William Allen White and the Farmer’s Populist Movement
During the late 19th century in Kansas there was a movement among the general population called the Farmer’s Populist Movement. Today, Kansas is still by far a Republican state, but during this time the Populist Party engaged the Republican stronghold in a battle to win over the state, however, in the end the Republicans pulled through. William Allen White, at this time, had become a well known man in the journalism world and his political allegiance did not go unnoticed among either those within the political arena or those observing. William Allen White, aside from his personal political leanings towards the Republican side, was against the Populist movement that was stretching across Kansas and his forum for informing the community on why the Populist movement was wrong for Kansans became the Emporia Gazette. Through his editorials and interactions with political leaders of both the Populist and Republican Parties one can see that William Allen White hoped to persuade Kansans not to be won over by the Populist movement. Before someone can dive into William Allen White and what he did during the 1890’s, an understanding of the Farmer’s Populist Movement and the incumbent Republican Party of Kansas is essential.
Populism took hold amongst farm communities that had been shut out from the indirect benefits of railway construction. It took hold amongst less wealthy, unfenced farming townships in the early stages of economic development. And perhaps most importantly, it took hold amongst farm families that were experiencing a migration-induced devaluation of their human capital. Populism is interpreted as a movement rooted in the frustrating regional adjustments faced by individual farm families, rather than as simply a democratic, collective movement in American politics. Kansas Populism was prompted in 1890 because many native-born farmers found, when confronted by a years of infestation of agricultural pests and severe drought, that they lacked the skills necessary for profitable utilization of the sub-humid agricultural lands. And that is why farmers grew a more risky mix of corn and wheat on the eve of the Populist revolt; they had a fear of income losses from yield-reducing insect infestations. The suggested pest-management technique was to eliminate either wheat or corn altoget...
... middle of paper ...
...ial groundbreaking.
So, his role in the 1896 presidential campaign came down to this. However credible or not, he arouse the senses and got the blood boiling of the people, first of Emporia, then of the nation. The affect that this had was important, it is only when someone speaks frankly and possibly even out of context that people will listen to what it is that you have to say, especially if it is against the common thread of beliefs.
Like many heroes of history, it wasn’t until after the election had passed and the results were in that William became notorious among Republicans though. “It was then, in their national victory, that the Republicans of our town rallied to me. As a national figure, I had their respect…” (White 286).
Works Cited
1- Diggs, Annie L. The Story of Jerry Simpson. Wichita: Hobson Printing, 1908.
2- White, William Allen. The Autobiography of William Allen White. New York: Macmillan, 1946.
3- Peffer, William A. Populism, Its Rise and Fall. Lawrence: Univ. of Kansas, 1992.
4- Argersinger, Peter H. The Limits of Agrarian Radicalism. Lawrence: Univ. of Kansas, 1995.
5- http://history.smsu.edu/wrmiller/Populism/Texts/historiography.htm
Professor Thomas Slaughter has provided a most thorough overview of the Whiskey Rebellion, which he asserts had by the time this book was conceived nearly two centuries after the episode transpired, had become a largely forgotten chapter of our nation's history since the time of the Civil War. He cites as direct evidence of this fact the almost complete absence of any mention of the event in many contemporary textbooks of the conservative era of the 1980's, which this reviewer can attest to as well, having been a high school student in the late 1970's, who never heard of the Whiskey Rebellion until years later. Building off of his own dissertation on the topic, the author convincingly shows that the Whiskey Rebellion was in fact an event of tremendous importance for the future of the fledgling United States of America, which was spawned by the head-long collision of a variety of far-reaching forces and factors in the still quite primitive environs of western Pennsylvania that summer and fall. Slaughter contends that one must place the frontier at the center of the great political debates of the era and fully explore the ideological, social, political, and personal contexts surrounding the episode in order to fully understand the importance of its place in American history. In doing so the author has produced a very readable work that may be enjoyed by casual readers, who will likely find the individual vignettes which open each chapter particularly fascinating, and a highly useful basis of further research by future scholars into the importance of the frontier region as it relates to events on a national scale in those early days of the republic.
From the expanding of railroads country wide, to limiting laws on the goods farmers sold and transportation of the goods,to starvation of the economy, agriculture began to take its own shape from 1865 through to 1900 in the United States.
Through the period of 1865-1900, America’s agriculture underwent a series of changes .Changes that were a product of influential role that technology, government policy and economic conditions played. To extend on this idea, changes included the increase on exported goods, do the availability of products as well as the improved traveling system of rail roads. In the primate stages of these developing changes, farmers were able to benefit from the product, yet as time passed by, dissatisfaction grew within them. They no longer benefited from the changes (economy went bad), and therefore they no longer supported railroads. Moreover they were discontented with the approach that the government had taken towards the situation.
...pate in a society because of race and gender. While the Disquisition of Government, is seen as a great work in American politics, his views, political theory and ideology are off base to certain segments of the American population, and his thoughts would help to maintain slavery.
The Roaring Twenties approached and the citizens in Colorado were facing rough times. In 1920, many people such as farm owners, manufacturers, and even miners were having a hard time making a living due to an economic downfall. The farmers especially, where facing the toughest of times. The price of various farm-grown goods like wheat, sugar beets, and even cattle was dropping because their goods were no longer needed by the public. Wheat had dropped in price from $2.02 in 1918 to $0.76 by the time 1921 came around. Sadly, the land that they were using to grow wheat became dry and many farmers had to learn to grow through “dryland farming” which became very popular in the eastern plains from 1910 to 1930 (Hard Times: 1920 - 1940). Apple trees began to die due to the lack of desire for apples, poor land, and decreased prices. Over the course of World War I, the prices of farm goods began to increase slowly. Farmers were not the only one facing this economic hardship while others in big cities were enjoying the Roaring Twenties.
Once he was able to differentiate his public perception to whom he actually is as an individual it enabled
People attending schools before 1960’s were learning about certain “unscrupulous carpetbaggers”, “traitorous scalawags”, and the “Radical Republicans”(223). According to the historians before the event of 1960’s revision, these people are the reason that the “white community of South banded together to overthrow these “black” governments and restore home rule”(223). While this might have been true if it was not for the fact that the “carpetbaggers were former Union soldiers”, “Scalawags… emerged as “Old Line” Whig Unionists”(227). Eric Foner wrote the lines in his thesis “The New View of Reconstruction” to show us how completely of target the historians before the 1960’s revision were in their beliefs.
Farmers everywhere in the United States during the late nineteenth century had valid reasons to complaint against the economy because the farmers were constantly being taken advantage of by the railroad companies and banks. All farmers faced similar problems and for one thing, farmers were starting to become a minority within the American society. In the late nineteenth century, industrialization was in the spotlight creating big businesses and capitals. The success of industrialization put agriculture and farmers on the down low, allowing the corporations to overtake the farmers. Since the government itself; such as the Republican Party was also pro-business during this time, they could have cared less about the farmers.
James Oakes’ The Radical and the Republican narrated the relationship between two of America’s greatest leaders: Frederick Douglass, the “radical” abolitionist, and Abraham Lincoln, the “Republican” politician. He did an astonishing job of demonstrating the commonalities between the views of Douglass and Lincoln, but also their differences on their stance of anti-slavery politics and abolitionism. Despite being on the same side of the argument of slavery, Douglass and Lincoln went about their opinions separately. Lincoln held a more patient and orthodox stance on anti-slavery, while Douglass was proven to be obstinate and direct with
As a central figure in the Republican Party and passionate advocate for anti-slavery, William Henry Seward characterized the conflict between the Southern Democrats and Northern Republicans as inevitable. Each political party had two radically different ideologies regarding the expansion of slavery into western territories. The Southern Democrats believed that slavery should exist in all western states while the Northern Republicans strongly disagreed. Similar to the ideologies of the Republicans, Seward believed that slavery was unjust and humans were granted the r...
During the late 19th and early 20th century both the Populist Party and Progressive movement wanted to preserve some things, while also addressing the need for reform. Although many of the ideas and goals of these “Third parties” were initially not legislated and considered far-fetched, many of these ideas later became fundamental laws throughout American history. The Populists and Progressives were both grass roots movements, and addressed the needs of the poor and powerless, for the Populists it was farmers and for the Progressives it was urban lower and middle class workers. These two movements attempted to bring the powerless peoples issues to national politics. The Populists and Progressives wanted to preserve some American ideals of the past, such as a sense of community and the ability for farmers and workers to live happily without economic strains. Populists were more oriented to the plight of the farmer while the Progressives included women's rights, and protection of the consumer and labor.
The period between 1880 and 1900 was a boom time for American Politics. The country was finally free of the threat of war, and many of its citizens were living comfortably. However, as these two decades went by, the American farmer found it harder and harder to live comfortably. Crops such as cotton and wheat, once the sustenance of the agriculture industry, were selling at prices so low that it was nearly impossible for farmers to make a profit off them. Furthermore, improvement in transportation allowed foreign competition to materialize, making it harder for American farmers to dispose of surplus crop. Mother Nature was also showing no mercy with grasshoppers, floods, and major droughts that led to a downward spiral of business that devastated many of the nation’s farmers. As a result of the agricultural depression, numerous farms groups, most notably the Populist Party, arose to fight what the farmers saw as the reasons for the decline in agriculture. During the final twenty years of the nineteenth century, many farmers in the United States saw monopolies and trusts, railroads, and money shortages and the loss in value of silver as threats to their way of life, all of which could be recognized as valid complaints.
Most of the reasons concerning agrarian discontent in the late nineteenth century stem from supposed threats posed by monopolies and trusts, railroads, money shortages and the demonetization of silver, though in many cases their complaints were not valid. The American farmer at this time already had his fair share of problems, perhaps even perceived as unfair in regards to the success industrialized businessmen were experiencing. Nevertheless, crops such as cotton and wheat, which were once the staples of an agricultural society, were selling at such low prices that it was nearly impossible for farmers to make a profit off them, especially since some had invested a great deal of money in modern equipment that would allow them to produce twice as many goods. Furthermore, improvements in transportation allowed foreign competition to emerge, making it harder for American Farmers to not only dispose of surplus crop, but to transport crops period. Finally, years of drought in the Midwest and the degeneration of business in the 1890's devastated many of the nation's farmers, and as a result of this agricultural depression' many farm groups, most notably the Populist Party, arose to fight what farmers saw as the reasons for the decline of agriculture.
The 1920’s were the singularly most influential years of farming in our country. The loss of farms following the war, and new agricultural practices resulted in the dawn of modern agriculture in our country. The shift from small family to big corporation during this time is now the basis for how our society deals with food today. Traditional farming in the 1920’s underwent a series of massive transitions following WWI as the number of farms decreased and the size of farms increased.
The revolution of 1800 introduced the first peaceful transition of power from Adams to Jefferson. Jefferson sought to change the American ideals of the 1800s, as the people accepted and demanded a change through the Electoral College. Once established in office, he reduced the size of the government, purchased the Louisiana territory, and advocated farming in America. It is known as Jeffersonian Democracy, however, the democracy was based off the notion of Agrarianism. Agrarianism can be defined as the social or political philosophy which values a rural society far more than an urban society; it advocates the concept of farmers being superior to paid workers, thus emphasizing the superior simple rural life style opposed to a far more complex