Building a populist coalition in Texas, 1892-1896

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

Although Texas had a substantial ethnic population in the 1890s, Populists did not secure a significant proportion of this vote in 1892, except for black voters in a few isolated localities. The third party did best among white southern-born farmers, particularly those who originated from plantation states like Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Mississippi. (40) These farmers probably had not been planters, but instead slaveless poor whites from poorer soil regions. (41) Although Czech Americans, German Americans, and African Americans each made up noticeable portions of the Texas electorate in the 1890s, and Populists made some efforts to convert each, the results were negligible. Only in a few localities, like Nacogdoches and San Augustine Counties in East Texas, did African Americans make up a significant proportion of the Populist electorate in 1892. The third party's recruiting efforts among Texans of Mexican heritage were even more anemic. (42)

Conservative Democrat George Clark, who fused with the GOP for the gubernatorial race, picked up the lion's share of the ethnic vote in 1892, although James S. Hogg showed surprising support among blacks. This could be attributed either to Hogg's public stance against lynching or to voter fraud. The dominant Democratic Party was notorious in this era for manipulating both the black and the Mexican American vote through bribery and intimidation. Clark's deeper pockets, however, may have helped him offset some of the usual Democratic Party advantage in 1892. (43) In the 1892 presidential balloting, where fusion did not exist, Republicans did well with German Americans, many of whom had been Unionists during the Civil War. Democrats, in contrast, polled well with Mexican Americans, who had traditionally supported the dominant party. There were strong positive correlations between votes for Clark and all urban occupation groups in the gubernatorial balloting. But in the presidential balloting, Democrats and Republicans split these votes. This suggests that urban Democrats went over to Clark on the railroad commission issue. This issue had united urban Democrats and Republicans. But prospects for a lasting coalition that would benefit the GOP were slim as the railroad commission receded in importance.

Texas Populists appealed for African American support primarily on the basis of shared economic interests. As one white Texas Populist put it, "They are in the ditch just like we are." (44) This theme resonated across the entire South. (45) Georgia congressman Thomas E. Watson, for instance, explained to black and white southerners, "You are kept apart that you may be separately fleeced of your earnings." (46) Further, Samuel L. Webb has argued that "Anyone who left the Democratic party to vote for Populists ... said, in effect, that white unity was less important than other issues." (47) Populist appeals for African American help, however, did not imply social equality. Bruce Palmer claims that white Populists were just as paternalistic toward the black masses as conservatives were. (48) In his biography of Texas black Populist John B. Rayner, Gregg Cantrell makes a convincing case for Rayner himself having an ideological predisposition toward this kind of paternalistic relationship. (49)