The Skinned Knuckles article "Why Negative Ground?" I referred to above was the Sept. 2009 issue, #398. The simple question about a relatively modern occurrence was asked: Why did all remaining positive-ground U.S. manufacturers switch to negative-ground in 1956? The author summarizes,
"Much as I would like to announce that we have an answer, unfortunately just the opposite is true. Not only have I not obtained facts, but I am also puzzled beyond belief that the wide variety of automotive historians and curators whom I questioned could not come with a factual answer."
One U.K. electrical engineeer and museum curator who was queried on the subject replied, "You have opened a can of worms..."
The SK article includes a table showing ground usage by 35 car models since 1932. Twenty five of those used positive ground for at least part of their existence. The various models that became part of GM, except for Cadillac, always used negative ground. Similarly, Duesenberg, Essex, Stutz, and Reo. Cadillac switched from positive to negative ground after WWII. Hudson switched from negative to positive ground in 1934, and then back to negative in 1956. The "universal" switch to negative ground never occurred in the U.K. Nash Metropolitans remained positive ground, and allegedly some US car models made for export to the U.K. are still set up with positive ground.
The various bogus rationales supporting one or the other grounding usage that have been offered over the years, including the corrosion thing, are briefly reviewed. The fact is that in 1956 there was a sudden consensus that it would be a good idea to standardize, but exactly how and why that consensus emerged at that moment in time remains puzzlingly mysterious.
I think it's clear that there really is no strong argument to be made one way or the other, but standardization is a good idea, and, happily, it came to pass! Too bad Ford was on the wrong side of history, but it's no big deal.
Steve