Agrarian Populism in the 19th Century: Four Sources of Partial Success

• Date: 01 May 2019
• Published date: 01 May 2019
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/ajes.12282
• Author: David Giesen

Agrarian Populism in the 19th Century: Four

Sources of Partial Success

By DaviD Giesen*

Introduct ion

The period after the Civil War in the United States remains both

obscure and important. From Reconstruction through the populist

revolt, a number of radical reforms were introduced into politics.

There were brief periods when it seemed that the reformers might

prevail, in which case the United States would have been transformed

into a relatively egalitarian society. Instead, the power of banks and

business enterprises grew dramatically by 1900, and the door closed

on significant reform for several decades.

Unlike 20th-century reforms that offered assistance for those in need,

the changes contemplated in the late 19th century were aimed at work

and production, not at consumption. The early reformers intended to

redistribute power: from whites to blacks, from men to women, and

from banks and business owners to workers and farmers. The pro-

posed changes from 1870 to 1900 were not based on a welfare-state

model of redistribution. Instead, they presupposed a desire by workers

to create their own prosperity by owning the land and capital neces-

sary to produce their own livelihoods. This model of reform may be

deemed radical, in the tradition of Karl Marx and Henry George, or it

may be considered conservative in the sense that it promotes the hard

work and self-reliance that conservatives profess to value. In the late

19th century, there was not a wide gap between those two extremes,

since workers asked for nothing more than the fruits of their own

labor, not for share-the-wealth plans modeled on private charity.

A large portion of the great fortunes in the 19th century derived

from monopolies and other sources of unearned wealth. Under those

conditions, normal business practices deprived workers of a fair wage.

The fight by workers to retain their own earnings was thus an attack

American Jour nal of Economics and Sociology, Vol. 78, No. 3 (Ma y, 2019).

DOI: 10 .1111/ajes.122 82

© 2019 American Journa l of Economics and Sociology, Inc.

*Teacher at the German International School of Silicon Valley and Director of the

Henry George School of San Francisco. Email: info@thecommonssf.org

650 The American Journal of Economics and Sociology

on concentrated ownership of wealth and the systems that made it

possible. The bankers and owners of rail lines, steel mills, oil fields,

and similar sources of wealth consequently resisted the reasonable

demands of workers. The capitalist system, as it was then envisioned

by its managers, depended on the restriction of wages. The owners

believed they had no choice but to resist the demands of workers and

farmers.

The greatest obstacle to simple justice for farmers and workers

was not, however, overt action by powerful economic interests, as

intimidating as they were. The efforts of common people could eas-

ily have overturned the system that supported monopolies and re-

strictive monetary policy if the people hurt by those policies had

acted in unison. But ordinary workers and farmers were held back

by amore insidious enemy than bankers and monopolists: common

folk were largely defeated bytheir own deferential attitudes and be-

havior. They had been socialized to consider those with wealth and

power to be their social superiors. The internalization of second-class

status ensured that people of modest means buried their own radical

impulses. They stopped short of demanding that oppressive institu-

tions be overturned so they might receive full compensation for their

work.

The egalitarian spirit does not emerge spontaneously in a social en-

vironment defined by status. An active force is required to overcome

generations of deferential attitudes. That force must involve more than

abstract ideas. It must also provide daily experience that reveals to the

down-trodden that they have the capacity to listen, judge, and act on

their own volition. The emergence of self-confidence is the point at

which genuine democracy begins. We have grown accustomed to a

form of government that is a mere shadow of democracy. Whenever

elites promise to “represent” the interests of common folk rather than

enabling the populace to develop its own measure of worth, democ-

racy has only shallow roots. Genuine democracy requires that ordi-

nary citizens in all walks of life develop sufficient social confidence

and economic literacy to stand up for themselves. Those preconditions

of democracy can occur only through political and economic orga-

nizing. That is why the Farmers’ Alliance and the People’s Party were

of such great significance in American history. They represent the last