Home / General / This Day in Labor History: July 4, 1892

This Day in Labor History: July 4, 1892


On this date in 1892, the People’s Party held its first convention in Omaha, Nebraska. Building upon two decades of rural labor’s deep dissatisfaction with the Gilded Age, the Populists articulated a powerful challenge to the unregulated capitalism of the day.

The late 19th century was pretty tough for rural people. For farmers in the Midwest, the promise of Republican free labor ideology proved as much of a lie as it had to urban workers. Both found themselves impoverished and exploited by the corrupt capitalism of the Gilded Age. Southern farmers struggled with the aftermath of the Civil War and the bottomed out price of cotton after the British and French expanded cotton production to their colonies in the 1860s. Perhaps the biggest culprit for farmers’ troubles was the railroad. Since railroads gave favorable rates to big capitalists like John D. Rockefeller, it had to make up lost profits somewhere, and that was often by charging high rates to small farmers who depended on the railroad to get their crops to market but did not have the power to challenge it. On top of railroad price gouging, high tariff rates meant that farm equipment was expensive. When the government stopped printing paper money after the Civil War, cash supplies dwindled. Finally, the government going on the gold standard in 1873 meant that, while the economy as a whole became more stable, money was in extremely short supply for the poor and for farmers.

Throughout the 1870 and 1880s, farmers organized themselves into groups to fight the poverty they faced and lack of control over their own lives they felt. The first Farmers Alliance was formed in 1876 in Lampasas, Texas. The Farmers Alliance is the most direct link to the People’s Party, but there were all sorts of groups–the Agricultural Wheel and the Grange, as well as Colored Farmers’ Alliances for African-American farmers.

During the late 1880s, Farmers’ Alliance members began reaching out to the growing number of reformers and working-class activists. People like Knights of Labor leader Terence Powderly began encouraging the Alliance to mount a political challenge to the corrupt 2-party system of the Gilded Age, when neither party represented working-class interests.

Thus in 1892, the Farmers Alliance and its allies met in Omaha to articulate a political platform and nominate a presidential candidate. The Omaha Platform demanded much that reformers would take up over the next thirty years. It called for the 8-hour day, government control of railroad and communication networks, direct election of senators, civil service reform, the graduated income tax, and the abolition of national banks. It also supported the coinage of silver, which would create inflation, allow farmers to pay off their substantial debts, and alleviate the very real shortage of currency the U.S. faced in the 1890s.

The Preamble to the Omaha Platform, written by famed writer and reformer Ignatius Donnelly, draws on the very real feelings of anger, powerlessness, and outrage that not only farmers but many Americans felt in the 1890s:

The people are demoralized; most of the States have been compelled to isolate the voters at the polling places to prevent universal intimidation and bribery. The newspapers are largely subsidized or muzzled, public opinion silenced, business prostrated, homes covered with mortgages, labor impoverished, and the land concentrating in the hands of capitalists. The urban workmen are denied the right to organize for self-protection, imported pauperized labor beats down their wages, a hireling standing army, unrecognized by our laws, is established to shoot them down, and they are rapidly degenerating into European conditions. The fruits of the toil of millions are badly stolen to build up colossal fortunes for a few, unprecedented in the history of mankind; and the possessors of these, in turn, despise the Republic and endanger liberty. From the same prolific womb of governmental injustice we breed the two great classes—tramps and millionaires. The national power to create money is appropriated to enrich bond-holders; a vast public debt payable in legal-tender currency has been funded into gold-bearing bonds, thereby adding millions to the burdens of the people.

We have witnessed for more than a quarter of a century the struggles of the two great political parties for power and plunder, while grievous wrongs have been inflicted upon the suffering people. We charge that the controlling influences dominating both these parties have permitted the existing dreadful conditions to develop without serious effort to prevent or restrain them. Neither do they now promise us any substantial reform. They have agreed together to ignore, in the coming campaign, ever issue but one. They propose to drown the outcries of a plundered people with the uproar of a sham battle over the tariff, so that capitalists, corporations, national banks, rings, trusts, watered stock, the demonetization of silver and the oppressions of the usurers may all be lost sight of. They propose to sacrifice our homes, lives, and children on the altar of mammon; to destroy the multitude in order to secure corruption funds from the millionaires.

The People’s Party, becoming commonly known as the Populists, nominated James B. Weaver for president. A Civil War officer and veteran of the battles of Fort Donelson and Shiloh, Weaver became disenchanted with Republican corruption during the Grant Administration and became a member of the Greenback Party, which articulated much of the People’s Party financial platform. Weaver served as a member of Congress from Iowa as a Greenbacker.

The People’s Party was quite popular among southern farmers. But the white elite was still consolidating their control in the post-Reconstruction period and saw it as a major threat to be crushed, and not only because they tentatively worked with African-Americans. Widespread intimidation and voter fraud almost certainly robbed Weaver of winning Alabama, and quite possibly several other southern states as well. Weaver did however win Colorado, Kansas, Idaho, and Nevada, as well as electoral votes in Oregon and North Dakota. He received 22 electoral votes overall, making him the only 3rd party candidate to win electoral votes between 1860 and 1912.

It seemed the Populists would build on their Omaha Platform in the mid-1890s, with the Panic of 1893 driving working Americans into looking for any alternative to Gilded Age political norms. But the seeds of decline were already sown. The Panic placed extra emphasis on the silver plank, which attracted more members in the West and even among rich silver interests, but which became another of the cure-all tonics that plagued critiques of Gilded Age capitalism. The farmers also had a difficult time reaching out to urban workers, in part because they were white Anglo-Saxon racial conservatives who were quite uncomfortable with the increasingly polyglot America of the late 19th century. When William Jennings Bryan co-opted the silver plank for the Democrats in 1896 and then betrayed the Populists by nominating an opponent of labor unions as vice-president, the Populists basically died. Many members rejoined the party of their youth, others, such as Tom Watson, turned on their former African-American allies and became virulent white supremacists.

Yet the challenge to unregulated capitalism articulated by these largely uneducated farmers was real enough and far more influential than it receives credit for. Over the next 30 years, much of the Omaha Platform became law, including government regulation of railroads, the income tax, and direct election of senators.

It is also important for us today to remember that labor is not just urban workers and labor unions, but that there are many different labor histories in this nation, including that of small farmers in states with historically low unionization rates and not much recent history of radicalism.

This series has also covered the implementation of the North American Free Trade Agreement in 1994 and the Stono Rebellion of 1739.

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google+
  • Linkedin
  • Pinterest
  • scott

    Wouldn’t these folks (whose courage and accompishments you justly celebrate) be derided by some of your site colleagues as leftier-than-thou purists wasting their time on utopian dreams outside the duopoly? Just wondering :) Seriously, I love these reminders from our past that many things are possible and that our political potential shouldn’t be limited by narrowness and lack of imagination. Thanks!

    • Davis X. Machina

      A progressive third party large enough to win as many states as Wallace’s very different effort did in 1968, one large enough to be worth the effort co-opt — I’d take that.

      Wikipedia lists 15 national political parties founded just since 2002.


        And to me, that’s a meaningful measure of third-party success. Of course, a third-party won’t capture the presidency…especially absent some very serious electoral reform. But third party efforts that fall well short of victory can have real political impact: the Populists, TR’s (Bull Moose) Progressive Party, George Wallace in ’68, and Ross Perot in ’92 are all good examples of movements that did so (for good or ill). But, at this moment, I don’t see any national electoral party or movement capable of pulling something like that off.

        • scott

          Isn’t that kind of the point? Before these influential movements began, no one thought it was obvious they were going to happen. But they started by voicing their discontent with the way things were, talking to each other, organizing, and their efforts gathered a momentum of their own. Maybe that could happen today, maybe not. But it’s at least reassuring to remember that, in the past, we weren’t satisfied with what our national “leaders” gave us and tried to change things, and that we succeeded in many ways. That’s why I liked this post, because what I encounter so often on this site and others is a constant refrain of all the things we can’t do and can never do. Four years ago, a certain campaign had a lot of success with a motto announcing that “Yes, We Can!”and that “We ARE the People We Were Waiting For.” I think we need more of that, not less.

    • Murc

      A couple things, though. For starters, the Populists actually invested a fuckton of effort into winning local and statewide offices, and influencing politics at that level, rather than pouring resources into high-profile vanity runs for the Presidency. I wasn’t a big fan of the Reform Party, but maybe if they’d spent less time squabbling over which half-wit would get to try for the brass ring and instead tried to get a few more Governors and Congressmen elected, they’d still be a going concern.

      Second of all, during the Gilded Age there was both less cleavage between the parties than there is now, and they were both in some ways less crazy. They both had some virulently toxic ideas floating around, but you didn’t have a single party that was making ‘burn down the country, God will know his own’ a plank.

      • They did a great deal to build up power and infrastructure before they got into elections at all.

  • John

    That first cartoon isn’t even slightly anti-Semitic, huh?

    • It looks kind of like Nast’s Boss Tweed cartoons. But I’m not sure whether this guy is jewing up Nast, or Nast was jewing up Tweed, or both.

      • Certainly the Populists could slip into anti-Semitism but I don’t think this is all that much evidence suggesting they are doing so here. Possible though.

        • I wouldn’t hold the party or the movement responsible for every visual stereotype used by every newspaper cartoonist who supported them. Unless this was something they commissioned or circulated.

          • John

            I wasn’t suggesting holding the party or movement responsible. But that looks pretty clearly like your stereotypical “Jewish banker” from anti-Semitic cartoons.

            • LP

              I’m not generally fond of crying antisemitism at the drop of a nose but between it being called “Rothschild’s scales” and the bad guy’s enormous schnoz, this one struck me as being well into “plausibly antisemitic” territory.

              • rea

                That bearded, top-hatted, long-nosed figure does look like a caricature of Baron Rothschild. The populists were much given to antisemitism–you’d hardly expect a 19th Century antibanker group to be otherwise.

        • Alex

          Except for the greedy, hook-nosed Jew Banker and the “Rothschild’s Scales” there is nothing in the least anti-Semitic about that cartoon.

  • Pingback: We have been this way before « Politics in the Zeros()

    • tomterrifiedf

      “All of this has happened before, and it will all happen again.” ?

  • It’s worth recalling Lawrence Goodwyn;’s point that the the populists challenged the dominant culture, which reinforced the status quo by blaming famers for their plight and / or denying that anything could be done to change things, by building an alternative movement culture, which insisted on the deservingness of working people as a class and suggested alternatives to the status quo (i.e. things like that subtreasury system). That movement culture was developed and disseminated by an infrastructure that included a network of movement newspapers as well as a speakers bureau. A big part of that challenge was to reject the idea that the economy was natural and that political efforts to organize things differently constituted ‘intervention.’

    Certainly the internet provides a means for developing the same thing today, but that requires divorcing our conversations from the controversies du jour that are common in corporate media and too often spill beyond. And that same lesson about the economy needs to be learned again.

    • Nathanael

      We really do seem to be in the same circumstances and capable of organizing the same response. The situation is *incredibly* parallel.

      With any luck, the divide-and-conquer approach based on racism, which was so effective at crushing the Populist and related movements, will not work this time.

      The co-option of Populist ideas could easily happen, but y’know, if that happens, we’d be winning.

  • Murc

    The late 19th century was pretty tough for rural people.

    So, funny story. Fifteen or so years ago, I’m doing social studies in the 10th grade, which is one of the US history years around here. Our text was okay, and it was broken up by decade to make things easier to spoon-feed. We were doing… hell, I don’t know, some period in the Gilded Age, and I came across a sentence much like this one.

    And I paused, because I’d seen it before. I flipped forward to the 1900s, to the section on WWI, to the Roaring Twenties and the Depression Era, back to Reconstruction… yeah, there it is again.

    I raised my hand and asked “Was there ever actually a period in which farmers were basically doing okay? I mean, when they weren’t being manipulated or screwed over by guys with weird ideas about money?”

    My teacher just looked at me and said “No.” And then continued the lesson.

    I didn’t realize until years later that this was the beginning of my political education.

    • Alex

      John Hector Ste. John de Crevocour had it pretty sweet.

    • Nathanael

      Murc: arguably the last time farmers were basically doing OK was the Neolithic period, pre-money.

      • UserGoogol

        Or even then. There’s a decent argument that the Neolithic revolution was at the very least a mixed bag for the farmers. Even if there wasn’t overt exploitation yet, farming is just a lot more tedious than hunting and gathering. You get more food, but whether that translated into actual improved quality of life is debatable.

  • Walt

    John Emerson makes a pretty good case that the Populists have gotten an undeserved bad reputation in the popular imagination, thanks to Richard Hofstadter. Emerson suggests that Hofstadter’s essay is part of a general move to discredit bottom-up politics in favor of the technocratic top-down Democratic politics we have today.

    If you look at the historical record, it honestly seems hard to overestimate the importance of monetary policy, so I’m not sure that the Populist emphasis on silver was misplaced. The pre-WW1 US had many of the same problems that the eurozone has now, and the current eurozone would be well-served by easier money.

  • Brian

    The more radical monetary proposal that came out of the Farmer’s Alliance was the sub-treasury plan. Essentially the plan was to create a series of government operated warehouses where farmers could store non-perishable crops, and get low-interest loans paid in US Treasury bonds. The silver plan was a second-best option, and in some ways more of a tactical plan, as it wooed Western miners into the Populist political fold.

  • Pingback: This Day in Labor History: A Digest - Lawyers, Guns & Money : Lawyers, Guns & Money()

  • Pingback: Money Loans For People With Bad Credit | debt consolidation loans, debt credit loans, credit debt consolidation()

  • Pingback: On this Labor Day, Let’s Remember What Unions Have Done for America : Sierra Voices()

  • Pingback: This Day in Labor History: September 10, 1897 - Lawyers, Guns & Money : Lawyers, Guns & Money()

  • Pingback: This Day in Labor History: March 20, 1854 - Lawyers, Guns & Money : Lawyers, Guns & Money()

  • Pingback: This Day in Labor History: July 11, 1934 - Lawyers, Guns & Money : Lawyers, Guns & Money()

  • Pingback: On this Labor Day, let’s remember what unions have done for America | Fabius Maximus()

  • Pingback: On Labor Day remember those who worked and bled to create the middle class | Fabius Maximus website()

It is main inner container footer text