I don't recall this being a plank in either the Omaha or Ocala platforms. I do recall something about a sub-treasury system and the democratic control of the money supply....
mark
..............
The 1890 populists were not interested in fragmenting the financial system so much as replacing it. They demanded the abolition of "national banks" and the establishment of "postal banks." The latter would be save havens for the savings of the common folk. More important, they wanted to reserve to the national government the right to issue money and they wanted to make sure there would be enough of it (to prevent farm prices from dropping), hence demands for the free coinage of silver and paper money.
The anti-bigness motive underlying fragmentation appears to be a subsequent development, perhaps a populist pose by Southern Dems and others for the sake of fronting for sectional banking interests.
Primary populist hatred was reserved for local 'lenders' who upheld the crop lien system, turning farm owners into tenant farmers who regarded themselves as little more than slaves. There is little feeling of the romance of competition as far as banking goes. The populists wanted the Gov to run banking and money creation in the peoples' interest.
So the historic populist spirit seems consistent with Doug's jaundiced view of little banks and big banks alike.
mbs