lee, Peter, and Wald, Nicholas, International Smoking Statistics (Oxford, 2002), 412–18.Google Scholar

98. Hirayama, Takeshi, “Non-Smoking Wives of Heavy Smokers Have a Higher Risk of Lung Cancer: A Study from Japan,” British Medical Journal 282, no. 6259 (1981): 183–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke: A Report of the Surgeon General (Rockville, Md.: U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Office of the Surgeon General, 2006). Warner, Kenneth E. and Tam, Jamie, “The Impact of Tobacco Control Research on Policy: Twenty Years of Progress,” Tobacco Control 21, no. 2 (2012): 74–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar The tobacco industry responded to studies on secondhand smoke by indicting their methodology. See M. K. Hong and L. A. Bero, “How the Tobacco Industry Responded to an Influential Study of the Health Effects of Secondhand Smoke,” British Medical Journal (2002): 1413–16.

99. Creek et al., U.S. Tobacco Statistics, 3–4.

100. Indeed, tobacco farmers participated in the Tobacco Industry Research Committee, the infamous public relations wing of the “Big Tobacco.” See, for instance, Tobacco Industry Research Committee, “A Frank Statement to Cigarette Smokers,” 4 January 1954, Lorillard, http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/qxp91e00.

101. For instance, Tobacco Associates was a signatory to the “Frank Statement to Cigarette Smokers,” a full-page advertisement produced by the Tobacco Industry Research Committee after studies linking cigarette smoking and cancer began to appear. The “Frank Statement,” which appeared in hundreds of newspapers in 1954, promised that the industry would give “aid and assistance to the research effort into all phases of tobacco use and health.” It is frequently cited as a clear example of industrial duplicity in the name of profit. Brandt, Cigarette Century, 170–72.