Building a populist coalition in Texas, 1892-1896

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

Texas Populists, as elsewhere in the South, preferred to appeal directly to black voters, particularly through the Colored Farmers' Alliance. Most Populists considered black Republican politicos to be corrupt. (50) Black Republican leaders, for their part, were hesitant to leave the GOP, for in doing so they would be giving up leadership positions that they were not likely to reacquire in the People's Party. Eventually, however, white Populists in most southern states found it necessary to deal with GOP leaders. (51) This was especially true in North Carolina, where southern Republicans were strongest. In his recent biography of North Carolina Populist Marion Butler, James L. Hunt argues that the third party leadership actually tried to discourage black recruitment at first for fear of offending potential white recruits. (52) In contrast, Texas Populist leaders openly solicited African American help from the very inception of the People's Party. Although the GOP tottered toward insignificance in Texas in the 1890s, Populist recruitment of African Americans did not bring in enough black votes to allow Populist leaders to completely avoid cooperation with Republicans. Texas Populists and Republicans, for instance, apparently engaged in some form of deal making in five U.S. congressional races in 1892 and six in 1894. In 1896 fusion occurred for statewide offices, presidential electors, and five U.S. congressional races. (53) Texas blacks may have been just as interested in the freehold tenure orientation of the People's Party as were whites. But many blacks obviously found loyalty to their old party, physical protection, and social discrimination more important. Where local white Populists, especially sheriffs, protected blacks and openly recognized their communities, such as in Grimes, Nacogdoches, and San Augustine Counties, the third party frequently was successful with black voters. (54) Otherwise, white Populist leaders seemed more disposed to solicit black help than black voters were willing to give it.

The Texas Populist vote of 1892 was overwhelmingly rural. It can be associated with counties that had greater proportions of farmers, particularly farm owners. (55) James Turner's argument that Populist counties tended toward self-sufficient farming, however, needs to be clarified. Third party supporters lived in counties that had undergone rapid agricultural development. Such counties had higher proportions of non-Texas-born white farmers (who were more likely to have been recently settled on the land) and can be associated with the greatest increase in the percentage of improved acres during the 1880s and 1890s. (56) Sheldon Hackney and Samuel L. Webb confirm similar patterns for Alabama. (57) But the correlations between the percentage of improved acres in a county and partisan choice in Texas in 1892 are insignificant. (58) Thus, counties tending toward Populism in the Lone Star State had caught up in development. In fact, counties with the greatest proportion of improved acres planted in cotton tended toward the People's Party. Populist counties, therefore, were more fully involved in commercial agriculture than Turner suggested.