The Populist Movement

One may wonder why anyone should care about the Populist movement in The Gilded Age. I would assert that we should all care about the Populist movement for the same reason that we should care about any transforming event in history; it tells us about ourselves as Americans and about our nation. It seems that whenever our nation is in economic turmoil, the Populists rise again. Whether you spell Populist or Populism with a big P or a little p, the general idea is the same; government should work for the masses, not for the fortunate few.

The Populist movement has always been about the working class, and the interests of the average American, not the interests of Wall Street and big business. I am not sure that Populism will ever die, although it has an ebb and flow. The ideals of the Populists still resonate with Americans today and we have the Populists to thank for the progressive tax on income and the eight-hour work day. It is undeniable that Populists have influenced the way our government works today.

Populist movements usually coincide with an economic bust. And when there is a boom, a bust is never far behind. The economic bust was the impetus that brought the Populists to power in the State of Kansas during the Gilded Age. “After the agricultural boom in Kansas collapsed between 1887 and 1890, the Jayhawk state had the largest number of acres mortgaged in the United States and one of the five highest public debts in the nation.” (Scott 453-467) This is similar to the housing boom that was going on all over the United States before our recent economic collapse.

There have been several economic busts since the Gilded Age, yet we have not learned from them. What can be taken away from our nation’s history if we cannot learn from our mistakes? I do not pretend to be any kind of economc expert, but if our country’s economy keeps booming and busting, it would seem to me that something is wrong, and something must be fixed. As George Bernard Shaw said “We learn from history that we learn nothing from history.”

As I mentioned above, the Populist movements of the past and today are about making the lives of average Americans better. It is about protesting the concentration of wealth in the hands of a lucky few. The Populist party of the Gilded Age was comprised mostly if not entirely of farmers, as I have mentioned in my previous blogs. The Populists of 2009 however, are small business owners, the working class, and farmers alike. Over one hundred years later, the Populists are still fighting for the masses.

It must be noted that although the Populist caucus in Congress today is a faction of the Democratic Party and not a third party as they were in the Gilded Age, the Democrats have adopted many of the ideas of the Gilded Age Populists. Too, the Democratic Party is considered the party for the average American. Although the Democratic Party today is one of the two dominant political parties in the United States, the Democrats deflected to the Populists in Gilded Age “from 1890 to 1892,” (Scott 453-467). This may be one reason why the principles of the two parties have some striking similarities.

There may not be a separate Populist Party any longer, but their ideas live on in the Democratic party. What seemed radical and crazy in the Gilded Age (i.e. progressive income tax) is now just the way things are. The Populists were ahead of their times in many ways, not just in their ideas, but also in the membership of their party. Black Americans and women could be found in the membership of the Populist Party.

According to Thomas Frank, author of "What's the Matter with Kansas?" Populism was "the first of the great American leftist movements."And although Populism was sweeping through many other states, Kansas set itself apart "by its enthsiasm". The enthusiam for Populism was probably similar to the excitement that swept across the nation about the candidacy of Barack Obama. In both instances, people had hope for a brighter future.

The title “What’s the Matter with Kansas?’ came from an essay by the famous Kansan, William Allen White. The essay was a classic “political clock-cleaning” as Frank puts it. White was anti-Populist in the Gilded Age, but he seemed to understand what they were after when the Progressive Era came around. He described the Populist movement as the attempt “to use government as an agency of human welfare...to establish economic as well as politcal equality, to help the underdog,” and “to cut down some of the privileges that wealth carried by reason of its size and inherent power.” (internal quotations omitted, Clanton 559)

The farmers of the Gilded Age had hope that the Populist movement could improve their conditions and their lives. Just as Americans from all walks of life voted for Barack Obama because they wanted him to help lead the country back in a way that was properous for all Americans, not just the tycoons. The view to the future from the past can help us to see more clearly what we want for ourselves, and our nation. We must look to the future with hope, but never forget our past.

I am not arguing that we as Americans should dwell on our past, rather that we use it to our advantage. We have a rich history, with periods that fill us with pride and periods that fill us with shame. But, what all periods in American history have in common is the opportunities that they give us to learn from them. What we could learn from the Populist movement is that when the economy is booming, everything may be fine and dandy, but when it busts, people will see what had been wrong all along more clearly. The Populists were not looking for a handout; they wanted the fruits of their labor and they did not believe in unearned privilege.

Aldous Huxley captures the theme of this last entry perfectly, “The charm of history and its enigmatic lesson consist in the fact that, from age to age, nothing changes and yet everything is completely different.”




Works Cited

Frank, Thomas. What's the Matter with Kansas?: How Conservatives Won the Heart of America. Macmillan, 2005.

Clanton, Gene. "Populism, Progressivism, and Equality: The Kansas Paradigm." Agricultural History 51 (1977): 559-581

Barton, Scott D. "Party Switching and Kansas Populism." Historian 52 (1990): 253-467

Images accessed at Google image and historycooperative.org

Farmers & Populism

People are disgusted by Wall Street and it's greedy practices (1), Farmers are up in arms over the low cost of the goods they produce and the high costs to ship them (resulting if little if any, profit)(2), interest of mortgages continues to grow as land value plummets(3) thousands of people’s homes are being foreclosed on because the residents can no longer afford to pay the mortgage(4), many Americans are concerned about the declining value or their money, and they are demanding government intervention. You may be surprised to learn that I'm not referring to 2009, but to 1892.

As I traveled back in time, I was struck most profoundly by the similarities between the problems of the 1890s and the problems we face today. I was surprised to find that people so long ago were irritated with the corrupt practices Wall Street engaged in, and it's lack of consideration for the average American. I was not surprised that the Democrats and Republicans were still going at it, much like our recent election. The Populists sentiment towards the two old parties is not that different that what we hear today, "The Republican Party can't keep the peace of the country" and "The Democratic Party has no sense on the money question".(5)

As a result of the economic downtown of the time, people were looking for hope of a better day, for hope of different politics and politicians who cared about the issues that affected them, and for hope that prosperity would one day return. The Farmers of Kansas were demanding relief in 1890 and calling attention to the "alarming economic conditions"(6) of the State, including the great deal of homesteads that were in foreclosure which they believed were the result of "vicious legislation"(7). Not to mention, the exorbitant rates the railroads were charging to transport the devalued goods that farmers produced.(8)

The Farmers protested against "excessively high" (9) railroad rates and asked the railroad commission to "reduce the rates to correspond with the very low prices the producer is now compelled to accept for these commodities."(10) It was suggested that the government buy and take charge of the railroads, and that Kansas was especially interested in seeing this happen because the State had for years "suffered from excessive freight rates and railroad combinations to bleed the people."(11) A specific example cited is that the "farmers of Kansas received but thirteen cents a bushel of corn which was afterwards sold in New York for fifty cents."(12) Any profit the farmer may have made was “consumed in the payment of freight”(13), which made it almost impossible to make a living as a farmer.

It was the culmination of the rising debt,inability to pay it, and he plummeting value of wheat and corn that led to the rise of the Farmer’s Alliance, which was made up of several farmer groups and the Knights of Labor.(14) The Farmer’s Alliance then developed into the People’s party aka The Populist Party. The Populist Governor of Kansas, Lewelling argues that the farmer’s would be satisfied “With even moderate returns for their products..”(15) But the prices keep getting lower and the taxes are “becoming more burdensome”.

Another problem was that while the farmer’s of America’s heartland are struggling, the Eastern mortgage holders are stuffing their pockets, and capitalizing on the farmer’s blight. Governor Lewelling emphasizes this by pointing to the conditions in Kansas, ten thousand farm people are made homeless every year by mortgage foreclosures. This leads me to ponder where was the government "bailout" for the farmers? American greed is infamous, and it goes back to the founding of our country.

The Populists of the 1890s were lamenting the very same principles of the “Eastern business elite” and “Wall Street” that upsets so many Americans today. But it was not just the former and the latter, unscrupulous real estate agents deserve part of the blame as well. “Real estate agents reaped a bountiful harvest. Money was poured in by credulous Eastern lenders, and agents were bribed to be dishonest or imprudent by receiving a commission on the money they loaned.”(16) So you see, these people had incentives to lie to people and do whatever was necessary to get someone into a house, even if they know that person can’t afford it. This is best illustrated by the quote “that while figures cannot lie, yet liars will figure.”(17)

The Populists wanted equality among all Americans far before the Civil Rights Movement. The Populist believes, as the Democratic Party does today that the government should be for the good of all Americans and “legislation should be for the multitude rather than the few.”(18) The Populist “believes that should afford protection to the weak” and “that if government which assumes to guarantee life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, in reality it guarantees nothing but wretchedness and want...” If this government gets to the point that is it no longer viewed as the shield of the people’s liberties “and the defender of their homes and property, and they have no hope that it can be made such” then its days are numbered.(19)

Although, Populism sounds like a good idea today, in 1896 many people thought ill of the Populists. One journalist even argues that Populism was in fact a disease.(20) But, many journalists also saw the good that the Populists wanted to bring to America and agreed that the fact the most of the wealth in this country is concentrated in the hands of the few is a problem and that Populism could be “considered as an honest effort for the securing of better conditions.”(21). Maybe if the massive income inequality would have been addressed in the Gilded and Progressive Ages, we would not have the same problem today, which has become even worse.

A principle aim of the Populist Party was to “invoke its forces and powers to devise and establish conditions under which a more equitable distribution of the nation’s wealth might be effected.”(22) During our 2008 election, the phrase “distribution of wealth” was used (unsuccessfully) to scare people away from voting for Democrats, it seems that there are many similarities between the Democrats of 2008 and the Populists of 1896. One journalist correctly predicted in 1896 that there is little doubt that some of the core principles of the Populists will be enduring and indeed be integrated into the principles of another political party.(23) Lindsay Smith



Notes

1,14,20. McVEY, FRANK L. 1896. The rise and progress of populism. The Independent ...Devoted to the Consideration of Politics, Social and Economic Tendencies, History, Literature, and the Arts (1848-1921) 48, (2493) (Sep 10): 4, http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=829321572&Fmt=7&clientId=17675&RQT=309&VName=HNP.

2,11,12. All because of Jay Gould.(1890, 02/28/1890). Philadelphia Inquirer, pp. 2.

3,7,9,10.Want Lower rates, Kansas Farmers Protest Against Heavy Railroad Charges.(1890, May 4, 1890). Wheeling Register, pp. 3.

4.Plans of the Populists, What Their Leaders Say of This Year's Contest.(1896, 01/01/1896). The State, pp. 3.

5,6.Kansas farmers demand relief.(1890, 03/18/1890). The Sun.

13,15.By the Hon. L. D. Lewelling,Governor of Kansas. 1895. Problems before the western farmer. The North American Review (1821-1940) VOL. CLX., (No. CCCCLVIII.) (Jan): 16, http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=204662181&Fmt=7&clientId=17675&RQT=309&VName=HNP.

16,17,18. Deserts the hot-bed of populism. 1895. The Social Economist (1891-1895) 8, (6) (Jun): 15, http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=735835202&Fmt=7&clientId=17675&RQT=309&VName=HNP.

19,21,22. Williams, Robert H. 1895. Populism, considered as an honest effort for the securing of better conditions. American Magazine of Civics (1895-1897) 7, (2) (Aug): 195,http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=692937282&Fmt=7&clientId=17675&RQT=309&VName=HNP.

The People's Party

Upon opening my new issue of "The Nation" last week, I was amused and delighted to find an article titled "Populists in the House". The article was about the Populist branch of the Democratic Party and "highlighted broader populist ferment among House Democrats". A new "Populist Caucus" has been formed in the United States House of Representatives and a primary focus of the caucus is to stop the Democrats from "pulling punches in fights over economic policy." Whereas, the Populist movement of the 1890s centered on government ownership of the railroads, the Populists of 2009 believe in government ownership of the banks. The Nation referred to the Populists as "latter-day William Jennings Bryans"(1). Bryan was the "head of a combined Democratic and Populist ticket"(2) in 1896.

The Nation article further proved to me the importance of the Populist movement of the 1890s, and 1896 in particular. Several comparisons can be made to the Populists of today and the Populists of the Gilded Age. For one, they are still fighting for the "middle class" and the farmer's who are hurting in these trying economic times. Two, they are opposed to "big business" and the interests of Wall Street. Third, the Populists must become a larger presence in Washington in order to accomplish their goals. As John Nichols of The Nation says, "The formation of the Populist Caucus is a healthy development, but it is not enough."(3)

One may wonder if the Populists of today could have been without the Populist movement of the

Gilded Age. A major political party should not ignore a large voting bloc, which seems to be at least what the Populists feel the other Democrats have done today, or else they would probably not have formed a separate faction within the party. The Gilded Age Populists of Kansas courted Black Americans who were ignored by and faced with the indifference of the Republican party (4). A core principle of the Populists has always been equality for all, even if it was a different story in practice.

I would argue that the Gilded Age was the point when the two major political parties of our nation began to become what they are today. Republicans moved away from Lincoln's support of Blacks, and the Populists who joined forces with the Democrats courted the Black vote. The fact that Republicans were saying things like "How shall we beat the coons and at the same time save the nigger vote?"(5) speaks volumes about the mindset of the Republicans and explains why Blacks moved over to the Populist side after decades of being Republicans. The party of Lincoln was no longer the party of Lincoln. Although the presence of Blacks in the Populist Party was short-lived, it foreshadowed where the Black Americans would place their political clout in the future.

Although Black Americans in Kansas agreed with the Populism politics, they disagreed with the Populist ideology. Through past experience, Blacks had learned to distrust poor whites. Their trust lay with the wealthy whites, the ones who owned corporations, because they were the ones who gave them jobs when the white labor unions were striking. Consequently, the Black Kansans of the Gilded Age did not like or agree with labor unions which were largely made up of poor whites. They believed in capitalism because in their eyes, the capitalist corporations were the ones who were giving Blacks jobs and helping to advance the race. (6)

However, when it came to advancing the race, the Populists also played a part. When the "Republicans seemed to no longer care about even the appearance of concern for the negro". The Populists stepped up. The "Pops" offered Blacks "recognition and hope for renewed stability."(7) The Populists were showing their concern for the plight of Blacks in Kansas and "the most important and dramatic indication of Populist concern came when Governor Lorenzo D. Lewelling sent state troops into Salinas to prevent the lynching of a Negro prisoner."(8)


"During the 1890s chaos reigned in Jayhawk politics." (9) The preceding statement is probably an accurate description of the political movement in Kansas, there was party switching, as I explained above and the economic crisis served to further aggravate political tensions in the Jayhawk state. The Kansas Populist Party was "formed to fight for the rights of all the laboring classes."(10) Frustrated with the moneyed upper classes and the politicians that were controlled by them, it became clear to the Populists that "farmers would have to elect farmers."(11)

The Populist Party, also call the People's Party enjoyed success with the "fusion" of Democratic candidates on the ticket. Due to the relative success of the Populist party in the 1890 election, "the Kansas Democrats hoped to achieve fusion with the People's party in the election of 1892"(12) Populists goals were achieved when Kansas elected it's first Populist governor in 1892, Governor Lorenzo D. Lewelling.

Although the Populist movement in Kansas "shook the foundation of politics", it was unfortunately "unable to fundamentally reshape older coalitions of voters for an extended period of time." "Never before or since, have the two races in the South come so close together politically."(13) Although the latter statement was made in 1968, it still rings true, the Black voters of the South vote for Democrats, while the whites vote for Republicans. The consequence of the Republican ideology was handed down in the last election; it is becoming a party of the South, not a national party because it does not address the issues of our very diverse nation. And it has not addressed the issues that face Black Americans since it was Lincoln's party.

Notes

1, 3. Nichols, John, "Populists in the House," The Nation, March 30,2009

2,9-13. Barton, Scott D., "Party Switching and Kansas Populism," Blackwell (1990): 453-467

4-8. Chafe, William H., "The Negro and Populism: A Kansas Case Study," Journal of Southern History (1968): 402-419

Photo of Governor Lewelling courtesy of the Kansas Historical Society.

Other photos accessed on Google image search.