How Ya' Gonna' Keep 'Em Down on the Farm?: The Rise of Populism
Beginning in the 1870s, worsening conditions in rural America caused many people to abandon their farms. At the same
time, changes in farming practices and the agricultural marketplace made farmers more dependent on commercial
decisions made by big-city businessmen. In reaction to these trends, farmers began to take political action that led to the
emergence of the national Populist movement in the 1890s. This lecture investigates changing agricultural conditions in
the United States during the nineteenth century and explores how many rural Americans mobilized to deal with their
crushing economic and political problems.
Questions to Keep in Mind:
1. How did agriculture change in the United States between 1870 and 1900?
2. How did farmers try and protect their economic interests and way of life during this period? Were they successful?
Why or why not?
3. Who were the Populists? Why were they so appealing to farmers? Did they change American politics? If so, how?
Changes in Agriculture
1. Mechanization of agriculture
The mechanization of agriculture led to huge improvements in efficiency, but caused problems for the yeoman
(independent) farmer.
Problems Presented by Machines
More capital needed
Machines demanded upkeep and repair
Added to the financial risks that independent farmers had to take
Mechanization of agriculture
The "Little Giant" thresher, like other farm machinery, reduces farm
labor needs, but increases capital costs
2. Opening of new agricultural lands
As land prices went up and crop prices fell, farmers began mortgaging
their property in order to put more land in cultivation. Unusually high
levels of rainfall also fueled a drive for land acquisition during the 1870s
and the early 1880s. By cultivating more land, farmers hoped to pay off their growing debts. Many urban businessmen,
however, charged farmers extraordinarily high interest rates on their mortgages. When drought struck the Midwest in
1886, the combination of un-watered crops and high interest rates was disastrous for many farmers. By the mid-1880s,
Midwestern farmers had the highest per capita debt in the United States.
3. Growth of specialization in farm products
Although American farmers experimented with new plants and methods on a regular basis throughout the nineteenth
century, most preferred to grow familiar crops. As a result, while urban businessmen were diversifying their holdings,
farmers continued to invest all of their capital in a single crop and increased their chances of sliding into financial ruin.
4. Changing character of markets for agricultural goods
Prior to the Civil War, only a handful of American farmers sold their crops abroad. After the War, however, international
markets for United States agricultural goods expanded dramatically. In the years from 1860 to 1900, agricultural products
comprised 75% of the United States' total export trade.
Many farmers, however, did not understand fully the financial complexities of commodity markets or foreign trade.
Middlemen, especially railroad agents and owners, profited from the ignorance of the farmers. Thus, even as markets for
farm products expanded, farmers often did not benefit from that expansion..
Farmers remained largely ignorant of basic business practices after the Civil War. They had none of the power that had
made other businessmen prosperous. Farmers had no control over the marketplace. Their prosperity, in fact, depended on
six factors which they could not regulate:
Business Cycles, Credit, Transportation, Labor Supply, Price Structure, Government policies
In reaction to these problems, farmers began to take political action.
"Agrarian Myth"
This is the concept, popularized by Thomas Jefferson, that the self-reliant yeoman farmer was the bedrock of American
society. The gulf between this ideal and the reality of farming--falling income, and loss of profits to the railroads,
exasperated farmers. For this reason, many tried to form organizations that would make the Agrarian myth a reality at the
end of the nineteenth century.
The Grange
The full name of the Grange was "The National Grange of the Patrons of Husbandry." The word "grange" comes from an
archaic word for "granary," but, in the context of American history, the word refers to an association of farmers founded
in the United States in 1867. The Grange worked to pass pro-farmer legislation and instituted the cooperative movement
to allow farmers to pool capital and purchase machinery, supplies, and insurance.
"At first most of the [Granges] were in Minnesota, the home of the founder, Oliver Kelley. During the 1870s, however,
the movement spread rapidly, fed by agrarian desperation over hard times, high railroad shipping rates, and tight money.
By 1875, the membership had passed 850,000. During these years, the Grangers placed growing emphasis on the extent to
which farmers were being victimized by railroads, merchants, and banks. The Patrons of Husbandry stood at the head of a
nationwide agrarian movement[...] that created hundreds of cooperatives, founded banks, pushed through legislation
regulating railroads and grain elevators, and campaigned for political candidates.[...] Because of opposition from local
businesses as well as the Grangers' own inexperience, few of their economic initiatives succeeded. Nevertheless, they set
important precedents with their legislation, particularly those regulating railroads (as affirmed by the Supreme Court in
Munn v. Illinois, 1877). More important, the Granger movement marked the beginning of an aggressive and selfconscious effort by the nation's farmers to define their problems in economic terms and to address those problems through
economic and political action." Eric Foner and John A. Garraty, eds., The Reader's Companion to American History
(Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1991) 464-65.
Munn vs. Illinois
The United States Supreme Court decided Munn vs. Illinois in 1877. In its ruling, the court upheld the right of state
legislatures to regulate railroad rates. "Chief Justice Morrison R. Waite wrote the majority opinion. In it he stated that
private property becomes subject to regulation by the government through its 'police powers' when the property is devoted
to the public interest.” "Common carriers exercise a sort of public office, and have duties to perform in which the public is
interested.... Their business is, therefore, 'affected with a public interest.'"-- (From the majority opinion of Chief Justice
Waite.)
After this legal victory, the Grange backed away from political activism. In addition, improved agricultural conditions in
the Midwest caused membership to drop. Three new organizations eventually succeeded the Grange in the 1880s.
1. Farmers and Laborers' Union of America was a regional association in the Southwest. By 1890, it had 3 million
members.
2. Northwest Farmers' Alliance began in Chicago and spread throughout the Midwest. By 1890, it had 2 million members.
3. Colored Farmers National Alliance addressed the needs of African-American farmers in the South and in the Midwest.
By 1890, it had between 1 and 1.5 million members.
These three groups held a convention in St. Louis, Missouri, in 1889, but they were unable to overcome regional
differences and form a national organization. In the elections of 1890, however, southern farmers allied with local
Democrats, while Midwestern farmers formed their own local parties which became known as "People's Parties." Mary
Elizabeth Lease, a Kansas farmwoman, was one of the Populist orators who traveled throughout rural America trying to
whip up support for pro-farm candidates in the election of 1890.
Omaha Platform of 1892
In 1890, farmers elected 5 United States senators, 6 governors, and 46 congressmen. Encouraged by this electoral success,
farmers again set their sights on a national coalition. The three major farmers' organizations held a convention in Omaha,
Nebraska, in 1892. Six principal demands emerged from this meeting:
A permanent union of all working classes
Wealth for the workers
Government ownership of railroads
Government ownership of all communications systems
More flexible and fair distribution of the national currency
No more ownership of land by those who do not actually use it
As it turned out, the Populists' less radical demands, such as their call for a secret ballot, a graduated income tax, and the
direct election of Senators, became law within twenty years.
Main critiques made by Populists:
The American legal system placed too much emphasis on property rights
Monopolies were an economic and social evil
Social Darwinism & laissez-faire were bankrupt ideologies
Industrial society had turned individuals into economic commodities
Wealth was unevenly distributed
Populism and Presidential Elections
William Jennings Bryan was nominated for president by both the Democrats and the Populists in 1896. At the 1896
Democratic national convention, Bryan delivered the "Cross of Gold" speech, which called for unlimited coinage of
silver. He held that government should protect individuals and the democratic process against the growing power of
monopolies. Bryan lost to the Republican candidate, William McKinley, who ran on a platform of "prosperity for all." In
1900, Bryan ran again for president and hoped to make the election a referendum on American imperialism, but lost to
McKinley a second time. His final campaign for president was in 1908, when he lost to William Howard Taft.
Tom Watson was the Populist candidate for president in 1904 and 1908. Watson was vehemently anti-Semitic, anti-Black,
and anti-immigrant, and his failed campaign demonstrated the collapse of Populism as a national political movement.
Rural America underwent massive transformations in the late-nineteenth century. In response, farmers began a nationwide
movement demanding a new kind of politics. More and more people began to view the federal government as a possible
source of protection against the ravages of industrial society. Farmers, however, were not the only Americans who
championed government power as a means to assuage the problems that they perceived in society. As conditions in cities
worsened in the late-nineteenth century, more and more city dwellers began to make similar calls for government action.