CULTURES OF DISSENT: COMPARING POPULISM IN KANSAS AND TEXAS, 1854-1890 A Dissertation by MATTHEW JERRID KEYWORTH Submitted to the Office of Graduate and Professional Studies of Texas A&M University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Chair of Committee, David Vaught Committee Members, Carlos Blanton Charles Brooks Sarah Gatson Head of Department, David Vaught May 2014 Major Subject: History Copyright 2014 Matthew J. Keyworth ABSTRACT In 1892, People’s Party candidate James Weaver won more than a million votes and four states in his bid for the presidency. Despite finishing third, the fledgling party’s promising start worried Democrats and Republicans alike. Although Populists demonstrated strength across the South and in the West, Kansas and Texas stood at the movement’s center. Populism grew outward from areas first settled by whites in the 1850s. Farmers in both states initially struggled with new climates, crops, and soils, and they turned to neighbors for help in facing challenges great and small. The culture of mutual aid that developed enabled survival while forging a sense of community—and responsibility for the common weal—that endured through century’s end. In addition to impediments erected by Mother Nature, early homesteaders faced the obstacle of settling in contested places. Anxieties surrounding Bleeding Kansas ensnared even those who cared little about slavery, just as fear of “Indian depredations” consumed Texans. In both circumstances many believed that federal authorities at best ignored—and at worst added to—their problems. Kansans and Texans walked divergent paths following the Civil War. The Sunflower State reaped the benefits of fighting for the victors and flourished socially through the early 1870s, as a multitude of fraternal, educational, and recreational organizations took root. Texas staggered through Reconstruction, but Republicans finally provided citizens in northern counties long-sought answers to “the Indian ii question,” loosening the Democratic Party’s grip on the region. By the 1880s, disaffected farmers in both states drew on cultures that prized mutual aid and voluntary association and encouraged skepticism of traditional party politics. Disparate paths converged by 1890, when rural Kansans and Texans arrived at the same solution to the economic problems that plagued them both: formation of a third party solely beholden to their interests. iii For Dad When I was younger, you helped me see wonder in the world. Now that I am older, you help me see humor in it. I could not have hoped for more. iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank everyone who offered help and support while I worked on this project. David Vaught shared invaluable guidance and feedback while chairing my committee, and other committee members—Carlos Blanton, Charles Brooks, and Sarah Gatson—forced me to think critically about this project specifically and nineteenth- century America generally. Thanks also to Andrea Schlottman, who provided much appreciated moral support and a keen editorial eye. The Melburn G. Glasscock Center for Humanities Research, the Dolph Briscoe Center for American History, and the Department of History at Texas A&M University contributed generous financial support that facilitated my research. Finally, thanks to the archival staffs at the University of Texas, University of North Texas, the Dallas Public Library, Wichita State University, the University of Kansas, Baker University, and the Kansas Historical Society for their patience and expertise. I could not have finished this dissertation without the love and encouragement of my wonderful friends and family. Mom and dad have always supported my choices, for which I am immeasurably grateful. Leah makes me laugh and makes me think in equal measure, and Melissa never fails to put a smile on my face. I will always cherish my memories of College Station because of the friendships that started here. v TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ABSTRACT .............................................................................................................. ii DEDICATION .......................................................................................................... iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...................................................................................... v TABLE OF CONTENTS .......................................................................................... vi CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION .......................................................................... 1 CHAPTER II WESTWARD JOURNEYS ........................................................... 9 CHAPTER III NEW PLACES ............................................................................... 41 CHAPTER IV MUTUAL AID IN THE ANTEBELLUM WEST ......................... 71 CHAPTER V CONFLICT AND DISCONTENT IN TEXAS ............................. 92 CHAPTER VI CONFLICT AND DISCONTENT IN KANSAS .......................... 120 CHAPTER VII WAR AND RECONSTRUCTION ON THE PLAINS ................. 146 CHAPTER VIII CEMENTING CULTURES OF DISSENT ................................... 179 CHAPTER IX CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................ 209 REFERENCES .......................................................................................................... 215 vi CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION In the presidential election of 1892, more than one million Americans cast their votes for People’s Party candidate James Weaver. The fledgling third party captured fewer than ten percent of the votes cast in that contest, but supporters considered the effort promising. As the election of 1896 neared, however, Populists lost gains made since 1890 when factionalism tore the party in two. The election proved ruinous, and the organization quickly lost both membership and stature. By the election of 1900, Populists no longer posed a challenge to the two-party system. Though short-lived, the People’s Party sporadically overshadowed Democratic and Republican rivals. In addition to providing Weaver electoral victories in four states, Populists won governorships in nine states and local offices in six more between 1891 and 1897. Populist sentiment fueled victories in the Pacific Northwest, across the Plains, and into the South, although support concentrated in certain areas. In particular, Kansas and northern Texas provided considerable ideological vitality, organizational experience, and electoral support for the People’s Party. Farmers in those states faced significant economic challenges, but they fared no worse than their brethren in Nebraska or Mississippi. Why, then, did the Populist message resonate so powerfully with Kansans and Texans? The answer lies not in the economic hardships that plagued farmers in the 1890s or even the 1880s, but rather in the unique experiences of the men and women who populated those areas in the decade prior to the Civil War. 1 In the past eighty years, scores of historians have examined various aspects of the People’s Party. John Hicks published the foundational work on the topic in 1931, examining the role of economic forces in inspiring the Populist movement. Following the strong contemporary influence of Frederick Jackson Turner, Hicks linked Populism with the closing of the frontier. He argued that Populism appeared naturally as economic opportunity vanished, a thesis that set the course for decades of subsequent scholarship. Twenty years later, C. Vann Woodward located Populism’s origins in the post-Reconstruction South. He contended that the People’s Party rose in opposition to Redeemer Democrats who promoted industry at the expense of public services. Although he differed from Hicks in the details, Woodward fundamentally supported the proposition that Populists reacted rationally to their political and economic circumstances. Richard Hofstadter took a dimmer view of those who became Populists, finding in their ideology “much that was retrograde and delusive, a little that was vicious, and a good deal that was comic.” Because Populism found strength in the South, he believed that the movement grew not from the closing frontier but from “status anxiety” among late nineteenth-century farmers. Reared in a Jeffersonian tradition that held their work as sacred, many farmers took offense at an emergent industrial order that seemed to hurt rural people more than it helped. Ultimately, according to Hofstadter, Populists naively yearned for an idealized past that never actually took root while haplessly struggling to find their footing in the new economy.1 1 John D. Hicks, The Populist Revolt: A History of the Farmers’ Alliance and the People’s Party (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1931); C. Vann Woodward, Origins of the New South, 1877-1913 (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1951); Richard Hofstadter, The Age of Reform: From Bryan to F. D. R. (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1955), p. 11 (quote). 2 Historians of the 1960s and 1970s took exception with Hofstadter’s findings and looked to rehabilitate the party and the movement. Norman Pollack examined Midwestern Populism and found little evidence of Hofstadter’s caricatured farmer. Instead, he argued that Populists formulated a thoughtful philosophy of moral economy that guided policy recommendations such as public ownership of railroads. Their critique of capitalism bred an agenda that looked forward rather than backward, Pollock claimed, and portended substantial reforms in the early twentieth century. Lawrence Goodwyn’s