Populism as Masquerade (was Re: Henwood vs. Cockburn)

[Michael Hoover]

> Max did a good job of replying to Yoshie, but I would add a few points:
> > > The rising of "the people" was an avowedly white affair; the democratic
>
> >mbs:  Bull.  There was a substantial black populist movement.  In
> >some cases it organized directly in conjunction with whites, in others
> >separately but in alliance.  Now clearly race relations among populists
> >were not models for today, but in the context of the times there were
> >many bright spots.  It's silly to criticize the pops for not organizing
> >jointly with blacks, since in the South this would not have been
> >permitted.  It was not possible.  Even so, the black components
> >of the movement were underground to an important extent, a
> >circumstance which contributes to a lack of information
> >about them.
> 
> Larry Goodwyn, in "Democratic Promise," shows that white Populists did
> organize publicly with black sharecroppers in the South and Texas. When the
> Texas People's Party was organized in 1891 it was interracial and elected
> two blacks to the state executive committee. There was at least cooperation
> between the white and colored alliances elsewhere in the South. It was this
> sort of coalition-building and the threat it presented to the ruling
> Bourbon Democrats that resulted in the imposition of segregation laws in
> the 1890s to prevent such a coalition from recurring -- and largely
> successful efforts to erase the memory that blacks and whites ever had
> cooperated.
> Jim Cullen

Actually, more successful example was North Carolina where black-white 
alliance that was Populist-Republican (Populist-Democratic alliances 
were possible in mid-west and west but not in south) gained control of 
state government in 1890s.  Unfortunately, this victory was both 
pyrrhic and singular, setting off terror of looting, burning, and 
lynching called 'white supremacy jubilees' leading to restoration of 
racist rule.

 
Black-white farmer alliances (championed by Georgia's Tom Watson who
would in later bitter and broken days adopt virulent racist attitudes)
against monied interests seemed possible in late 1880s.  Southern 
Alliance had over 3 million members and Colored Farmers Alliance had 
about 1.25 million.  Of course, fact that white Alliance excluded
black farmers from their organization indicated already-present
limitations.  Moreover, willingess of black populists to work with 
white populists to further common interests was, more often than not, 
scuttled by latter, most of whom were landowners concerned with 
changing credit system.  Black populists, most of whom were laborers 
(many came out Knights of Labor), experienced intimidation and violence 
at the hands of white populists when their political and economic 
demands were seen as straying too far from interests of rural white 
communities.  

 
White populist commitment to working with blacks was too often limited
to seeking black votes for People's Party candidates.  The party, for
example, never took up anti-lynching legislation, addressed bans on
black jury duty, or considered unequal funding of black education 
(rather, black proposals on these and related matters fueled white 
hostility). In fact, sizeable contingent of white People's Party members 
supported disenfranchising blacks.  Following 1896 disaster, when party 
destroyed itself on petard of Bryan's Democratic candidacy (his running 
mate was conservative railroad tycoon Arthur Sewall, his populist 
rhetoric was doublespeak except on free silver issue, he never campaigned 
as Populist despite party's nomination), white southern populists adopted,
wholesale, racist 'white supremacy' position and generally scapegoated
blacks for failures of populist movement.

Goodwyn's book is good read and important contribution but it suffers
from romanticism charactering good bit of late New Left historiography. 
Michael Hoover