Building a populist coalition in Texas, 1892-1896

Journal of Southern History, May, 2008 by Worth Robert Miller, Stacy G. Ulbig

Quantitative analysis of the 1892 state and national elections in Texas suggests that Populists owed a lot to their origins in the Southern Farmers' Alliance and the Knights of Labor. Counties that claimed an Alliance local in 1890 correlated strongly with the Populist vote. The Knights-Populist correlation was weaker, but significant. Conversely, Clark's following showed a strongly negative correlation to sub-Alliances and Knights locals. Hogg received some Alliance and Knights votes but not as many as did the People's Party. (29)

What motivated voters to support the Populist ticket? On one hand, James Turner has argued that those who became Populists "seem commonly to have lived on the fringe of the dominant society." (30) Feelings of social isolation made such people particularly likely to join rural social associations like the Farmers' Alliance. Historian John Dibbern agrees that the loneliness endemic to rural life was a major factor in the ability of the Farmers' Alliance to recruit members. (31) Samuel L. Webb, on the other hand, has shown that Alabama "Populists were committed to their land, their farms, their families, and their neighbors." (32) Robert C. McMath Jr. has convincingly detailed a much more active social life among late-nineteenth-century agrarians than Turner or Dibbern recognized, which is consistent with Webb's analysis. (33)

Turner's contention about Texas Populists residing on the fringes of mainstream society does have some validity for the state in 1892. But his assertion must be qualified. At the precinct level, the Populist vote showed a negative correlation with both urban areas and railroads. It is important to note, however, that the strongest negative correlation was with the number of rail lines serving a precinct. Turner has argued that Texas Populists lived outside the orbit of urban areas. It would be more accurate to say that Texas Populists lived outside areas where the Texas Railroad Commission was a major issue in 1892. (34) Support for Hogg had a weaker correlation, while Clark voters predictably positively correlated with railroads and urban residence. (35) This suggests that many urban boosters feared railroad regulation might stunt development, and hence they opposed the Populists. In attempting to circumvent middlemen with their cooperative efforts, the Farmers' Alliance had threatened the livelihood of town elites. (36)

To further his argument for social isolation, James Turner argued that his Populist counties had fewer religious denominations and that church members made up a smaller proportion of the counties' populations than was true in "neighboring" Democratic counties. (37) While this is true of his limited sample of counties, Democratic counties across the state had only a slightly larger (but not statistically significant) percentage of church members. Neither was there a significant difference in the number of denominations. In fact, Populist counties statewide averaged slightly more denominations than Democratic ones did. (38) As Robert C. McMath Jr. has noted, "The Alliance was founded by rural people who were already part of a dense network of churches, schools, lodges, and extended family groups." His scholarship has revealed a substantially less atomistic social life for the era's farmers than Turner suggested. (39)