The term "populist" is associated with political movements that are considered on the fringe of politics by the mainstream press, while it is rarely correctly defined or explained. People as diverse in outlook as Ralph Nader, Ross Perot, Patrick Buchanan, and Lenora Fulani have had the label applied to them. The term "Black Populist" is never or rarely heard. In contemporary, conventional political circles it is  something that is not discussed as a meaningful part of past political movements in the United States. The article below, A History of the Colored Farmers Alliance Through 1891 details how and why Black farmers banded together after the Civil War. All the articles in this section on Black Populism come from the Web site Black Populism in the South 1886- 1896. Omar Ali is the site's publisher. The articles are reprinted here with his permission.

A Brief History of the Colored Farmer’s Alliance Through 1891

By Patrick Dickson

Africana Studies and Research Center  Cornell University

June 1999

Writing in 1977, historian Gerald Gaither described the three major historical perspectives on African Americans in the populist movement.¹ He wrote that initially progressive historians of the 1920s and 1930s, "regarded the black man as a puppet, a willing tool with which the opposition emasculated the agrarian movement." Later, in the 1950s, the new consensus school began to assert a more important role for black populists. In this school of thought, inter-racial populism represented a real alternative to the white supremacy characteristic of the Solid South.² Finally, some of Gaither's contemporaries began to question the viability of these inter-racial unions, and to dispel what he called the myth of "racial harmony woven about the early Populist character."³ Given the pervasive nature of racism in America, these scholars questioned whether a viable inter-racial populist coalition could ever have been maintained. William Chafe's work on blacks and populism in Kansas is representative of this new perspective. According to Chafe, "in Kansas the Negro's perception of reality differed significantly from that of the white and as a consequence Negroes and whites did not share a common self-interest. The two races joined the Populist movement for different reasons…"⁴

As the forerunner of the populist movement, historical treatment of the alliance movement has followed the same pattern. Reflecting his dismissal of black political agency, Hicks wrote in The Populist Revolt (1931) that "the Colored Alliance was little more than an appendage to the Southern Alliance."⁵ Twenty years later, C. Vann Woodward offered an alternative position. He wrote in Origins of the New South, "Although it is usually assumed that the Colored Alliance was a mere tool of the white order, there is considerable evidence of independence among the Negroes." Despite this independence however, Woodward indicated that the Southern Alliance were sympathetic to the Colored Alliance as, "its leaders emphasized the common cause of the races as farmers in all the fundamental aims of the order."⁶ It was this common cause which Woodward believed provided the foundation for an inter-racial populist coalition.

In 1974, Martin Dann once again revised the traditional view of the relationship of the black and white Alliances. Dann was less impressed with the type of class cooperation expressed in Woodward's doctrine of Populism's "common cause." For Dann, "Political expediency had been the basis for white support of Black workers and farmers. When White dominance was threatened, they [white Alliance members] responded with racism, disfranchisement, and repression."⁷

Thus, our understanding of the Colored Alliance has, until now, been dependent on characterizing the nature of its relationship with the white Alliance. Regrettably, histories of the Colored Farmers' Alliance are built on relatively little primary evidence.⁸ Much of what is known about the organization is taken from newspaper accounts and statements of Alliance leaders white and black. This makes it difficult to characterize the organization's nature (especially at the local level) accurately.

The major events of the organization's history have shown that they are open to a great deal of interpretation. Viewed as a whole however, they do not support the claims of early accounts. In particular, the rapid growth of the Colored Farmers' Alliance, differences exhibited between state Colored Alliances, its participation in conventions with white Alliances, and the Cotton Pickers Strike of 1891 demonstrate not only the tentative nature of the relationship between the Alliances (as Dann suggests) but also Colored Alliance's agency in defining that relationship. It was black self-determination, as well as white racism, which shaped the nature of inter-racial relationships in the Alliance movement. In addition, by centering analysis on the Colored Alliance itself, it becomes evident that racial and class contradictions within the Alliance had an important impact on the organization's structure and function.

This paper will demonstrate that the Colored Farmers' Alliance cannot be solely defined by its relationship to the Southern Alliance, as has been attempted in the past. While the nature of inter-racial Alliance cooperation is an important part of the history of the Alliance movement, the Colored Alliance must be recognized as an independent organization, with a different constituency than its white counterpart and at times, a vastly different program. Analyzed independent of the Southern Alliance, a new picture of the Colored Alliance emerges. African American farmers attempted to control the conditions that shaped their lives through the Colored Alliance. They did so by organizing around issues in which they had a common interest. When this interest coincided with white farmers, they entered into inter-racial relationships. However, they consistently refused to surrender their independent voice in exchange for white support. Unfortunately, the Colored Alliance faced several forces which limited its effectiveness. Racism, violent at times, both inside and out of the Alliance movement hampered their efforts to alter the racial and economic forces which affected them. In addition, white leaders of the Colored Alliance sometimes failed to accurately grasp the situation faced by many Alliance members. Finally, class contradictions between land owners and sharecroppers and tenants within the Colored Alliance further complicated the internal structure of the Colored Alliance.

Despite all of these obstacles however, the Colored Farmers' Alliance eschewed its originally conservative philosophy and launched their most radical program in the cotton pickers' strike of 1891. Regrettably, due to the many constraints it faced, including internal dissension, the strike and ultimately the Alliance dissolved before meeting many of its goals. Despite this setback, the influence of the Colored Alliance can be seen in later black liberation organizations such as the Sharecroppers Union. As a predecessor of this and other black organizations, the Colored Alliance represents an important stage in the African American struggle for liberation and an important area of African American history to be reclaimed.

Origins of the Colored Farmers' Alliance

The birth of the Colored Farmers' Alliance is officially recorded as occurring on December 11, 1886 in Houston County, Texas.⁹ The origins of the organization however, reach back much further. Scholars such as Martin Dann and Mark Naison place the Colored Farmers' Alliance within a broad context of black agrarian protest. Viewed in such a light, the Alliance can be seen as drawing on a long history of black resistance dating back to antebellum slave revolts. Colored Alliance members shared the same spirit of resistance and "consciousness of oppression, institutionalized patterns of resistance, and …rational understanding of the objective possibilities for revolt" which developed during slavery.¹⁰

During the New South era, the emergence of the Colored Farmers' Alliance was just one example of the wave of agrarian and labor organization among African Americans. African Americans are known for instance to have been involved in Greenback Labor Party activities in several states. Historian Jack Abramowitz noted the participation of Tobacco Laborers' Union leader, C.W. Thompson, an African American from Richmond in the founding of the Greenback Party in Virginia. In addition, the Texas Greenback Party reportedly had 70 Negro clubs out of a total of 482 represented at the state convention in 1878.¹¹

In addition to the Greenback Party, blacks were active in the Grange, the Agricultural Wheel, and the Knights of Labor. At its height in 1886, approximately 60,000 African Americans nationwide were members of the Knights of Labor.¹²  In Alabama and Tennessee, blacks maintained chapters of the Wheel even after the white organization had consolidated with the Southern Alliance in 1888.¹³  In Texas, the Colored Alliance was preceded by a number of black agrarian organizations including a Colored Farmers' Association organized in the mid-seventies and a Colored State Grange in 1880.¹⁴  Six years later, as the Colored Alliance was just beginning in Texas, a Knights of Labor organizer, Hiram Hoover, was organizing black workers in Georgia and South Carolina into an organization called the Co-operative Workers of America. Although the small group in South Carolina was quickly repressed by local whites, the organization had attracted members by suggesting a strike of farm laborers for a dollar a day wage.¹⁵

Within the Alliance movement itself, several different Alliances developed to organize black farmers. The organization that was to become the Colored National Farmer's Alliance and Co-operative Union (Colored Farmers' Alliance or Colored Alliance for short) was to not the first African American Alliance formed. The Northern Alliance, under Milton George, had begun organizing black Alliances in Arkansas as early as 1882.¹⁶

What accounts for this widespread labor and agricultural organization? Perhaps the most important cause was the dire economic condition brought about by the collapse of cotton prices. Prices for cotton had dropped from 31 cents a pound to just 9 cents a pound between 1866 and 1886. They dropped again to just 6 cents a pound in 1893.¹⁷  According to the census of 1890, roughly 65 percent of African Americans in the South were farmers or farm labors.¹⁸  The depression that accompanied the fall in prices had a terrible impact on African American farm workers. A study by W.E.B. Du Bois in Georgia found that only 53 of 271 black families had seen any profit from their labors in 1898. The overwhelming majority were in debt or barely managed to break even at year's end.¹⁹

In addition to economic concerns, African Americans in the New South lived in a political and social world where their rights were slowly being eroded. Official disenfranchisement of black voters began with the Mississippi Constitutional Convention in 1890. Other states would soon follow the "Mississippi Plan" and eventually completed almost total disenfranchisement of black voters. The movement towards disenfranchisement as well as the Republican party's abandonment of African Americans led blacks to seek political support outside of the two major parties.²⁰  Drawing on their heritage of agrarian protest, blacks began to organize themselves for protection and self-improvement.

Responding to these forces and the widespread growth of the all-white Southern Alliance, three different African American Alliances developed independent of each other in Texas between 1886 and 1887. The first was called the Grand State Colored Alliance and was organized in Caldwell County in October of 1886. Local white Alliance leaders were reported to be present at the initial meeting and assisted in establishing the new Alliance. Although little is known about the Grand Alliance,²¹  more is known about the second black Alliance formed in Texas. The Consolidated Alliance(as it was to be known after 1889) began in Lee County, Texas and was active enough to begin sending organizers to other states as early as 1887. Andrew J. Carothers, a white Alliance member, acted as the leader of the Consolidated Alliance.²²  Carothers' organization was especially active in Louisiana and was independent of other Alliances until its merger with the Colored Farmers' National Alliance in 1890. This merger resulted in the adoption of the final name for the Colored Alliance; the Colored Farmers' National Alliance and Co-operative Union.²³

As previously noted, the initial meeting of the final Colored Alliance formed in Texas took place in December of 1886.²⁴  Just 18 days later, another meeting was held to consolidate this sub-alliance with several others that had subsequently been formed in and around Houston County. Sixteen black men represented the sub-alliances at this meeting, including, J.J. Shuffer, who was elected President, and H.J. Spencer who served as Secretary of the new organization. The name adopted by the group was The Alliance of Colored Farmers of Texas.²⁵ 

Also at this time, R.M. Humphrey, a white Baptist missionary was elected General Superintendent of the Alliance. Humphrey held this position throughout the history of the Colored Alliance. The election of Humphrey to lead the organization is significant. Alhough he had been a confederate officer during the Civil War, Humphrey was considered an economic radical and racial liberal, having run for office on the Union Labor ticket previous to his association with the Colored Alliance. In his failed bid at election, Humphrey carried only one county, one with a majority black population.²⁶  Humphrey's liberalism did not protect him however from the type of paternalistic ideas which pervaded white opinion in the New South. In his history of the Colored Alliance he called African Americans, "a race which, from long endurance of oppression and chattel slavery, had become exceedingly besotted and ignorant."²⁷  This type of attitude would prove to be a serious handicap for the Colored Alliance. 

Given Humphrey's paternalistic racism, the logical question to raise is, why did the Colored Alliance elect this man as their leader? One assumption is that the choice of a white leader reflected a desire to be integrated into the Southern Alliance. However, historian Gerald Gaither stated that this was not the case. "Any organizational integration," wrote Gaither, "was highly undesirable to both organizations." He argued instead that rather than seeking integration, Colored Alliance members sought cooperation with their white counterparts.²⁸  A resolution adopted by the Colored Alliance confirms this perspective. It read in part, "Though we are organizing separate and apart from the Farmers' Alliance now existing in Texas, composed of white members, we believe it will be to our interest to work in harmony with that organization."²⁹  The reasons for maintaining a separate organization are essential to understanding the election of Humphrey.

The Colored Alliance's preference for separate status was consistent with the philosophy of self-advancement popular amongst African Americans at the time. Booker T. Washington was the most famous of black self-help proponents.³⁰  His description of the Negro Farmers' Conferences held at Tuskegee Institute beginning in 1890 is exemplary. He wrote,

 "The matters considered at the conference are those that that the coloured people have it in their own power to control—such as the evils of the mortgage system, the one room cabin, buying on credit, the importance of owning a home and of putting money in the bank, how to build school-houses and prolong the school term, and to improve their moral and religious condition."³¹

It is important to note, that the self-help philosophy of Washington and other black leaders did not disallow inter-racial cooperation. It did assert however, that racial solidarity through separate organization was necessary to achieve up-lift of the entire race.³²

From the outset, the Colored Farmer's Alliance was intended to serve as a self-help organization, espousing some of the same ideas as Washington. The earliest expression of this element of Colored Alliance philosophy can be found in the declaration of principles from the December 29th meeting. They read in part, "The objects of this corporation shall be… to aid its members to become more skillful and efficient workers, promote their general intelligence, elevate their character, protect their individual rights; the raising of funds for the benefit of sick or disabled members…"³³

In light of the apparent paradox of a separate black organization with a number of white leaders (for Humphrey was not the only white official in the Colored Alliance), Floyd Miller wrote that the selection of white leaders was a conscious decision of black Alliance members to facilitate their organization beyond local communities. Miller asserted that without the leadership of Humphrey and others, the Colored Alliance would not have had the access to white Alliance support which was necessary for building a national organization.³⁴  Here again, early statements from the Colored Alliance suggest this analysis is correct. The early history of the Colored Alliance shows that black Alliance members entered into inter-racial relationships—with white leaders and with the Southern Alliance—under the conditions they felt best suited their interests.  

The Rise of the Colored Farmers' Alliance

After its initial founding, the Colored Alliance spread quickly throughout Texas and into other states throughout the South. The Alliance obtained a state charter in Texas in February of 1887 and a national charter as a trades-union in March of 1888, retaining the same officers from the Texas Alliance. After merging with the Colored Alliance headed by Carothers, Humphrey claimed that the Alliance possessed a membership of 1,200,000 organized in more than 20 states.³⁵  Historians have noted however that this figure is likely to be an exaggeration. Gaither noted that the Alliance's own estimates different by as much as 116,000 in just a few months. The secret nature of the organization likely made it difficult for even the national leadership to have accurate count of membership. While numbers ranging from 800,000 to 1,300,000 have been suggested by historians, Gaither states that 1,000,000 most likely represents the membership peak in the first part of 1890.³⁶

Whatever the number, the Colored Alliance appears to have been comprised largely of sharecroppers, farm workers, and tenant farmers. Many of its most influential members, including local, state, and national leaders however were small farm owners. Historian William Holmes characterized the organization as catering, "chiefly to the interests of land owners."³⁷  This class difference would play an important part in shaping the Colored Alliance.

At the request of President J.J. Shuffer, R.H. Humphrey oversaw the establishment of Colored Alliance Exchanges in Houston, New Orleans, Mobile, Charleston, and Norfolk beginning in 1888. In early 1889, the Alliance began to publish its own weekly newspaper called The National Alliance.³⁸ These accomplishments demonstrate the tremendous growth of the Colored Alliance in the early years of existence. Through the Alliance program, The National Alliance claimed in 1890,

The colored race had been educated and elevated; they had saved millions in money, and had been trained to look forward to homes of their own and independence and happiness around their own firesides; and these were some of the causes why the National Alliance had prospered and would continue to prosper, and would finally bring the entire colored race together as a unit.³⁹

Across the South however, this type of success was not universal. The Colored Alliance program was plagued by many of the same difficulties that the Southern Alliance faced. Given the extreme poverty of black farm workers, these difficulties were only exacerbated. Colored Alliance Exchanges relied on fee of two dollars upon every male member of the Alliance within the territory the exchange served.⁴⁰  It could not have been easy for Black farmers and croppers to provide this cash capital for the exchanges. In April of 1891, The National Economist, the official paper of the Southern Alliance, reprinted statements from The National Alliance urging Colored Alliance members to stop "buying [Alliance] badges and regalia and all that kind of thing" and instead to pay their dues in full and support the newspaper with subscriptions. This type of sentiment suggests that the Colored Alliance was financially dependent on its membership which often proved to be an unreliable source of revenue.⁴¹

In spite of these financial difficulties however, the Colored Alliance continued to be an important force within the Alliance movement. At the national level, the Colored Alliance held conventions⁴² concurrent with the Southern Alliance in St. Louis in December of 1889, Ocala, Florida in December of 1890, Cincinnati in May of 1891, and was present at the conference in Washington in January of 1891 which met to form the Confederation of Industrial Organizations.⁴³  Relationships between the Alliances at the conventions were generally positive. Delegations from each group were formed to meet with the other organizations represented although the Colored and Southern Alliances met separately.

When the Alliances held their conventions at Ocala, the Colored Alliance proposed that the organizations form a confederation "for purposes of mutual protection, co-operation, and assistance." This plan was well received by the Southern Alliance and "heartily endorsed" by all.⁴⁴  This agreement led historian Jack Abramowitz to write, "For all practical purposes the two groups may be considered to have fused at his time."⁴⁵  Evidence suggests however that this conclusion was rather spurious. As late as 1888, the Colored Alliance had affirmed its independent nature, resolving, "that white organizations shall positively prohibit the admission of colored men to membership, and colored organizations shall prohibit the admission of white men to membership." The attitude of the Colored Alliance towards cooperation with the Southern Alliance is best capture its stated interest in "race co-operation" as "mutual interests may demand."⁴⁶ The historical record suggests that these mutual interests were limited enough to prevent the fusion of the two organizations.

One significant example of the differences between the Alliances developed at the same Ocala conference. While the two Alliances agreed to confederate, they split over the issue of the Lodge election bill. While the Southern Alliance denounced the bill, the Colored Alliance heartily endorsed it. The issue of the Lodge Bill also demonstrates the differences which sometimes arose between the Colored Alliance and its leader, R.M. Humphrey. When asked about his organization's position on the bill, Humphrey responded, that Colored Alliance members "do not complain that they are not protected in the franchise" and concluded that the bill, intended to ensure federal protection of black voting rights, was unnecessary.⁴⁷ That the Colored Alliance felt differently about this important issue suggests Humphrey was out of touch with members of the Alliance.

The Colored Alliance position on the Lodge bill is also representative of a departure from its original apolitical stance. The Alliance's declaration of principles had initially dictated a "non-partisan spirit" for the organization, however it soon began to champion for the formation of a 3rd political party to represent farmers' interests. Reverend J.L. Moore, superintendent of the Putnam County Colored Farmers' Alliance wrote this chastising the Southern Alliance for its initial apprehension in establishing a 3rd party:

The action of the Alliance in this reminds me of he man who first put his hand in the lion's mouth and the lion finally bit it off; and then he changed to make the matter better and put his dead in the lion's mouth, and therefore lost his head. Now the farmers and laboring men know in the manner they were standing before they organized; they lost their hands, so to speak; now organized in one body or head, if they give themselves over to the same power that took their hand, it will likewise take their head.⁴⁸

This type of expression represents the Colored Alliance's position at the height of its popularity. It was foremost an organization to represent the interests of black farmers and farm laborers but it sought inter-racial cooperation and confederation where its interests coincided with whites.

Activities on the state level demonstrate that the level of this inter-racial cooperation differed a great deal according to local circumstances. White Alliance members were initially supportive in the establishment of state Colored Alliances. In Tennessee for example, the white and black Alliances shared the same official newspaper, The Weekly Toiler. While other major papers in the state ignored the Colored Alliance, Toiler editors J.H. McDowell and L.K. Taylor gave the black Alliance valuable press coverage.⁴⁹  In Alabama, white Alliance leaders helped establish a Negro Alliance at Union Springs in Bullock County. Frank Davis, described as a "solvent and successful negro farmer" became head of the new Alliance. Black and white cooperation continued in Alabama, working together in an Alliance boycott of jute bagging for cotton and a campaign for higher prices for cotton seed from cottonseed oil mills.⁵⁰  In these states and others, cooperation with whites was essential in establishing Colored Alliances.

In Mississippi, in the summer of 1889, Oliver Cromwell, a black man, began organizing farmers for the Colored Alliance in Leflore County. His strategy was to encourage farmers to refrain from doing business with local merchants and instead trade with the Southern Farmers' Alliance store in Durant. That the Durant store accepted their business is another example of the type of cooperation between the organizations. Cromwell's activities however threatened to break the economic hold local whites had on the majority black population in the county, and trouble soon arose. After an armed group of Colored Alliance members demonstrated in solidarity with Cromwell, a white posse was formed and a violent attack ensued killing many, including Colored Alliance leaders Adolph Horton, Scott Morris, Jack Dial and J.M. Dial, though Cromwell is believed to have escaped. After the outbreak of violence, the Alliance store was instructed to abstain from any further business with the Colored Alliance. This, along with the murder of several Colored Alliance leaders, destroyed the organization in Leflore County.⁵¹  While the outbreak of violence may be unusual, this episode is indicative of the devastating effect white racism, inside and out of the white Alliance, had on the Colored Farmers' Alliance.

The presence of competing agrarian organizations may have also prevented the Colored Alliance from attracting a broader base of support. William Holmes records that black members of the Agricultural Wheel in Tennessee resisted a merger with the Colored Alliance in that state.⁵²  This perspective is not universally accepted however. Gerald Gaither suggests that the relationship between the Colored Alliance and Colored Wheel was a close one. He notes that one observer indicated that "a great many of our brothers belong to both orders."⁵³  It is difficult to explain this controversy—although it may be that while both the Alliance and Wheel leadership endorsed separate organizations, their constituents did not discriminate.

Divisions were also evident in the Alliance movement before the merger of the two Colored Alliances headed by Carothers and Humphrey. That split had reportedly, "divided our churches, broken up our schools, embittered our communities and created discord in our families…"⁵⁴  It seems unlikely that this discord was completely resolved with the Alliance merger, as evidence by Andrew Carother's opposition to the Colored Alliance's most important venture, the proposed cotton pickers strike in 1891.⁵⁵

The Cotton Pickers Strike of 1891 and the Fall of the Colored Farmers Alliance⁵⁶

The front page of the Atlanta Constitution was filled with news on the maturing cotton crop throughout the last days of August and the first week of September, 1891. Initially reports were bleak as bad weather in Mississippi and worms in several states threatened "what promised to be an exceptionally large yield." Days later, reports were more optimistic as cotton prices rose due to the decrease in supply.⁵⁷

Then on September 7th, the front page presented a shocking headline: "Cotton Pickers Are Ordered Out on a General Strike." To ensure that the significance of this was not lost on readers, the first line of the story announced, "The biggest agricultural strike in the history of the world is imminent." The article went on to state that R. M. Humphrey, leader of the Colored Farmers Alliance, had called for the strike by mailing a circular to his more than half a million members. Just one day later however, the paper announced with equal vigor that the state was safe from the proposed strike. In the coming days, reports in the Constitution would indicate that across the South farmers felt no effect from the proposed strike.⁵⁸

According to Constitution writers, the threatened strike quickly proved elusive and the issue disappeared from the pages of the newspaper. The cotton pickers strike of 1891 however had an enormous impact on the Colored Alliance and was the defining moment of inter-racial Alliance cooperation. In light of the Colored Alliance's origins as a self-help organization, how does one explain such a radical departure from its original program? What led the Colored Alliance to call for a strike in 1891 and what was the reaction of their white Alliance brethren? Why did the nationwide strike fail to occur and what was the effect it had on the Colored Alliance? Most importantly, what do the events of 1891 reveal about the character of the Colored Farmers' Alliance?

To explain the apparent departure in Alliance strategy that the strike represented, historian Gerald Gaither suggests that the Alliance's emphasis on economic improvement for its membership forced it to deal with the harsh fiscal reality that faces black farm workers in the New South. Committed to this program of advancement, the organization was forced act on behalf of its members or face the possibility of Alliance members loosing faith in the organization.⁵⁹  William Holmes records that a more immediate concern was the stated reason for the call to strike. Planters in the Memphis region had reportedly colluded to keep wages for cotton picking at 50 cents per 100 pounds. Strikers demanded a minimum of one dollar per hundred pounds. The Atlanta Constitution and Cleveland Gazette, reported that this same type of agreement to keep picking wages down existed among white farmers in the rural areas around Charleston, South Carolina.⁶⁰  This type of isolated labor dispute does not however seem to adequately explain a plan a bold as a nationwide strike. A full explanation for the call to strike is not evident from existing sources.

I believe that the real reasons behind the strike cannot be found in a singular explanation. In reality, the Colored Alliance was comprised of members occupying different positions economically and holding different perspectives on the objectives of the organization. The nature of the Colored Alliance probably closely paralleled that of the Communist movement in Alabama in the 1930's. Robin Kelley described that group as a "malleable movement rooted in a variety of different pasts, reflecting a variety of different voices, and incorporating countless contradictory tendencies." Also, in much the same way that African American communists both shaped and were shaped by communism, Colored Alliance members affected and were affected by the larger alliance movement.⁶¹  The Cotton Pickers' Strike was intended to alleviate the deplorable conditions faced by the poorest members of the Colored Alliance, and was thus most likely a result of the cotton pickers' own demands for representation within the organization.

While this seems likely, one must still consider what may have led R.M. Humphrey to back the strike plan, when traditionally Alliance leadership had been most responsive to the needs of black landowners. Here again, a clear reason is elusive. On one hand, Humphrey had previously testified before a Senate committee on the extreme poverty faced by black farmers across the South.⁶²  On the other hand, Humphrey had demonstrated in the past a tendency to fail to grasp the mood of his organization and the conditions they lived under. This pattern does not seem to have changed before the call to strike. In fact, the Constitution reported that when Humphrey was asked how striking workers would support themselves, he replied that they should "seek other employment at any price."⁶³  It does not seem likely that this solution would have gone far to feeding a million unemployed cotton pickers and their families.

Perhaps Humphrey and other strike supporters counted on the support for the strike from the Southern Alliance to strengthen their cause. This seems unlikely however, in that plans for the strike were kept secret from the white Alliance. Whether or not white support was expected, it did not materialize. The position of Leonidas L. Polk, President of the Southern Alliance, was representative of white Alliance reaction to the strike. While Polk supported the rights of farm workers to organize to benefit themselves, his paper, The Progressive Farmer, attacked the strike as an attempt by blacks "to better their condition at the expense of their white brethren. Reforms should not be in the interests of one portion of our farmers at the expense of another." Furthermore, the paper "did not hesitate to advise our farmers to leave their cotton in the field rather than pay more than 50 cents per hundred to have it picked."⁶⁴

In reality, Southern Alliance rhetoric of inter-racial fraternity demonstrates the importance of the cotton pickers strike. White farmers and black agrarian workers may have stood as brothers against Bourbon Democrats, however, when black workers acted independently to demand better treatment from white farmers, their actions were viewed as treasonous. Southern Alliance members acted to protect the class privilege they enjoyed over black workers, a privilege threatened by the mass organization of cotton pickers.

Unfortunately for the cotton pickers, this type of economic repression was not unique to white landowners. Landed black farmers also frequently employed black workers to pick cotton and thus were unlikely to support the strike. As previously noted, white Colored Alliance leader, Andrew Carothers objected to the strike. However many black Alliance leaders may have also rejected the plan as E.S. Richardson, President of the Georgia Colored Alliance, did. Richardson reportedly asserted that, "the instigators of the movement are white men, working for personal gains" and assured Constitution readers that the Georgia Alliance wanted no part in the strike.⁶⁵

It seems likely, that Humphrey's support of the strike may have been an attempt on his part to maintain a powerbase within the alliance by backing the masses of Alliance members in their desire to strike. As previously noted, Humphrey was not without rivals within the Alliance leadership. Perhaps these rival leaders posed a threat to Humphrey's position. If this were true, then in backing the strike, Humphrey may well have been hoping to keep control of the organization from men like Richardson who represented the interests of black landed farmers. Whatever Richardson's reasoning for opposing the strike, it was actions such as his that led Humphrey to organize the Cotton Pickers League to represent striking workers. While the public may have never recognized the difference between the new league and the Colored Alliance (Humphrey remained head of both organizations), the C.P.L. was apparently comprised entirely of landless black workers.⁶⁶  The existence of the C.P.L. suggests that the decision to strike had a divisive effect on the Colored Alliance.

Unfortunately, isolated in this way from important sources of support in both black and white Alliance circles, it seems unlikely that the strike was well organized. In fact confusion appear almost immediately as accounts of the date set for the strike to begin varied as much as 10 days across regions of the country. As a result only small strikes developed in isolated areas across the South. For instance, in eastern Texas, where the Colored Alliance was born, there were scattered responses to the call to strike. However, strikers were fired and the strike was quickly put down.⁶⁷  Local strike outbreaks also reportedly occurred in South Carolina where the Co-operative Workers of America had set a precedent for such action. However, these strikes too were quickly settled.⁶⁸  The most notable of the cotton picker strikes began on September 20, 1891 in Arkansas. Previous to that date, a black activist named Ben Patterson had been working with local pickers to organize a strike. After they too were fired, the group began roaming the neighboring areas encouraging other pickers to join the effort. As in Mississippi in 1889, the reaction of the white community was violent and ended in the death of many of the African Americans involved, including Patterson.⁶⁹

In the aftermath of the strike, The Colored Farmers' Alliance began to suffer a lose of credibility from the Southern Alliance, and it seems likely, its members as well. The National Economist stopped printing excerpts from the National Alliance and the Colored Alliance seems to have almost disappeared from national politics. Within the organization, both those who had supported and those who had opposed strike plans were likely to be discouraged by the events of the fall of 1891. As a result, interest waned and the organization faded into obscurity. Holmes' study confirms that the strike was primarily responsible for the downfall of the Colored Alliance.⁷⁰

The Legacy of the Colored Farmers' Alliance

At the same time that it was responsible for the demise of the Colored Alliance, the Cotton Pickers Strike of 1891 also represents the ultimate expression of the organization's independence from the Southern Alliance and its determination to represent the interests of the majority of its members. With the call to strike, the Colored Alliance completed its transformation from a conservative self-help organization to a radical protest group committed to ending the racial and economic forces oppressing the majority of African Americans in the New South.

Although the demise of the Colored Alliance followed shortly after the strike of 1891, the desire for black self-determination it represented was not lost. Robin D.G. Kelley's text, Hammer and Hoe: Alabama Communists During the Great Depression demonstrates how the Share Croppers' Union (SCU) carried on the tradition of the Colored Alliance. In fact, one similarity between the two organizations is most striking. The SCU called for a cotton pickers strike in September of 1934 in Alabama, demanding the same dollar per hundred pounds picked that had been the goal of the Alliance strike in 1891. A full forty-three years after the Alliance strike, between seven hundred and one thousand SCU members struck and won significant gains in their pay rates, including the full dollar wage on at least one plantation.⁷¹  The SCU strike is convincing evidence of the legacy of the Colored Alliance and the tradition of collective action in black agrarian life.

In the end, we can see that the interdependence of the Colored Alliance and white Alliance was accepted by white Alliance members as long as their platforms were seen as being congruent with one another. Southern approval of the Colored Alliance's initially conservative philosophy is evidence of this. When the Colored Alliance responded to the unique needs of its constituents, (a movement complicated by activities of the Alliance's white leadership and class differences between black landowners and landless farm workers) it fell out of favor with the white Alliance. What is more significant however, is that the Colored Alliance recognized the limits of inter-racial partnership and attempted to manipulate circumstances to benefit its members. Regrettably though, the politically repressive environment of the time made it impossible for the Colored Alliance to stand apart from the Southern Alliance (as well as African American landowners) on a platform which threatened the political and economic hegemony of white Southerners. As a result, its most ambitious action, the strike of 1891 fell short of its goal, and the Alliance began to collapse. In the end, the racism and self-interest of the Southern Alliance as well as the Colored Alliance's own internal instability doomed the inter-racial Alliance coalition and the Colored Alliance itself. It stands apart however from other black self-help organizations of the time due to its refusal to accommodate racist ideologies and its eventual transformation into an organization which threatened the combined forces of race and class which oppressed the poorest segments of the African American community. As such, its impact on later black organizations is clear. The Colored Alliance therefore, represents an important stage in the development of black liberation movements and is a subject which deserves a more thorough examination than has been previously been undertaken.

 Primary Sources

Atlanta Constitution.

Aptheker, Herbert (Ed.) A Documentary History of the Negro People in the United States New York: Citadel Press, 1951.

Harlan, Louis. Booker T. Washington Papers Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1972, Vol. 3.

Humphrey, R.M. “History of the Colored Farmers’ National Alliance and Co-operative Union.” In Dunning, N.A., Ed. The Farmer’s Alliance History and Agricultural Digest. Washington DC: The Alliance Publishing Company, 1891.

The National Alliance quoted in The National Economist (Washington).

The National Economist (Washington).

Other sources as quoted in secondary literature.

 Secondary Sources

Articles

Abramowitz, Jack. “The Negro in the Agrarian Revolt.” Agricultural History Vol. 24 #2 (April 1950): 89-95.

Beale, Calvin. “The Negro In American Agriculture.” in The American Negro Reference Book John P. Davis (Ed.), Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1966: 161-204.

Chafe, William, “The Negro and Populism: A Kansas Case Study,” The Journal of Southern History Vol. 34 #3 (August 1968): 402-419.

Dann, Martin. “Black Populism: A study of the Colored Farmers’ Alliance Through 1891.” Journal of Ethnic Studies Vol. 2 #3 (Fall 1974): 58-71.

Holmes, William F. “The Arkansas Cotton Pickers Strike of 1891 and the Demise of Colored Farmers’ Alliance.” Arkansas Historical Quarterly Vol. 32 #2 (Summer 1973): 107-119.

Holmes, William F. “The Leflore County Massacre and the Demise of the Colored Farmers’ Alliance.” Phylon Vol. 4 #3 (September 1973): 267-274.

Holmes, William F. “Demise of the Colored Farmers’ Alliance.” The Journal of Southern History Vol. 41 #2 (May 1975): 187-200.

Miller, Floyd. “Black Protest and White Leadership: A Note on the Colored Farmers’ Alliance.” Phylon Vol. 33 (June 1972): 160-171.

Naison, Mark. “Black Agrarian Radicalism in the Great Depression: the Threads of a Lost Tradition.” Journal of Ethnic Studies Vol. 1 #3 (Fall 1973): 47-65.

Rogers, William. “The Negro Alliance in Alabama.” The Journal of Negro History Vol. 45 #1 (January 1960): 38-44.


Books

Ayers, Edward. The Promise of the New South. New York: Oxford University Press, 1992.

Gaither, Gerald. Blacks and the Populist Revolt. University, AL: University of Alabama Press, 1977.

Hicks, John D. The Populist Revolt. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1931.

Kelley, Robin D.G. Hammer and Hoe: Alabama Communists During the Great Depression. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1990.

Kelsey, Carl. The Negro Farmer. Chicago: Jennings and Pye, 1903.

McMath, Robert C. Jr. Populist Vanguard: A History of the Southern Farmers’ Alliance. New York: W.W. Norton & Co. Inc., 1977.

Meier, August. Negro Thought in America: 1880-1915. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1971.

Rice, Lawrence D. The Negro In Texas. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1971.

Saloutos, Theodore. Farmer Movements in the South: 1865-1933. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1960.

Steelman, Lala Carr. The North Carolina Farmers’ Alliance: A Political History, 1887-1893. Greenville, NC: East Carolina University Publications, 1985.

Tindall, George Brown. South Carolina Negroes: 1877-1900. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1966.

Woodward, C. Vann. Origins of the New South:1877-1913. Louisiana State University Press, 1951. 

TOP
comments and letters to comments@ipoaa.com