1 Doukora

Essay On The Populist Party Of The 1890S

The Populist Movement’s Grievances Of The 1880s And 1890s

The Populist Movement’s grievances of the 1880s and 1890s
Throughout the 1880s and 1890s America was going through many changes and many of these were fought by the Populists. Silver being demonetized was another major problem for the Populists and they fought it along with asking for a national government regulated currency as well. The Populist Party also fought against the harsh taxes that were in place at the time in the United States. The biggest concern for many of the Populists was how to handle crop failures and how prices were to be controlled. All in all, the Populist movement was centered on helping out the farmers and improving the ever changing economy.
The Coinage Act of 1873 was one of the major reasons why the Populist movement started and began forming. There were no real instant effects of the Coinage Act, and not many citizens in America used silver anyway (Friedman). Long term however, the United States would never be the same economically thanks to this monumental legislation. Officially accepting the Gold Standard, the American economy raised the demand for gold immensely, and as a result many gold deposits within America became depleted (Friedman). Consequently, the dollar and employees of America at the time became connected and tied to gold (Friedman). This was not a beneficial relationship, and the United States had become dependent on gold. Add in the fact that gold was being depleted rapidly and the demand for it was growing exponentially and you have a huge economic breakdown (Friedman). Prices in all industries dropped, deflation rose by around five percent, and interest rates and debt increased (Friedman).This all collectively caused the Panic of 1893, which devastated most of America economically (Friedman). The Populist Party realized what the future consequences of the demonetization of silver would be, and they were willing to work with other groups that similarly wanted the free coinage of silver. The Crime of 73’ as it became known was a legitimate problem not just for the Populists but for much of the United States as well.

Midwestern farmers expressed even more sentiment about America’s economy due to the high taxes at the time. During the Civil War, the government had increased the tax rate to raise revenue for the war effort, but had not lowered them back down after the war ended (Aboukhadijeh). At the time, the elevated tariffs and taxes, especially the McKinley Tariff (which raised rates up to 48.4%) was devastating to Midwestern farmers (Aboukhadijeh). These individuals were forced to then purchase expensive domestic goods rather than cheap foreign goods because of this high McKinley Tariff (Aboukhadijeh). Farmers also had trouble selling their crops in the international, unregulated trade market that housed competitive rates (Aboukhadijeh). In contrast, the McKinley Tariff was beneficial to the powerful companies and citizens of America (Aboukhadijeh). However, the Populists believed that...

Loading: Checking Spelling

0%

Read more

The Populist movements formation Essay

1510 words - 6 pages The Populist movements formation Progressive and Populist Movements

Compare/Contrast of Political Parties: American Independent Party and the Populist Party

805 words - 3 pages INDEPENDENT PARTY1) Values and Beliefs-Protect the right to life of the innocent unborn;-Stop the undeclared wars which are daily costing American lives and billions of tax dollars;-Stop reckless spending, including foreign aid, and take care of America's domestic needs-End debt financing of both Federal and State governments;-End the Federal income tax, and restore a tariff based revenue...

The Influence of the Populist Platform on America

1404 words - 6 pages After the civil war, especially during the late 1800s, the US industrial economy has been thriving and booming which reflected on the numerous improvements that occurred in transportation through new railroad, in new markets for new invented goods and in the increased farm yield. However, most of this wealth has been captured by the capitalists, they looked down on the working poor class and expected them to submit to them. Also, they had control...

An Analysis of the Populist Party's Premature Fall into Obscurity.

958 words - 4 pages An Analysis of the Populist Party's Premature Fall into ObscurityQuestion: After its startling successes of the late 1880's and early 1890's, why did the Populist Party quickly fade into oblivion after 1896?Key Words: Analyze - examine the motives; answer the questionTime Period: 1880's-1900Geography: United States of America,...

"A region without problems and a people without grievances." Discuss this view of Southeast Asia and its inhabitants in the years 1870-1942.

1250 words - 5 pages Between the years 1870 and 1942, Western imperialism dominated Southeast Asia, transforming its political, economic and social structures. The view that it was a region without problems and a people without grievances can be interpreted as Southeast Asia being positively affected by colonialism rendering a smooth and prosperous economy, political stability and a social...

Traditional journalism is struggling to reshape itself as the variety of alternative media – blogs, twitter, etc – create more populist and often less professional forums.

958 words - 4 pages Traditional journalism is struggling to reshape itself as the variety of alternative media - blogs, twitter, etc - create more populist and often less professional forums.Indeed, ever since the web was made available to the public, traditional journalism has been struggling to integrate the newsroom with online operations, but at the same time without lowering standards of reporting and verifying information.In...

Title:Cross of Gold, Essay topic question: What were some argments put foward by the populist party in the 19th century?

734 words - 3 pages The bitter controversy concerning the matter of the free coinage of silver is proving critical to where the votes will fall in this year's (1896) campaign. On one side, there is William Jennings Bryan who believes that the free coinage of silver is decisive if all the people of the...

The Covenant, the Sword and the Arm of the Lord

1070 words - 4 pages The Covenant, the Sword and the Arm of the Lord What does the word "terrorist" bring to mind? Without even seeing the accused, most people in this country automatically assume this person is Middle-Eastern and Muslim. Although Stern's Terror in the Name of God focuses mainly on Islamic terrorists, it begins by addressing terrorist acts of a more homegrown variety. Stern interviews American terrorists here in the United States. The...

The Relationship of the Mind and the Body: The Person

1433 words - 6 pages Can the mind exist without the body? Can the body exist without the mind? Surely in this day and age, there are artificial ways to keep the body alive even if the brain is pronounced dead. Likewise, the body can be completely immobilized, in a coma, yet the mind can still be alive and active. But can either really exist in its entirety on its own, performing its functions as usual, and in the same manner as if it was still in union with its...

The History and the Symbolism of the Festival of Pesach

2108 words - 8 pages The History and the Symbolism of the Festival of Pesach Around 3000 years ago, the Israelites who lived in Egypt were blamed for all of the troubles of the country. They were enslaved by the Pharaoh and forced to labour constantly under the whip to build palaces and buildings for him. This continued for years until one day, when King Herod threw all the Israelite babies into the river, for fear of being...

The Merchant Of Venice And The Covenant Of The Bible

850 words - 3 pages The Covenant is the theme of Shakespeare's play, The Merchant of Venice, as well as of the Bible, although the Covenant does not appear to be the theme of the play. The Covenant does not appear to be the theme of The Merchant of Venice. For example, in the play, Antonio makes a verbal agreement because of his friendship with Bassanio...

This article is about the American political party, also known as the Populists, which existed from 1891 to 1919. For other American and worldwide parties using the term "populists", see Populist Party. For 1850s groups in Ohio and Indiana affiliated with the Anti-Nebraska movement and Know-Nothing party, see Fusion Party. For the American party with the same name which was active in the 1970s, see People's Party (United States, 1971). For the party existing in the Utah Territory from 1870–1891, see People's Party (Utah).

The People's Party, also known as the Populist Party or the Populists, was an agrarian-populistpolitical party in the United States. For a few years, 1892–96, it played a major role as a left-wing force in American politics. It was merged into the Democratic Party in 1896; a small independent remnant survived until 1908. It drew support from angry farmers in the West and South. It was highly critical of banks and railroads, and allied itself with the labor movement.[1][2][3]

Established in 1891, as a result of the Populist movement, the People's Party reached its peak in the 1892 presidential election, when its ticket, composed of James B. Weaver and James G. Field, won 8.5% of the popular vote and carried five states (Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Nevada and North Dakota), and the 1894 House of Representatives elections, when it took over 10% of the vote. Built on a coalition of poor, white cotton farmers in the South (especially North Carolina, Alabama and Texas) and hard-pressed wheat farmers in the Plains states (especially Kansas and Nebraska), the Populists represented a radical combination of agrarianism and urbanism with hostility to banks, landowners, Eastern elites, railroads, and the gold standard.[4]

Though Henry George refused to campaign for the Populist Party, many of his supporters did, which created a contest for power between Georgists and socialists in states such as Illinois, where Clarence Darrow lobbied for the Georgist 'single-taxers'. Another major Georgist figure in the People's Party was Congressman "Sockless Jerry" Simpson from Kansas. The Texas Farmers' Alliance and the Texas People's Party both adopted Georgist planks in their platforms.[5] In more urban states such as New York, the Georgist wing reportedly "practically dominated" the People's Party.[6] Other state branches of the People's Party adopted less radical land tax planks in their platforms.[7]

The party sometimes allied with labor unions in the North and Republicans in the South. In the 1896 presidential elections the Populists endorsed the Democratic presidential nominee, William Jennings Bryan, adding their own vice presidential nominee. By joining with the Democrats, the People's Party lost its independent identity and rapidly withered away.

The terms "populism" and "populist" have been used in the 20th and 21st centuries to describe anti-elitist appeals against established interests or mainstream parties, referring to both the political left and right.

Formation[edit]

A People's Party grew out of a large mood of agrarian unrest in response to low agricultural prices in the South and the trans-Mississippi West, as well as thought that the "Eastern Elites" were taking advantage of the farmers by charging higher rates on loans and trains.[8] The Farmers' Alliance, formed in Lampasas, Texas, in 1876, promoted collective economic action by farmers and achieved widespread popularity in the South and Great Plains. The Farmers' Alliance ultimately did not achieve its wider economic goals of collective economic action against brokers, railroads, and merchants, and many in the movement advocated for changes in national policy. By the late 1880s, the Alliance had developed a political agenda that called for regulation and reform in national politics, most notably an opposition to the gold standard to counter the high deflation in agricultural prices in relation to other goods such as farm implements.

In 1886, an entirely different "People's Party" elected 6 assemblymen to the Wisconsin State Assembly and 1 senator to the Wisconsin State Senate. However this was a labor party, and by the 1888 elections it was using the Union Labor Party label.

In December 1888 the National Agricultural Wheel and the Southern Farmer’s Alliance met at Meridian, Mississippi, where the national farmers convention was held that year. In that meeting they decided to consolidate the two parties pending ratification. This consolidation gave the organization a new name, the Farmers and Laborers’ Union of America, and by 1889 the merger had been ratified, although there were conflicts between “conservative” Alliance men and “political” Wheelers in Texas and Arkansas, which delayed the unification in these states until 1890 and 1891 respectively. The merger eventually united white Southern Alliance and Wheel members, but it would not include African American members of agricultural organizations.[9]

During their move towards consolidation in 1889, the leaders of both Southern Farmers’ Alliance and the Agricultural Wheel organizations contacted Terence V. Powderly, leader of the Knights of Labor. “This contact between leaders of the farmers’ movement and Powderly helped pave the way for a series of reform conferences held between December 1889 and July 1892 that resulted in the formation of the national People’s (or Populist) Party.”[10]

The drive to create a new political party out of the movement arose from the belief that the two major parties, Democrats and Republicans, were controlled by bankers, landowners and elites hostile to the needs of the small farmer. The movement reached its peak in 1892 when the party held a convention chaired by Frances Willard (leader of the WCTU and a friend of Powderly's)[11] in Omaha, Nebraska and nominated candidates for the national election.

The party's platform, commonly known as the Omaha Platform, called for the abolition of national banks, a graduated income tax, direct election of Senators, civil service reform, a working day of eight hours and Government control of all railroads, telegraphs, and telephones. In the 1892 Presidential election, James B. Weaver received 1,027,329 votes. Weaver carried four states (Colorado, Kansas, Idaho, and Nevada) and received electoral votes from Oregon and North Dakota as well.

The party flourished most among farmers in the Southwest and Great Plains, as well as making significant gains in the South, where they faced an uphill battle given the firmly entrenched monopoly of the Democratic Party. Success was often obtained through electoral fusion, with the Democrats outside the South, but with alliances with the Republicans in Southern states like Alabama, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas.[12] For example, in the elections of 1894, a coalition of Populists and Republicans led by Populist Marion Butler swept state and local offices in North Carolina, and the coalition would go on to elect Republican Daniel Lindsay Russell as Governor in 1896.[13]

Quite separate from the Populists were the Silverites in the western mining states, who demanded Free silver to solve the Panic of 1893. By allowing the coining of silver coins, they hoped to make the value of the money more than what it represented, which would lead to inflation of the currency, and thus, reduce the debt of the farmers to the Eastern Elites. This idea led former Greenback Party members to join the Populist Party.

The Populists followed the Prohibition Party in actively including women in their affairs. Some southern Populists, including Thomas E. Watson of Georgia, openly talked of the need for poor blacks and poor whites to set aside their racial differences in the name of shared economic self-interest. Regardless of these rhetoric appeals, however, racism did not evade the People's Party. Prominent Populist Party leaders such as Marion Butler, a United States Senator from North Carolina, at least partially demonstrated a dedication to the cause of white supremacy, and there appears to have been some support for this viewpoint among the rank-and-file of the party's membership.[14] After 1900 Watson himself became an outspoken white supremacist and became the party's presidential nominee in 1904 and 1908, winning 117,000 and 29,000 votes.

[edit]

By 1896, the Democratic Party took up many of the People's Party's causes at the national level, and the party began to fade from national prominence. In that year's presidential election, the Democrats nominated William Jennings Bryan, who focused on the free silver issue as a solution to the economic depression and the maldistribution of power. One of the great orators of the day, Bryan generated enormous excitement among Democrats with his "Cross of Gold" speech, and appeared in the middle of 1896 to have a good chance of winning the election, if the Populists voted for him.

The Populists had the choice of endorsing Bryan or running their own candidate. After great infighting at their St. Louis convention they decided to endorse Bryan but with their own vice presidential nominee, Thomas E. Watson of Georgia. Watson was cautiously open to cooperation, but after the election would recant any hope he had in the possibility of cooperation as a viable tool.[15] Bryan's strength was based on the traditional Democratic vote (minus the middle class and German Catholics); he swept the old Populist strongholds in the west and South, and added the silverite states in the west, but did poorly in the industrial heartland. He lost to Republican William McKinley by a margin of 600,000 votes and lost again in a rematch in 1900 by a larger margin. Historians believe this was because of the tactics Bryan used, which had not been used before; he had aggressively "run" for president, while traditional candidates would use "front porch campaigns." [16]

Populist-GOP fusion in North Carolina[edit]

In 1894-96 the Populist wave of agrarian unrest swept through the cotton and tobacco regions of the South. The most dramatic impact came in North Carolina, where the poor white farmers who comprised the Populist party formed a working coalition with the Republican Party, then largely controlled by blacks in the low country, and poor whites in the mountain districts. They took control of the state legislature in both 1894 and 1896, and the governorship in 1896. Restrictive rules on voting were repealed. In 1895 the Legislature rewarded its black allies with patronage, naming 300 black magistrates in eastern districts, as well as deputy sheriffs and city policemen. They also received some federal patronage from the coalition congressman, and state patronage from the governor.[17]

Collapse[edit]

The Populist movement never recovered from the failure of 1896, and national fusion with the Democrats proved disastrous to the party in the South. National alliance with the Democrats sapped the ability of the Populists to fight the Democrats locally in the South. Early on, this was less of an issue in the Western states where Republicans were strong, as the Democratic-Populist alliance was a more natural fit there, but eventually ended the party.

In North Carolina, the state Democratic-party orchestrated propaganda campaign in newspapers across the state, and created a brutal and violent white supremacy election campaign to defeat the North Carolina Populists and GOP, the Fusionist revolt in North Carolina collapsed in 1898, and white Democrats returned to power. The gravity of the crisis was underscored by a major race riot in Wilmington, in 1898, two days after the election. Knowing they had just retaken control of the state legislature, the Democrats were confident they could not be overcome. They attacked and overcame the Fusionists; mobs roamed the black neighborhoods, shooting, killing, burning buildings, and making a special target of the black newspaper.[18] There were no further insurgencies in any Southern states involving a successful black coalition at the state level. By 1900, the gains of the populist-Republican coalition were reversed, and the Democrats ushered in disfranchisement[19]: practically all blacks lost their vote. The Populist/Republican alliance which had governed North Carolina, the only state in which it had any success, fell apart.

Tennessee’s Populist Party was demoralized by a diminishing membership, and puzzled and split by the dilemma of whether to fight the state-level enemy (the Democrats) or the national foe (the Republicans and Wall Street). By 1900 the People’s Party of Tennessee was a shadow of what it once was.[20] A similar pattern was repeated elsewhere throughout the South, where the Populist Party had previously sought alliances with the Republican Party against the dominant state Democrats, including in Watson's Georgia.

In 1900, while many Populist voters supported Bryan again, the weakened party nominated a separate ticket of Wharton Barker and Ignatius L. Donnelly, and disbanded afterwards. Populist activists either retired from politics, joined a major party, or followed Eugene Debs into his new Socialist Party. In 1904, the party was re-organized, and Thomas E. Watson was their nominee for president in 1904 and in 1908, after which the party disbanded again.

In A Preface to Politics, published in 1913, Walter Lippmann wrote, "As I write, a convention of the Populist Party has just taken place. Eight delegates attended the meeting, which was held in a parlor."[21] This may record the last gasp of the party organization.

Debate by historians over populism[edit]

Since the 1890s historians have vigorously debated the nature of Populism; most scholars have been liberals who admired the Populists for their attacks on banks and railroads. Some historians see a close link between the Populists of the 1890s and the progressives of 1900-1912, but most of the leading progressives (except Bryan himself) fiercely opposed Populism. For example, Theodore Roosevelt, George W. Norris, Robert La Follette Sr., William Allen White and Woodrow Wilson all strongly opposed Populism. It is debated whether any Populist ideas made their way into the Democratic party during the New Deal era. The New Deal farm programs were designed by experts (like Henry Wallace) who had nothing to do with Populism.[22]

Some historians see the populists as forward-looking liberal reformers. Others view them as reactionaries trying to recapture an idyllic and utopian past. For some they were radicals out to restructure American life, and for others they were economically hard-pressed agrarians seeking government relief. Much recent scholarship emphasizes Populism's debt to early American republicanism.[23] Clanton (1991) stresses that Populism was "the last significant expression of an old radical tradition that derived from Enlightenment sources that had been filtered through a political tradition that bore the distinct imprint of Jeffersonian, Jacksonian, and Lincolnian democracy." This tradition emphasized human rights over the cash nexus of the Gilded Age's dominant ideology.[24]

Frederick Jackson Turner and a succession of western historians depicted the Populist as responding to the closure of the frontier. Turner explained:

The Farmers' Alliance and the Populist demand for government ownership of the railroad is a phase of the same effort of the pioneer farmer, on his latest frontier. The proposals have taken increasing proportions in each region of Western Advance. Taken as a whole, Populism is a manifestation of the old pioneer ideals of the native American, with the added element of increasing readiness to utilize the national government to effect its ends.[25]

The most influential Turner student of Populism was John D. Hicks, who emphasized economic pragmatism over ideals, presenting Populism as interest group politics, with have-nots demanding their fair share of America's wealth which was being leeched off by nonproductive speculators. Hicks emphasized the drought that ruined so many Kansas farmers, but also pointed to financial manipulations, deflation in prices caused by the gold standard, high interest rates, mortgage foreclosures, and high railroad rates. Corruption accounted for such outrages and Populists presented popular control of government as the solution, a point that later students of republicanism emphasized.[26]

In the 1930s C. Vann Woodward stressed the southern base, seeing the possibility of a black-and-white coalition of poor against the overbearing rich. Georgia politician Tom Watson served as Woodward's hero.[27] In the 1950s, however, scholars such as Richard Hofstadter portrayed the Populist movement as an irrational response of backward-looking farmers to the challenges of modernity. He discounted third party links to Progressivism and argued that Populists were provincial, conspiracy-minded, and had a tendency toward scapegoatism that manifested itself as nativism, anti-Semitism, anti-intellectualism, and Anglophobia. The antithesis of anti-modern Populism was modernizing Progressivism according to Hofstadter's model, with such leading progressives as Theodore Roosevelt, Robert La Follette Sr., George Norris and Woodrow Wilson pointed as having been vehement enemies of Populism, though William Jennings Bryan did cooperate with them and accepted the Populist nomination in 1896.[28]

Michael Kazin's The Populist Persuasion (1995) argued that Populism reflected a rhetorical style that manifested itself in spokesmen like Father Charles Coughlin in the 1930s and Governor George Wallace in the 1960s.

Goodwyn (1976)[29] and Postel (2007) reject the notion that the Populists were traditionalistic and anti-modern. Quite the reverse, they argue, the Populists aggressively sought self-consciously progressive goals. Goodwyn criticizes Hofstadter’s reliance on secondary sources to characterize the Populists, working instead with the material generated by the Populists themselves. Goodwyn determined that the farmers’ cooperatives gave rise to a Populist culture, and their efforts to free farmers from lien merchants revealed to them the political structure of the economy, which propelled them into politics. The Populists sought diffusion of scientific and technical knowledge, formed highly centralized organizations, launched large-scale incorporated businesses, and pressed for an array of state-centered reforms. Hundreds of thousands of women committed to Populism seeking a more modern life, education, and employment in schools and offices. A large section of the labor movement looked to Populism for answers, forging a political coalition with farmers that gave impetus to the regulatory state. Progress, however, was also menacing and inhumane, Postel notes. White Populists embraced social-Darwinist notions of racial improvement, Chinese exclusion and separate-but-equal.[30]

Populists saw the Panic of 1893 as confirmation that evil global conspiracies and big city villains were to blame. Historian Hasia Diner says:

Some Populists believed that Jews made up a class of international financiers whose policies had ruined small family farms, they asserted, owned the banks and promoted the gold standard, the chief sources of their impoverishment. Agrarian radicalism posited the city as antithetical to American values, asserting that Jews were the essence of urban corruption.[31]

Electoral history[edit]

[edit]

Congressional elections[edit]

  • ^ b: Office left vacant when Garret Hobart died on November 21, 1899.

Elected officials[edit]

Governors[edit]

  • Colorado: Davis Hanson Waite, 1893–1895
  • Idaho: Frank Steunenberg, 1897–1901 (fusion of Democrats and Populists)
  • Kansas: Lorenzo D. Lewelling, 1893–1895
  • Kansas: John W. Leedy, 1897–1899
  • Nebraska: Silas A. Holcomb, 1895–1899 (fusion of Democrats and Populists)
  • Nebraska: William A. Poynter, 1899–1901 (fusion of Democrats and Populists)
  • North Carolina: Daniel Lindsay Russell, 1897–1901 (coalition of Republicans and Populists)
  • Oregon: Sylvester Pennoyer, 1887–1895 (fusion of Democrats and Populists)
  • South Dakota: Andrew E. Lee, 1897–1901
  • Tennessee: John P. Buchanan, 1891–1893
  • Washington: John Rogers, 1897–1901 (fusion of Democrats and Populists)

United States Congress[edit]

Approximately forty-five members of the party served in the U.S. Congress between 1891 and 1902. These included six United States Senators:

The following were Populist members of the U.S. House of Representatives:

52nd United States Congress

  • Thomas E. Watson, Georgia's 10th congressional district
  • Benjamin Hutchinson Clover, Kansas's 3rd congressional district
  • John Grant Otis, Kansas's 4th congressional district
  • John Davis, Kansas's 5th congressional district
  • William Baker, Kansas's 6th congressional district
  • Jerry Simpson, Kansas's 7th congressional district
  • Kittel Halvorson, Minnesota's 6th congressional district
  • William A. McKeighan, Nebraska's 2nd congressional district
  • Omer Madison Kem, Nebraska's 3rd congressional district

53rd United States Congress

  • Haldor Boen, Minnesota's 7th congressional district
  • Marion Cannon, California's 6th congressional district
  • Lafayette Pence, Colorado's 1st congressional district
  • John Calhoun Bell, Colorado's 2nd congressional district
  • Thomas Jefferson Hudson, Kansas's 3rd congressional district
  • John Davis, Kansas' 5th congressional district
  • William Baker, Kansas' 6th congressional district
  • Jerry Simpson, Kansas' 7th congressional district
  • William A. Harris, Kansas Member-at-large
  • William A. McKeighan, Nebraska's 5th congressional district
  • Omer Madison Kem, Nebraska's 6th congressional district
  • Alonzo C. Shuford, North Carolina's 7th congressional district

54th United States Congress

55th United States Congress

  • Albert Taylor Goodwyn, Alabama's 5th congressional district
  • Charles A. Barlow, California's 6th congressional district
  • Curtis H. Castle, California's 7th congressional district
  • James Gunn, Idaho's 1st congressional district
  • Mason Summers Peters, Kansas's 2nd congressional district
  • Edwin Reed Ridgely, Kansas's 3rd congressional district
  • William Davis Vincent, Kansas's 5th congressional district
  • Nelson B. McCormick, Kansas's 6th congressional district
  • Jerry Simpson, Kansas's 7th congressional district
  • Jeremiah Dunham Botkin, Kansas Member-at-large
  • Samuel Maxwell, Nebraska's 3rd congressional district
  • William Ledyard Stark, Nebraska's 4th congressional district
  • Roderick Dhu Sutherland, Nebraska's 5th congressional district
  • William Laury Greene, Nebraska's 6th congressional district
  • Harry Skinner, North Carolina's 1st congressional district
  • John E. Fowler, North Carolina's 3rd congressional district
  • William F. Strowd, North Carolina's 4th congressional district
  • Charles H. Martin, North Carolina's 5th congressional district
  • Alonzo C. Shuford, North Carolina's 7th congressional district
  • John Edward Kelley, South Dakota's 1st congressional district
  • Freeman T. Knowles, South Dakota's 2nd congressional district

56th United States Congress

  • William Ledyard Stark, Nebraska's 4th congressional district
  • Roderick Dhu Sutherland, Nebraska's 5th congressional district
  • William Laury Greene, Nebraska's 6th congressional district
  • John W. Atwater, North Carolina's 4th congressional district

57th United States Congress

See also[edit]

References[edit]

  1. ^Peter Knight (1 January 2003). Conspiracy Theories in American History: An Encyclopedia. ABC-CLIO. p. 82. 
  2. ^Norman Pollack (1 January 1976). The Populist Response to Industrial America: Midwestern Populist Thought. Harvard University Press. pp. 11–12. 
  3. ^Palmer, Bruce (1980). "Man Over Money": the Southern Populist Critique of American Capitalism. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. ISBN 0-8078-1427-X. 
  4. ^Schwantes, Carlos A. (1976). Left-wing Unionism in the Pacific Northwest: A Comparative History of Organized Labor and Socialist Politics in Washington and British Columbia. University of Michigan - Labor Unions. p. 180. Retrieved 7 February 2018. 
  5. ^Postel, Charles (2007). The populist vision. Oxford New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0195384717. 
  6. ^Post, Louis Freeland (1904). The Public, Issues 314-365. The Public. p. 471. Retrieved 7 February 2018. 
  7. ^Miller, Joseph Dana (1904). The Single Tax Review, Volume 4. The Single Tax Review. p. 42. Retrieved 7 February 2018. 
  8. ^Foner, Eric (2005). Give Me Liberty! An American History, Volume Two Second Edition. W. W. Norton & Company, New York, London.
  9. ^Hild, Matthew (2007). Greenbackers, Knights of Labor, and Populists, Farmer-Labor Insurgency in the Late-Nineteenth-Century South. The University of Georgia Press, Athens & London.
  10. ^Hild, Matthew (2007). Greenbackers, Knights of Labor, and Populists, Farmer-Labor Insurgency in the Late-Nineteenth-Century South.The University of Georgia Press, Athens & London, p. 123.
  11. ^Gusfield, Joseph (1963). Symbolic Crusade: Status Politics and the American Temperance Movement The University of Illinois Press, Urbana, Chicago & London, p. 78, 93.
  12. ^http://history.missouristate.edu/wrmiller/Populism/Texts/bibliography.htm
  13. ^William S. Powell, "Marion Butler", Dictionary of North Carolina Biography (1979)
  14. ^James L. Hunt, Marion Butler and American Populism (2003), pp. 3-7
  15. ^James L. Hunt, Marion Butler and American Populism (2003), pp. 4-6.
  16. ^R. Hal Williams, Realigning America: McKinley, Bryan, and the Remarkable Election of 1896 (2010)
  17. ^Helen G. Edmonds, The Negro and Fusion Politics in North Carolina, 1894-1901 (1951). pp 97-136
  18. ^Andrea Meryl Kirshenbaum, "'The Vampire That Hovers Over North Carolina': Gender, White Supremacy, and the Wilmington Race Riot of 1898," Southern Cultures 4#3 (1998) pp. 6-30 online
  19. ^Eric Anderson, Race and Politics in North Carolina, 1872-1901 (1981)
  20. ^Connie L. Lester, Up from the Mudsills of Hell: The Farmers' Alliance, Populism, and Progressive Agriculture in Tennessee, 1870-1915 (2007)
  21. ^Walter Lippmann, A Preface to Politics, New York and London: Mitchell Kennerley, 1913, p. 275.
  22. ^For a summary or how historians approach the topic see Worth Robert Miller, "A Centennial Historiography of American Populism." Kansas History 1993 16(1): 54-69.
  23. ^See Worth Robert Miller, "The Republican Tradition," in Miller, Oklahoma Populism: A History of the People's Party in the Oklahoma Territory (1987) online edition
  24. ^Gene Clanton, Populism: The Humane Preference in America, 1890-1900 (1991) p, xv
  25. ^Frederick Jackson Turner, The Frontier in American History, (1920) p. 148; online edition
  26. ^Martin Ridge, "Populism Revolt: John D. Hicks and The Populist Revolt," Reviews in American History 13 (March 1985): 142-54.
  27. ^C. Vann Woodward, Tom Watson: Agrarian Rebel (1938); Woodward, "Tom Watson and the Negro in Agrarian Politics," The Journal of Southern History, Vol. 4, No. 1 (Feb., 1938), pp. 14-33 in JSTOR
  28. ^Richard Hofstadter, The Age of Reform: From Bryan to F.D.R. (1955)
  29. ^Goodwyn, Lawrence (1976). Democratic promise: the populist moment in America. Oxford University Press. 
  30. ^Charles Postel, The Populist Vision (2007)
  31. ^Hasia R. Diner (2004). The Jews of the United States, 1654 to 2000. U. of California Press. p. 170. 

Further reading[edit]

  • Beeby, James M. Revolt of the Tar Heels: The North Carolina Populist Movement, 1890–1901 (2008)
  • Clanton, Gene. Populism: The Humane Preference in America, 1890-1900 (1991).
  • Formisano, Ronald P. For the People: American Populist Movements from the Revolution to the 1850s (2009), populist movements flourished long before People's Party began
  • Goodwyn, Lawrence. The Populist Moment: A Short History of the Agrarian Revolt in America. (1978).
  • Hackney, Sheldon, ed. Populism: The Critical Issues (1971).
  • Hicks, John D. "The Sub-Treasury: A Forgotten Plan for the Relief of Agriculture". Mississippi Valley Historical Review, Vol. 15, No. 3 (Dec., 1928), pp. 355–373. in JSTOR.
  • Hicks, John D. The Populist Revolt: A History of the Farmers' Alliance and the People's Party Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, 1931.
  • Kazin, Michael. The Populist Persuasion: An American History. New (1995).
  • Knoles, George Harmon. "Populism and Socialism, with Special Reference to the Election of 1892," Pacific Historical Review, vol. 12, no. 3 (Sept. 1943), pp. 295–304. In JSTOR
  • Lester, Connie. Up from the Mudsills of Hell: The Farmers' Alliance, Populism, And Progressive Agriculture in Tennessee, 1870-1915. University of Georgia Press, 2006.
  • McMath, Robert C., Jr. American Populism: A Social History, 1877-1898. (1993).
  • Miller, Worth Robert. "A Centennial Historiography of American Populism." Kansas History 1993 16(1): 54-69. online edition
  • Miller, Worth Robert. "Farmers and Third-Party Politics in Late Nineteenth Century America," in Charles W. Calhoun, ed. The Gilded Age: Essays on the Origins of Modern America (1995) online edition
  • Nugent, Walter T. K. The Tolerant Populists: Kansas Populism and Nativism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press 1962.
  • Peterson, James. "The Trade Unions and the Populist Party," Science & Society, vol. 8, no. 2 (Spring 1944), pp. 143–160. In JSTOR.
  • Postel, Charles. The Populist Vision (2007).
  • Rogers, William Warren The One-Gallused Rebellion: Agrarianism in Alabama, 1865-1896. Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana State University Press, 1970.
  • Stock, Catherine McNicol. Rural Radicals: Righteous Rage in the American Grain. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press. 1996.
  • Woodward, C. Vann. Tom Watson: Agrarian Rebel (1938) online edition
  • Woodward, C. Vann. "Tom Watson and the Negro in Agrarian Politics," The Journal of Southern History, Vol. 4, No. 1 (Feb., 1938), pp. 14–33 in JSTOR

External links[edit]

1892 People's Party campaign poster promoting James Weaver for President of the United States
In 1896, the 36-year-old William Jennings Bryan was the chosen candidate resulting from the fusion of the Democrats and the People's Party.
People's Party campaign poster from 1904 touting the candidacy of Thomas E. Watson

Leave a Comment

(0 Comments)

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *