Jutel, Olivier 2016. The liberal field of journalism and the political – The New York Times, Fox News and the Tea Party. Journalism: Theory, Practice & Criticism, Vol. 17, Issue. 8, p. 1129.
Tufts, Steven and Thomas, Mark P. 2014. Populist Unionism Confronts Austerity in Canada. Labor Studies Journal, Vol. 39, Issue. 1, p. 60.
Rothstein, Sidney A. 2014. Macune's Monopoly: Economic Law and the Legacy of Populism. Studies in American Political Development, Vol. 28, Issue. 01, p. 80.
Konings, Martijn 2009. Rethinking Neoliberalism and the Subprime Crisis: Beyond the Re-Regulation Agenda. Competition & Change, Vol. 13, Issue. 2, p. 108.
Blyth, Mark 2007. Powering, Puzzling, or Persuading? The Mechanisms of Building Institutional Orders. International Studies Quarterly, Vol. 51, Issue. 4, p. 761.
Schneirov, Richard 2006. Thoughts on Periodizing the Gilded Age: Capital Accumulation, Society, and Politics, 1873-1898. The Journal of the Gilded Age and Progressive Era, Vol. 5, Issue. 03, p. 189.
Over the past few decades, historians engaged in the study of American Populism have advanced a number of conflicting interpretations of the last great protest movement of the nineteenth century. Among the most influential representations of Populism have been the following: Populists as reactionary and vaguely anti-Semitic predecessors of American fascism, as agrarian romantics nostalgically clinging to the Jeffersonian ideal of the independent yeoman, as modern reformers embracing an American version of social democracy, as agrarian republicans aiming to build a cooperative commonwealth on the basis of mutuality, and as true radicals offering the final challenge to the rise of corporate capitalism in America. Although no final agreement on the true nature of Populism has been achieved, despite the impressive scholarly output that has made the study of Populism into a minor cottage industry among historians, there has been a powerful trend toward a renewed appreciation of the radical character of Populist protest. In challenging the dominance of the two major parties and in advocating a comprehensive program of economic and social reform, American Populists are widely regarded as reflecting a ground swell of opposition to corporate America. With the demise of Populism after the disastrous election of 1896, the hopes for building a radically different America faded.
1. In the course of this essay, the term Populism capitalized will be used to refer to the agrarian uprising of the 1880s and 1890s while populism in lowercase will be used to designate elements of political thought and rhetoric in other periods of American history as well. The same difference applies to the terms Populist and populist.
2. Among the more important studies of Populism are those by Goodwyn Lawrence, Democratic Promise: The Populist Moment in America (New York, 1976): Pollack Normal, The Just Polity: Populism, Law, and Human Welfare (Urbana, Ill., 1987); Hahn Steven, The Roots of Southern Populism: Yeoman Farmers and the Transformation of the Georgia Upcountry, 1850–1890 (New York, 1983); Clanton O. Gene, Kansas Populism: Ideas and Men (Lawrence, Kans., 1969); Cherny Robert W., Populism, Progressivism, and the Transformation of Nebraska Politics, 1885–1915 (Lincoln, Nebr., 1981); Argersinger Peter H., Populism and Politics: William Alfred Peffer and the People's Party (Lexington, Ky., 1974): Hofstadter Richard, The Age of Reform: From Bryan to F.D.R. (New York, 1955); and Hicks John D., The Populist Revolt: A History of the Farmers' Alliance and the People's Party (Minneapolis, Minn., 1931).
3. Turner James, “Understanding the Populists,” Journal of American History 67, no. 2 (09 1980), 372. For an overview of research on Populism, see also Holmes William F., “Populism; In Search of Context,” Agricultural History 64, no. 4 (10 1990), 26–58; Launius Roger D., “The Nature of the Populists: An Historiographical Essay,” Southern Studies 22, no. 4 (Winter 1983), 366–85; and Ridge Martin, “Populism Redux: John D. Hicks and the Populist Revolt,” Reviews in American History 13, no. 1 (03 1985), 142–54.
4. One exception is the excellent article by Huston James L., “The American Revolution aries, the Political Economy of Aristocracy, and the American Concept of the Distribution of Wealth, 1765–1900,” American Historical Review 98, no. 4 (10 1993), 1079–105. A number of authors have highlighted the connection between the Antifederalists, the radical Jeffersonian opposition, and Jacksonianism, but few have followed the development of antimonopoly in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.
5. The most influential historical exponent of this idea has been Alfred D. Chandler; see The Visible Hand: The Managerial Revolution in American Business (Cambridge, Mass., 1977), and Scale and Scope: The Dynamics of Industrial Capitalism (Cambridge, Mass., 1990). See also Porter Glenn, The Rise of Big Business, 1860–1910 (Arlington Heights, Ill., 1973); Galambos Louis, “The Emerging Organizational Synthesis in American History,” in Men and Organizations: The American Economy in the Twentieth Century, ed. Perkins Edwin J. (New York, 1977), 3–15, and “Technology, Political Economy, and Professionalization: Central Themes of the Organizational Synthesis,” Business History Review 57 no. 4 (Winter 1983), 471–93.
6. Parsons Stanley B., Parsons Karen T., Killilae Walter, and Borgers Beverly, “The Role of Cooperatives in the Development of the Movement Culture of Populism,” Journal of American History 69, no. 4 (03 1983), 866–85.
7. There have some attempts to arrive at cross-national definitions of populism, a term that has been applied to a great number of movements in a variety of countries. But these efforts offer little insight into the role of populism in American history. See Wiles Peter, “A Syndrome, Not a Doctrine: Some Elementary Theses on Populism,” in Populism: Its Meaning and National Characteristics, ed. Ionescu G. and Gellner E. (London, 1969), 166–79; Richard Hofstadter, “North America,” in ibid., 9–27; Canovan Margaret, Populism (New York, 1981), and “Two Strategies for the Study of Populism,” Political Studies 30, no. 4 (Fall 1982), 544–52. In a similar fashion, Kazin Michael, in his book The Populist Persuasion: An American History (New York, 1995), adopts such a vague definition of populism, as a political language that invokes a broadly conceived entity called the people, and includes such a variety of movements and ideas in his analysis that the very term populism becomes bereft of all historical distinctiveness. Further more, Kazin largely ignores the economic theory that, as outlined in this article, formed the core of nineteenth-century populism.
8. For some examples of analyses of the historical importance of political language, see Cmiel Kenneth, Democratic Eloquence: The Fight over Popular Speech in Nineteenth-Century America (New York, 1990); Gerstle Gary, Working-Class Americanism: The Politics of Labor in a Textile City, 1914–1960 (Cambridge, 1989); Greene David, Shaping Political Consciousness: The Language of Politics in America from McKinley to Reagan (Ithaca, N.Y., 1987): Hatzenbuehler Ronald L. and Ivie Robert L., Congress Declares War: Rhetoric, Leadership, and Partisanship in the Early Republic (Kent, Ohio, 1983); Lucas Stephen E., Portents of Rebellion: Rhetoric and Revolution in Philadelphia, 1765–1776 (Philadelphia, 1976); Zarefsky David, Lincoln, Douglas, and Slavery: In the Crucible of Public Debate (Chicago, 1990); Ball Terence, Transforming Political Discourse: Political Theory and Critical Conceptual Theory (Oxford, 1988); Clark Gregory and Halloran S. Michael, eds., Oratorical Culture in Nineteenth-Century America: Transformations in the Theory and Practice of Rhetoric (Carbondale, Ill., 1993); and Condit Celeste M. and Lucaites John Lewis, Crafting Equality: America's Anglo-African World (Chicago, 1993).
9. See, e.g., Evans Peter, Skocpol Theda, and Rueschemeyer Dietrich, eds., Bringing the State Back In (Cambridge, 1985); Skocpol , Protecting Soldiers and Mothers: The Political Origins of Social Policy in the United Stales (Cambridge, Mass., 1992).
10. Bailyn Bernard, The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution (Cambridge, Mass., 1967); Wood Gordon S., The Creation of the American Republic, 1776–1787 (Chapel Hill, N.C., 1969); Bushman Richard L., King and People in Provincial Massachusetts (Chapel Hill, N.C., 1985); Shalhope Robert E., “Towards a Republican Synthesis: The Emergence of an Understanding of Republicanism in American Historiography,” William and Mary Quarterly 29, no. 1 (01 1972), 49–80.
11. McCormick Richard L., “Introduction,” in The Party Period and Public Policy: American Politics from the Age of Jackson to the Progressive Era, ed. McCormick Richard L. (New York, 1986), 4; Rodgers Daniel T., Contested Truths: Keywords in American Politics Since Independence (New York, 1987), and “Republicanism: The Career of a Concept,” Journal of American History 79, no. 1 (June 1992), 11–38; Ross Dorothy, “The Liberal Tradition Revisited and the Republican Tradition Addressed,” in New Directions in American Intellectual History, ed. Higham John and Conklin Paul K. (Baltimore, 1979), 120; Berthoff Rowland, “Independence and Attachment, Virtue and Interest: From Republican Citizen to Free Enterpriser, 1787–1837,” in Uprooted Americans: Essays to Honor Oscar Handlin, ed. Bushman Richard L. (Boston, 1978), 97–124, and “Peasants and Artisans, Puritans and Republicans: Personal Liberty and Communal Equality in American History,” Journal of American History 69, no. 3 (December 1982), 579–98.
12. Madison James quoted in Nedelsky Jennifer, Private Property and the Limits of American Constitutionalism: The Madisonian Framework and Its Legacy (Chicago, 1990), 143.
13. Crowley J.E., This Sheba, Self: This Conceptualization of Economic Life in Eighteenth-Century America (Baltimore, 1974), 151–53; Banning Lance, The Jefjersonian Persuasion: Evolution of a Party Ideology (Ithaca N.Y., 1978), 199; Shalhope Robert E., John Taylor of Caroline: Pastoral Republican (Columbia, M., 1980); Riesman Janet A., “Money, Credit, and Federalist Political Economy,” in Beyond Confederation: Origins of the Constitution and American National Identity, ed. Beeman R., Botein S., and Carter E.C. II (Chapel Hill, N.C., 1987), 128–61.
14. See James L. Huston, “The American Revolutionaries,” 1083–90.
115. Quoted in McCoy Drew R., The Elusive Republic: Political Economy in Jeffersonian America (Chapel Hill, N.C., 1980), 161. See also Appleby Joyce, Capitalism and a New Social Order: The Republican Vision of the 1790s (New York, 1984).
16. Skowronek Stephen, Building a New American State: The Expansion of National Administra live Capacities, 1877–1920 (Cambridge, 1982); Bright Charles C., “The State in the United States during the Nineteenth Century,” in Statemaking and Social Movements: Essays in History and Theory, ed. Bright Charles C. and Harding Susan (Ann Arbor, Mich., 1984), 121–58; Bensel Richard F., Yankee Leviathan: The Origins of Central Slate Authority in America, 1859–1877 (Cambridge, 1990).
17. Richard L. McCormick, “The Party Period and Public Policy,” in McCormick, The Party Period and Public Polity, 204–205; Hartz Louis, Economic Policy and Democratic Thought: Pennsylvania, 1776–1860 (Cambridge, Mass., 1948); Handlin Oscar and Handlin Mary Flugg, Common wealth: A Study of the Role of Government in the American Economy. Massachusetts, 1774–1861 (New York, 1947); Scheiber Harry N., “Government and the Economy: Studies of the ‘Commonwealth’ Policy in Nineteenth-Century America,” Journal of Interdisciplinary History 3, no. 1 (Summer 1972), 135–51; Pisani Donald J., “Promotion and Regulation: Constitutonalism and the American Economy,” Journal of American History 74, no. 3 (12 1987), 740–68; Taylor George Rogers, The Transportation Revolution, 1815–1860 (New York, 1951).
18. Handlin Oscar and Handlin Mary Flugg, “The Origins of the American Business Corporation,” Journal of Economic History 5, no. 1 (05 1945), 22. On the history of the corporation in Anglo-American law, see Davis John P., Corporations: A Study of the Origins and Development of Great Business Combinations, and of Their Relation to the State. (New York, 1961 ).
19. Hartog Hendrick, Public Property and Private Power: The Corporation of the City of New York in American Law, 1730–1870 (Chapel Hill, N.C., 1983), 194–95: Horwitz Morton J., The Transformation of American Law, 1780–1860 (Cambridge, Mass., 1977), 112; Hurst James W., The Legitimacy of the Business Corporation in the Law of the United States, 1780–1970 (Charlottesville, Va., 1970), 136–38; Nelson William E., Americanization of the Common Law: The Impact of Legal Change on Massachusetts, 1760–1803 (Cambridge, Mass., 1975), 135–36.
20. Jackson Andrew quoted in “A Political Testament,” in Blau Joseph L., Social Theories of Jacksonian Democracy: Representative Writings of the Period, 1825–50 (New York, 1947), 17–18.
21. Meyers Marvin, The Jacksonian Persuasion: Politics and Belief (Stanford, Calif., 1957), 10; the Jackson quote is on pages 23–24. See also Ward John W., Andrew Jackson: Symbol for an Age (New York, 1955); and Kohl Lawrence F., The Politics of Individualism: Parties and American Character in the Jacksonian Era (New York, 1989).
22. Quoted in Ashworth Jon, “Agrarians” and “Aristocrats”: Party Political Ideology in the United States, 1837–1846 (Cambridge, 1983), 128. See also Conklin Paul K., Prophets of Prosperity: America's First Political Economists (Bloomington, Ind., 1980).
23. Stephen Simpson, in Blau, Social Theories, 145.
24. See also Hammond Bray, Banks and Politics in America from the Revolution to the Civil War (Princeton, N.J., 1957), 740–741. On American banking policies in general, see Timberlake Richard H., Monetary Policy in the United States: An Intellectual and Institutional History (Chicago, 1993).
25. Ershkovitz Herbert and Shade William G., “Consensus or Conflict? Political Behavior in the State Legislatures during the Jacksonian Era,” Journal of American History 58, no. 3 (12 1971), 618, 596–99; Cole Donald B., Jacksonian Democracy in New Hampshire, 1800–1851 (Cambridge, Mass., 1970), 199–200; Watson Harry L., Jacksonian Politics ami Community Conflict: The Emergence of the Second American Party System in Cumberland County, North Carolina (Baton Rouge, 1981); Sharp James R., TheJacksonians Versus the Banks: Politics in the States after the Panic of 1837 (New York, 1970): Shade William G., Banks or No Banks: the Money Issue in Western Politics, 1832–1865 (Detroit, 1972).
26. Gunn L. Ray, The Decline of Authority: Public Economic Policy and Political Development in New York, 1800–1860 (Ithaca, N.Y., 1988), 158, 186–87, 234, 241; id., “The Political Implications of General Incorporation in New York to 1860,” Mid-America 59, no. 3 (October 1977), 181–91; Benson Lee, The Concept of Jacksonian Democracy: New York as a Test Case (Princeton, N.J., 1961), 92–93; Horwitz Morton J., “Santa Clara Revisited: The Development of Corporate Theory,” West Virginia Law Review 88, no. 1 (Fall 1985), 181; Seavoy Ronald E., The Origins of the American Business Corporation, 1784–1855: Broadening the Concept of Public Service during Industrialization (Westport, Conn., 1982).
27. Wilentz Sean, Chants Democratic: New York City & the Rise of the American Working Class, 1788–1850 (New York, 1984); id., “Artisan Republican Festivals and the Rise of Class Conflict in New York City, 1788–1837,” in Working-Class America: Essays on Labor, Community, and American Society, ed. Frisch Michael H. and Walkowitz Daniel J. (Urbana, Ill., 1983), 37–77; Laurie Bruce, Artisans into Workers: Labor in Nineteenth-Century America (New York, 1989); Ross Steven J., Workers on the Edge: Work, Leisure, and Politics in Industrializing Cincinnati, 1788–1890 (New York, 1985); Rodgers, “Republicanism,” 28–29. For a very different perspective, see Diggins John P., “Comrades and Citizens: New Mythologies in American Historiography,” American Historical Review 90, no. 3 (06 1985), 614–38.
28. Bridges Amy, A City in the Republic: Antebellum New York and the (higins of Machine Politics (Cambridge, 1984), 114; id., “Becoming American: The Working Classes in the United States before the Civil War,” in Working-Class Formation: Nineteenth-Century Patterns in Western Europe and the United States, ed. Katznelson Ira and Zolberg Aristide R. (Princeton, N.J., 1986), 157–96.
29. Laurie Bruce, Working People of Philadelphia, 1800–1850 (Philadelphia, 1980), 109, 173; Pessen Edward, Most Uncommon Jacksonians: The Radical Leaders of the Early Labor Movement (Albany, N.Y., 1967), 121, 191; Faler Paul G., Mechanics and Manufacturers in the Early Industrial Revolution: Lynn, Massachusetts, 1780–1860 (Albany, N.Y, 1981), 215; Hugins Walter, Jacksonian Democracy and the Working Class: A Study of the New York Workingmen's Movement (Stanford, Calif., 1960), 149; Byrdsall Fitzwilliam, The History of the Loco-Foco or Equal Rights Party: Its Movements, Conventions and Proceedings, with Short Characteristic Speeches of Its Prominent Men (New York, 1842).
30. William Leggett, “Democratic Editorials,” in Blau, Social Theories, 75; Hofstadter Richard, “William Leggett, Spokesman of Jacksonian Democracy,” Political Science Quarterly 58, no. 4 (12 1943), 581–94; Degler Carl N., “The Loco-Focos: Urban ‘Agrarians’,” Journal of Economic History 16, no. 3 (09 1956), 322–33; Trimble William. “Diverging Tendencies in New York Democracy in the Period of the Loco Focos,” American Historical Review 24, no. 3 (04 1919), 396–421. Some scholars have also argued that the world of American workers was bifurcated between a political arena dominated by ethnicity and labor unions conserned with economic issues. But with American parties devoting a good deal of their rhetoric and programs to economic issues, it is difficult to conceive that the participation of workers in the political arena did not also reflect their economic concerns. See Katznelson Ira, City Trenches: Urban Politics and the Patterning of Class in the United Stales (New York, 1981); id., “Working Class Formation and the State: Nineteenth-Century England in American Perspective,” in Evans et al., Bringing the State Back In, 257–84; Martin Shefter, “Trade Unions and Political Machines: The Organization and Disorganization of the American Working Class in the Late Nineteenth Century,” in Katznelson and Zolberg, Working-Class Formation, 197–276.
31. For the presence of antimonopoly sentiments in other areas, see Zahler Helene S.Eastern Working men and National Land Policy, 1829–1862 (New York, 1941); Goodman Paul, “The Emergence of Homestead Exemption in the United States: Accommodation and Resistance to the Market Economy,” Journal of American History 80, no. 2 (09 1993), 470–98; Foner Eric, Politics and Ideology in the Age of the. Civil War (New York, 1980), 24; id., Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Men: The Ideology of the Republican Party before the Civil War (New York, 1970), 88–91; Glickstein Jonathan A., Concepts of Free Labor in Antebellum America (New Haven, Conn., 1991).
32. Unger Irwin, The Greenback Era: A Social and Political History of American Finance, 1865–1879 (Princeton,'N.J., 1964); Destler Chester M., American Radicalism, 1865–1901: Essays and Documents (Chicago, 1946), 3–8; Nugent Walter T.K., Money and American Society 1865–1880 (New York, 1968), 210–12; Woodward C. Vann, Origins of the New South, 1871–1913 (Baton Rouge, 1951), 84–85; Martin Roscoe C., The People's Party in Texas: A Study in Third Party Politics (Austin, Tex., 1933), 23; Weinstein Allen, Prelude to Populism: Origins of the Silver Issue, 1867–1878 (New Haven, Conn., 1970). For an interesting perspective on links between the debates over slavery and the currency, see O'Malley Michael, “Specie and Species: Race and the Money Question in Nineteenth-Century America,” American Historical Review 99, no. 2 (04 1994), 369–95.
33. One further noteworthy feature of Greenbackism was the strong support it received from organized labor. Even before western farmers discovered the issue, eastern labor leaders had been in the forefront of the attack on the injustices of a monetary system that lodged power over the national currency in the hands of private parties with a distinct set of interests. See Montgomery David, “William H. Sylvis and the Search for Working-Class Citizenship,” in Labor Leaders in America, ed. Dubofsky Melvyn and Van Tine Warren (Urbana, Ill, 1987), 19; id., Beyond Equality: Labor and the Radical Republicans, 1862–1872 (New York, 1967), 441; Richard Oestreicher, “Terence V. Powderly, the Knights of Labor, and Artisanal Republicanism,” in Dubofky and Van Tine, Labor Leaders, 43–44; and id., “Socialism and the Knights of Labor in Detroit, 1877–1886,” Labor History 22, no. 1 (Winter 1981), 5–30.
34. Adams Charles Francis Jr, “The Granger Movement,” North American Review 120 (04 1875), 421–22.
35. Benson Lee, Merchants, Farmers, and Railroads: Railroad Regulation and New York Politics, 1850–1887 (Cambridge, Mass., 1955), VIII; Miller George H., Railroads and the Granger Laws (Madison, Wis., 1971); Treleven Dale E., “Railroads, Elevators, and Grain Dealers: The Genesis of Antimonopolism in Milwaukee,” Wisconsin Magazine of History 52, no. 3 (Spring 1979), 205–22; Woodman Harold D., “Chicago Businessmen and the ‘Granger’ Laws,” Agricultural History 36, no. 1 (01 1962), 16–24.
36. Buck Solon J., The Granger Movement: A Story of Agricultural Organization and Its Political, Economic, and Social Manifestations, 1870–1880 (Cambridge, Mass., 1913), 89, 98–100; Throne Mildred, “The Anti-Monopoly Party in Iowa, 1873–1874,” Town Journal of History 52, no. 4 (10 1954), 289–326; Ostler Jeffrey, Prairie Populism: The Fate of Agrarian Radicalism in Kansas, Nebraska, and Iowa, 1880–1892 (Lawrence, Kans., 1993), 38–39; Clanton Gene, Populism: The Humane Preference in America, 1890–1900 (Boston, 1991), 8–12. Although the Grange also operated in the South, there was less interest there in railroad regulation due to the limited extent of railroad lines in the section. See Arnett Alex M., The Populist Movement in Georgia: A View of the “Agrarian Crusade” in the Light of Solid-South Politics (New York, 1922), 33; Clark John B., Populism in Alabama, 1874–1896 (Auburn, Ala., 1927), 40; and Saloutos Theodore, Farmer Movements in the South, 1865–1933 (Berkeley, 1960), 38.
37. Nordin D. Sven, Rich Harvest: A History of the Grange, 1867–1900 (Jackson, Miss., 1974), 240; Woods Thomas A., Knights of the Plow: Oliver H. Kelley and the Origins of the Grange in Republican Ideology (Ames, Iowa, 1991).
38. Carr Ezra S., The Patrons of Husbandry on the Pacific Coast … (San Francisco, 1875); Castensen Vernon, ed., Farmer Discontent, 1865–1900 (New York, 1974), 30, 83; Curtis George T., “The Ownership of Railroad Property,” North American Review 132 (04 1881), 345–55; Norris Edward W., History of the Grange, or, The Farmer's War against Monopolies (Philadelphia, 1967 ).
39. On the railroads and the courts, see Cortner Richard C., The Iron Horse and the Constitution: The Railroads and the Transformation of the Fourteenth Amendment (Westport, Conn., 1993); and McAfee Ward M., “A Constitutional History of Railroad Rate Regulation in California, 1879–1911,” Pacific Historical Quarterly 37, no. 3 (08 1968), 265–79. On the railroad issue in Midwestern legislatures, see Campbell Ballard C., Representative Democracy: Public Policy and Midwestern Legislators in the Late Nineteenth Century (Cambridge, Mass., 1980), 66.
40. Lloyd Henry Demarest, “Lords of Industry,” North American Review 138, no. 331 (06 1884), 552; id., “The Story of a Great Monopoly,” Atlantic Monthly 47, no. 281 (March 1881); 333; id., “The Political Economy of Seventy-Three Million Dollars,” Atlantic Monthly 50, no. 297 (July 1882), 69–81; id., “Making Bread Dear,” North American Review 137, no. 321 (August 1883), 118–36. See Cooley T.M., “State Regulation of Corporate Profits,” North American Review 137 (09 1883), 205–17. For a different perspective, compare Carnegie Andrew, “The Bugaboo of Trusts,” North American Review 148 (02 1889), 141–150.
41. Knauth Oswald W., The Policy of the United States toward Industrial Monopoly (New York 1914), 16.
42. Palmer Bruce, “Man Over Money”: The Southern Populist Critique of American Capitalism (Chapel Hill, N.C., 1980), 219; Goodwyn , Democratic Promise; id., “Rethinking ‘Populism’: Paradoxes of Historiography and Democracy,” Telos 88 (Summer 1991), 37–56; Hahn, Roots of Southern Populism; Rogers William W., The One-Gallused Rebellion: Agrarianism in Alabama, 1865–1896 (Baton Rouge, 1970); Nelson Richard, “The Cultural Contradictions of Populism: Tom Watson's Tragic Vision of Power, Politics, and History,” Georgia Historical Quarterly 72, no. 1 (Spring 1988), 1–29; Holmes, “Populism: In Search of Context.” Richard J. Ellis, in particular, has recendy argued that the Populists, in contrast to the Grangers and Greenbackers in the 1870s, no longer believed that a free market would lead to an equality of opportunities. Rather, they came to argue that the free market itself produced inequality and poverty and that only cooperation constituted an effective remedy. While some Populists certainly took that position and moved close to a socialist model of political economy, the majority did not but continued to argue in the tradition of populist republicanism. See Ellis , “Rival Visions of Equality in American Political Culture,” Review of Politics 54, no. 2 (Spring 1992), 253–80.
43. Stanley B. Parsons, “The Role of Cooperatives,” 883; Ostler, Prairie Populism. See also Elazar Daniel J., “Political Culture on the Plains,” Western Historical Quarterly 11, no. 3 (07 1980), 261–83; Anderson Eric, “The Populists and Capitalist America: The Case of Edgecombe County, North Carolina,” in Race, Class, and Politics in Southern History, ed. Crow Jeffrey J., Escott Paul D., and Flynn Charles L. Jr (Baton Rouge, 1989), 125.
44. Weaver James B., A Call to Action: An Interpretation of the Great Uprising. Its Source and Causes (Des Moines, Iowa, 1892), 394.
45. McDonald-Valesh Eva, “The Strength and Weakness of the People's Movement,” The Arena 5, no. 30 (05 1892) 729.
46. On the populist movement, see also Peffer William A., The Farmer's Side: His Troubles and Their Remedies (New York, 1891), 169; id., Populism: Its Rise and Fall, ed. Argersinger Peter H. (Lawrence, Kans., 1992), 36; Larson Robert W., Populism in the Mountain West (Albuquerque, N.Mex., 1986), 13; id., New Mexico Populism: A Study of Radical Protest in a Western Territory (Boulder, Colo., 1974); Clinch Thomas A., Urban Populism and Free Silver in Montana (Helena, Mont., 1970); Griffiths David, Populism in the Western United States, 1890–1900 (Lewiston, 1992); McMath Robert C. JrAmerican Populism: A Social History (New York, 1993); Miller Worth R., Oklahoma Populism: A Hsitory of the People's Party in Oklahoma Territory (Norman, Okla., 1987); Nugent Walter T.K., The Tolerant Populists: Kansas Population and Nativism (Chicago, 1963); Shaw Burton, The Wool-Hal Boys: Georgia's Populist Party (Baton Rouge, 1984); Parsons Stanley B. Jr, The Populist Context: Rural Versus Urban Power on a Great Plains Frontier (Westport, Conn., 1973).
47. Yet there was also an earlier tradition of scholarship that interpreted the rise of big business in terms very similar to the Populists. See josephson Matthew, The Robber Barons: The Great American Capitalists, 1861–1901 (New York, 1934); Bridges Hal, “The Robber Baron Concept in American History,” Business History Review 32, no. 1 (Spring 1958), 1–13; Destler Chester M., “Entrepreneurial Leadership among the ‘Robber Barons’: A Trial Balance,” The Tasks of Economic History (Supplemental Issue of the Journal of Economic History) 6 (1946), 28–44.
48. Flower Benjamin O., “Is Socialism Desirable?,” The Arena 3, no. 18 (05 1891), 753; id., “The Menace of Plutocracy,” The Arena 6, no. 34 (September 1892), 510–11; id., “Twenty-Five Years of Bribery and Corrupt Practices, or the Railroads, the Lawmakers, the People,” The Arena 31, no. 1 (January 1904), 12–49. See also Gaither Gerald H., Blacks and the Populist Revolt: Ballots and Bigotry in the “New South” (Tuscaloosa, Ala., 1977), 56: Ashby N.B., The Riddle of the Sphinx: A Discussion of the Economic Questions Relating to Agriculture, Land, Transportation, Money, Taxation, and Cost of Interchange (Des Moines, Iowa, 1890), 95, 141; Sticknev A.B., The Railway Problem (St. Paul, Minn., 1891), 162, 168–69.
49. On the experiences of Populist legislators, see Argersinger Peter H., “Ideology and Behavior: Legislative Politics and Western Populism,” Agricultural History, 58, no. 1 (01 1984), 43–59; id., “Populists in Power: Public Policy and Legislative Behavior,” Journal of Interdisciplinary History 18, no. 1 (Summer 1987), 81–105; Clanton Gene, “‘Hayseed Socialism’ on the Hill: Congressional Populism, 1891–1895,” Western Historical Quarterly 15, no. 2 (04 1984), 139–162; and Morris John R., Davis H. Waite: The Ideology of a Western Populist (Washington, D.C., 1982).
50. Quoted in Hicks John D., The Populist Revolt: A History of the Farmers' Alliance and the People's Party (Minneapolis, Minn., 1931), 79. On the Populists and the law, see also Hunt James L., “Populism, Law, and the Corporation: The 1897 Kansas Supreme Court,” Agricultural History 66, no. 4 (Fall 1992), 28–54; and Westin Alan F., “Populism and the Supreme Court.” Supreme Court Historical Society Yearbook, 1980, 62–77.
51. Quoted in Pollack, Just Polity, 29, 56–57; Lustig R. Jeffrey, Corporate Liberalism: The Origins of Modern American Political Theory, 1890–1920 (Berkeley, 1982), 69; Rapsher W.M., “Dangerous Trusts,” North American Review 146 (05 1888), 509–14; Watson Thomas E., “Why the People's Party Should Elect the Next President,” The Arena 6, no. 32 (05 1892), 201–204; Thelen David P., The New Citizenship: Origins of Progressivism in Wisconsin, 1885–1900 (Columbia, Mo., 1972), 2, 208–210; Willard Cvrus F., “Trusts,” The Arena 2, no. 11 (10 1890), 626–29.
52. Spahr Charles B., An Essay on the Present Distribution of Wealth in the United States (New York, 1896), 3; Taubeneck Herman E., “The Concentration of Wealth, Its Cause and Results,” The Arena 18, no. 94 (09 1897), 300.
53. Quoted in Destler, American Radicalism, 216. On the issue of land monopoly, Cf. McFarlane Larry A., “Nativism or Not: Perceptions of British Investment in Kansas, 1882–1901,” Great Plains Quarterly 7, no. 4 (Fall 1987), 23243; and Pentecost Hugh O., “Poverty and Plutocracy: A Glance at Our Present Strained Conditions,” The Arena 2, no. 9 (08 1890), 373–75.
54. Bryce Lloyd S., “Errors in Prof. Bryce's ‘Commonwealth’,” North American Review 148 (03 1889), 352. In a series of educational programs developed by Charles Macune, the leading spirit of the Southern Farmers' Alliance around 1890, to further spread the organization, the argument that legislation caused uneven levels of wealth was highly important, indicating that Macune hoped to use well-established arguments to recruit new members. See Mitchell Theodore R., Political Education in the Southern Farmers' Alliance, 1887–1900 (Madison, Wis., 1987), 115–16.
55. See Berk Gerald, “Constituting Corporations and Markets: Railroads in Gilded Age Politics,” Studies in American Political Development 4 (1990), 130–68; id., Alternative Tracks: The Constitution of American Industrial Order, 1865–1917 (Baltimore, 1994); May James, “Antitrust in the Formative Era: Political and Economic Theory in Constitutional and Antitrust Analysis,” Ohio State Law Journal 60 (1989), 258–395; McCurdy Charles W., “Justice Field and the Jurisprudence of Government-Business Relations: Some Parameters of Laissez-Faire Constitutionalism, 1863–1897,” Journal of American History 61, no. 4 (03 1975), 970–1005; id., “American Law and the Marketing Structure of the Large Corporation, 1875–1900,” Journal of Economic History 38, no. 3 (September 1978), 648–49; Sklar Martin J., The Corporate Reconstruction of American Capitalism, 1890–1916: The Market, the Law, and Politics (New York, 1988), 51–52; Adams Alton D., “State Control of Trusts,” Political Science Quarterly 18, no. 4 (09 1903), 462–79; Small Albion W., “The State of Semi-Public Corporations,” American Journal of Sociology 1, no. 4 (01 1896), 398–410; Piott Steven L., The Antimonopoly Persuasion: Popular Resistance to the Rise of Big Business in the Midwest (Westport, Conn., 1985), 31, 35–36, 42–43, 50.
56. Civic Federation of Chicago, Chicago Conference on Trusts (Chicago, 1990), 40, 65.
57. Ibid., 45, 48.
58. Ibid., 111, 274, 418–19, 466. Davis, who was elected governor of Arkansas in 1900, was indeed a tireless crusader against corporations and trusts in his home state, launching prosecutions against a variety of trusts. See Grantham Dewey W., Southern Progressivism: The Reconciliation of Progress and Tradition (Knoxville, Tenn., 1983), 91.
59. Ibid., 286. A national antitrust conference was also held in Chicago a few months after the one sponsored by the Chicago Civic Federation. Its deliberations were dominated by the idea that corporations and monopolies were the result of government action. See Official Report of the National Anti-Trust Conference (Chicago, 1900).
60. Leon Fink, “The Uses of Political Power: Toward a Theory of the Labor Movement in the Era of the Knights of Labor,” in Frisch and Walkowitz, Working-Class America, 104–22; Hattam Victoria, “Economic Visions and Political Strategies: American Labor and the State, 1865–1896,” Studies in American Political Development 4 (1990), 90–92; Schneider Linda, “The Citizen Striker: Workers' Ideology in the Homestead Strike of 1892,” Studies in American Political Development 23, no. 1 (Winter 1982), 47–66; Levine Susan, “Labor's True Woman: Domesticity and Equal Rights in the Knights of Labor,” Journal of American History 70, no. 2 (09 1983), 323–39; Montgomery David, “Labor and the Republic in Industrial America, 1860–1920,” Le Mouvement Social 111 (04–06 1980), 206; Richard Oestreicher, “Terence V. Powderly, the Knights of Labor, and Artisanal Republicanism,” in Dubofsky and Van Tine, Labor Leaders in America, 30–61; Wilentz Sean, “Against Exceptionalism: Class Consciousness and the American Labor Movement, 1790–1920,” International Labor and Working Class History 26, no. 3 (Fall 1984), 14–15; Voss Kim, The Making of American Exceptionalism: The Knights of Labor and Class Formation in the Nineteenth Century (Ithaca, N.Y, 1993).
61. Gompers Samuel, “Organized Labor in the Campaign,” North American Review 155 (07 1892), 93; Chicago Conference on Trusts, 330; Oestreicher Richard, “Urban Working-Class Political Behavior and Theories of American Electoral Politics, 1870–1940,” Journal of American History 74, no. 1 (03 1988), 1257–86; Hattam, “Economic Visions”; Shefter, “Trades Unions and Political Machines,” 272–73; Goldschmidt Eli, “Labor and Populism: New York City, 1891–1896,” Labor History 13 no. 4 (Fall 1972), 520–32. Saxton Alexander, “San Francisco Labor and the Populist and Progressive Insurgencies,” Pacific Historical Quarterly 34, no. 4 (11 1965), 421–38. On the relations between workers and the trusts, see also Clark John B., “Monopoly and the Struggle of Classes,” Political Science Quarterly 18, no. 4 (12 1903), 599–613. In his continued emphasis on the power of the ballot, Eugene Debs occupies a curious position. Although the socialists argued that centralization was an inevitable consequence of capitalist evolution, they also championed political reform much in the same way as the Knights of Labor. See Salvatore Nick, Eugene V. Debs: Citizen and Socialist (Urbana, Ill., 1982).
62. On the nature of Progressive reform, see Hays Samuel P., “The Politics of Reform in Municipal Government in the Progressive Era,” Pacific Historical Quarterly 55, no. 4 (10 1964), 157–69; Hackney Sheldon, Populism to Progressivism in Alabama (Princeton, N.J., 1969), XIII: Clanton Gene, “Populism, Progressivism, and Equality: The Kansas Paradigm,” Agricultural History 51, no. 3 (07 1977), 559–81; McCormick Richard L., From Realignment to Reform: Political Change in New York State, 1893–1910 (Ithaca, N.Y., 1981): Hammack David, Power and Society: Greater New York at the Turn of the Century (New York, 1982); Buenker John D., “Urban, New-Stock Liberalism and Progressive Reform in New Jersey,” New Jersey History 87, no. 2 (Summer 1969), 79–104.
63. Rodgers Daniel T., “In Search of Progressivism,” Reviews in American History 10, no. 4 (12 1892), 123–24.
64. Bryce James, “America Revisited: The Changes of a Quarter-Century,” The Outlook 79 (04 1, 1905), 848–49. Some American historians, such as Gabriel Kolko and James Weinstein, have stressed that efforts to regulate corporations and trusts were dominated by big business itself. But in a comparative perspective, the United States clearly had by far the strongest antitrust movement of all Western industrial nations. Many of the practices, such as cartelization, outlawed in America were common practice in such countries as Germany and France. While antimonopolists could not derail the growth of big business, they did have a noticeable impact on its legal and public standing. See Keller Morton, “Public Policy and Large Enterprise: Comparative Historical Perspectives,” in Law and the Formation of the Big Enterprises in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries, ed. Horn Norbert and Kocka Juergen (Goettingen, 1979), 523–531.
65. Howe Frederick C., Privilege and Democracy in America (New York, 1910), 51, 68; Warner, Progressivism in Ohio 31. See also Miller Charles G., “The Trust Question: Its Development in America,” The Arena 23, no. 1 (01 1900), 40–50.
66. Mohler Charles K., “Public Utility Regulation by Los Angeles,” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 53 (05 1914), 117; Phelan James B., “Municipal Conditions in California,” The Arena 17, no. 91 (06 1897), 991–92.
67. Between 1902 and 1907, state legislatures passed about 800 railroad laws. See Keller Morton, Regulating a New Economy: Public Policy and Economic Change in America, 1900–1933 (Cambridge, Mass., 1990), 47. This is not meant to suggest that regulatory efforts slowed down at the state level. Many businesses that operated on the local or state level, insurance companies and power companies, for instance, found themselves under closer state supervision. Many states also strengthened their railroad commissions despite the growing power of the Interstate Commerce Commission. In the area of trusts and corporate privileges, though, the federal level loomed larger due to the interstate nature of the trusts. For other studies of Progressive reform efforts on the state level, see Grant H. Roger, Insurance Reform: Consumer Action in the Progressive Era (Ames, Iowa, 1979); Grantham, Southern Progressivism; id., “Hoke Smith: Progressive Governor of Georgia, 1907–1909,” Journal of Southern History 15, no. 4 (November 1949), 423–40; Woodward C. Vann, Origins of the New South, 1877–1913 (Baton Rouge, 1951); McCormich, From Realignment to Reform
68. Taft quoted in Buenker John D., The Income Tax and the Progressive Era (NewYork, 1985), 107; Conant Charles A., “The New Corporation Tax,” North American Review 190 (08 1909), 235. For a similar attempt regarding public utilities at the local and state levels, see Ford John, “Taxation of Public Franchises,” North American Review 168 (06 1899), 730–38; Seligman E.R.A., “The Franchise Tax Law in New York,” Quarterly Journal of Economics 13 (07 1899), 445–52.
69. Johnson Arthur M., “Antitrust Policy in Transition, 1908: Ideal and Reality,” Mississippi Valley Historical Review 48, no. 3 (12 1961), 415–34; Urofsky Melvin I., “Proposed Federal Incorporation in the Progressive Era,” American Journal of Legal History 26, no. 2 (04 1982), 160–82; Grosscup Peter S., “Is There Common Ground on Which Thoughtful Men Can Meet on the Trust Question,” North American Review 195 (03 1912), 293–309.
70. “The Paramount Issue,” The Outlook, May 28, 1910, 134; “The Insurgent League,” The Outlook, February 4, 1911, 256–57; “The Progressive League Platform,” The Outlook, February 18, 1911, 346–48; White William A., “The Insurgence of Insurgency,” American Magazine 71, no. 2 (12 1910), 170–174; Fillebrown C.B., “The Taxation of Privilege,” The Outlook, 02 5, 1910, 311–13. In their search for the mechanisms behind the formation of monopolies, the insurgents distinguished between two factors: the outright grant of a monopoly to a private party by the government, such as in the case of street railway franchises, and the creation of a monopoly by one corporation by purchasing its rivals. See “The Progressive Movement: V – Monopoly,” The Outlook, October 12, 1912, 288–91.
71. See, e.g., Gable John A., The Bull Moose Years: Theodore Roosevelt and the Progressive Party (Port Washington, N.Y., 1979).
72. Smith Herbert K., “Corporate Regulation – An Administrative Office,” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 42 (07 1912), 287.
73. Roosevelt Theodore, “Nationalism and Democracy,” The Outlook, 03 25, 1911, 622–23; id., “Nationalism and Popular Rule,” The Outlook, January 21, 1911, 96–101; id., “Nationalism and Special Privilege,” The Outlook, January 28, 1911, 145–48; id., “Progressive Democracy: The People and the Courts,” The Outlook, August 17, 1912, 855–57.
74. Roosevelt Theodore, “The Progressives, Past and Present,” The Outlook, 09 3, 1910, 24, 27.
75. Woodrow Wilson, for instance, contended in 1909 that the protective tariff was one of the “entrenchments of Special Privilege.” See Wilson , “The Tariff Make-Believe,” North American Review 190 (10 1909), 541.
76. Croly Herbert, “Democratic Factions and Insurgent Republicans,” North American Review 191 (05 1910), 627; id., Progressive Democracy (New York, 1915), 106; Newlands Francis G., “Review and Criticism of Anti-Trust Legislation,” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 42 (07 1912), 289–95.
77. Brandeis Louis, The Curse of Bigness: Miscellaneous Papers of Louis Brandeis, ed. Fraenkel Osmond K. (Port Washington, N.Y., 1965), 138, 105; id., Other People's Money How the Bankers Use It (New York, 1967 ), 111, 128. On Brandeis, see also Strum Philippa, Louis D. Brandeis: Justice for the People (Cambridge, Mass., 1984); id., Brandeis: Beyond Progressivism (Lawrence, Kans., 1993); Urofsky Melvin I., A Mind of One Piece: Brandeis and American Reform (New York, 1971); McCraw Thomas K., Prophets of Regulation: Charles Francis Adams, Louis D. Brandeis, James M. Landis, Alfred E. Kahn (Cambridge, Mass., 1984). See also Meade E.S., “The Fallacy of ‘Big Business,’“ Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 42 (07 1912), 83–88.
78. Wilson Woodrow, The New Freedom: A Call for the Emancipation of the Generous Energies of a People (New York, 1913), 180; Urofsky Melvin I., “Wilson, Brandeis, and the Trust Issue, 1912–1914,” Mid-America 49, no. 1 (01 1967), 3–28. On the extent to which business leaders engaged in illegal practices, see Engelbourg Saul, Power and Morality: American Business Ethics, 1840–1914 (Westport, Conn., 1980).
79. Ely Richard T., Monopolies and Trusts (New York, 1900), 28–29; Bemis Edward W., “The Trust Problem – Its Real Nature,” Forum 28 (12 1899), 412–26; Bullock Charles J., “Trust Literature: A Survey and a Criticism,” Quarterly Journal of Economics 15 (02 1901), 167–217; Jenks Jeremiah, “The Development of the Whiskev Trust,” Political Science Quarterly 4, no. 2 (06 1889), 296–319.
80. Commons John R., The Distribution of Wealth (New York, 1905), 103–106; Durand Edward D., The Trust Problem (Cambridge, Mass., 1914); Adams Alton D., “Legal Monopoly,” Political Science Quarterly 19, no. 2 (06 1904), 173–92; Clark John B., “Monopolies and the Law,” Political Science Quarterly 16, no. 3 (09 1901), 463–75; Clark John B. and Clark John M., The Control of Trusts (New York, 1914); Jennings Edwin B., Democracy and the Trusts (New York, 1900); Jenks Jeremiah W., “Capitalist Monopolies and Their Relation to the State,” Political Science Quarterly 9, no. 3 (09 1894), 486–509; id., The Trust Problem (New York, 1901); Kleberg Rudolph, “State Control of Trusts,” The Arena 22, no. 2 (08 1899), 191–200; Wyman Bruce, “Unfair Competition by Monopolistic Corporations,” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 42 (07 1912), 67–73; Fine Sidney, Laissez Faire and the General-Welfare State: A Study of Conflict in American Thought, 1865–1901 (Ann Arbor, 1956); Dewey Donald, The Antitrust Experiment in America (New York, 1990): Galambos Louis, The Public Image of Big Business in America, 1880–1940: A Quantitative Study in Social Change (Baltimore, 1975). On the uses of antimonopoly arguments to garner voter support, see Beck James M., “Limitations of Anti-Trust Legislation,” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Sonal Science 42 (07 1912), 296–302.
81. Sinsheimer Paul, “Commission Government: Public Utility Regulation in California,” The Outlook, 09 6, 1916, 32.
82. Gaston Herbert E., The Nonpartisan League (New York, 1920), 3–4, 321; Davenport Frederick M., “The Farmers' Revolution in North Dakota,” The Outlook, 10 11, 1916, 325–27; Russell Charles E., The Story of the Nonpartisan League: A Chapter in American Revolution (New York, 1920); Saloutos Theodore and Hicks John D., Twentieth Century Populism: Agricultural Discontent in the Middle West, 1900–1939 (Lincoln, Nebr., 1951), 191, 546–47; Saloutos , “The Montana Society of Equity,” Pacific Historical Review 14, no. 4 (12 1945), 393–408.
83. Gieske Millard L., Minnesota Farmer-Laborism: The Third Party Alternative (Minneapolis, Minn., 1979); Valelly Richard M., Radicalism in the States: The Minnesota Farmer-Labor Party and the American Political Economy (Chicago, 1989). On the nature of rural politics in the early twentieth century, see also Sanders Elizabeth, “Farmers and the State in the Progressive Era,” in Changes in the State: Causes and Consequences, ed. Greenberg E.S. and Mayer T.E. (Newberry Park, Calif., 1990), 183–205.
84. Tobin Eugene M., Organize or Perish; America's Independent Progressives, 1913–1933 (Westport, Conn., 1986), 150; Doan Edward N., The La Follettes and the Wisconsin Idea (New York, 1947), 129; Lowitt Richard, George W. Norris: The Persistence of a Progressive, 1913–1933 (Urbana, Ill., 1971); Ashby LeRoy, The Spearless leader: Senator Borah and the Progressive Movement in the 1920s (Urbana, Ill., 1972).
85. Berle Adolph A. Jr, and Means Gardiner C., The Modern Corporation and Private Property (New York, 1968 ), 120, 3–5; Pells Richard H., Radical Visions and American Dreams: Culture and Social Thought in the Depression Years (New York, 1974), 69–71; Moley Raymond, After Seven Years (New York, 1939), 24; Fusfeld Daniel R., The Economic Thought of Franklin D. Roosevelt and the Origins of the New Deal (New York, 1956), 220, 245–46; Hawley Ellis W., The New Deal and the Problem of Monopoly: A Study in Economic Ambivalence (Princeton, N.J., 1966). For a different interpretation of the National Recovery Administration that stresses the benefits for small and medium-sized businesses, see Brand Donald R., Corporatism and the Rule of Law: A Study of the National Recovery Administration (Ithaca, N.Y., 1988), 303–4.
86. Feinman Ronald L., Twilight of Progressivism: The Western Republican Senators and the New Deal (Baltimore, 1981); Lowitt Richard, George W. Norris: The Triumph of a Progressive, 1933–1944 (Urbana, Ill., 1978): Mulder Ronald A., The Insurgent Progressives in the United States Senate and the New Deal, 1933–1939 (New York, 1979); Horowitz David A., “Senator Borah's Crusade to Save Small Business from the New Deal,” Historian 55, no. 4 (Summer 1993), 693–708; Ashby, The Spearless Leader; Graham Otis L. Jr, An Encore for Reform: The Old Progressives and the New Deal (New York, 1967).
87. McCraw Thomas K., “Rethinking the Trust Question,” in Regulation in Perspective, ed. McCraw Thomas K. (Cambridge, Mass., 1981), 47; Blumenfeld Juliet, “Retail Trade Regulations and Their Constitbtutionality,” California Law Review 22, no. 1 (11 1933), 96; “Fair Trade Legislation: The Constitutionality of a State Experiment in Resale Price Maintenance,” Harvard Law Review 49, no. 5 (March 1936), 811–21; Grether Ewald T., “Experience in California with Fair Trade Legislation Restricting Price Cutting,” California Law Review 24, no. 6 (09 1936), 640–700.
88. See Hawley, NewDeal and the Problem of Monopoly, 251–54, 266–68; Stone Alan, Economic Regulation and the Public Interest: The Federal Trade Commission in Theory and Practice (Ithaca, N.Y., 1977), 95–98; Morton Keller, “The Pluralist State: American Economic Regulation in Comparative Perspective, 1900–1930,” in McCraw, Regulation in Perspective, 93–94; Clark John M., “Monopolistic Tendencies, Their Character and Consequences,” Proceedings of the Academy of Political Science 18 (1939), 124–31.
89. Francisco Don, “How Business Can Make Friends,” California-Magazine of the Pacific 28, no. 1 (01 1938), 9; id., “Inside Story of California Chain Tax War,” Advertising & Selling 28 (February 11, 1937), 53–54; Walker S.H. and Sklar Paul, “Business Finds Its Voice,” Harper's Magazine 176 (03 1938), 428–40.
90. Moley, After Seven Years, 372–73; Lynch David, The Concentration of Economic Power (New York, 1946), 24–28; Hawley, New Deal and the Problem of Monpoloy, 378–79, 392–93.
91. Arnold Thurman, “The Policy of Government toward Big Business,” Proceedings of the Academy of Political Science 18 (01 1939), 180; “The New Deal and the Trusts,” New Republic, December 7, 1938, 115–16; Brinkley Alan, “The Antimonopoly Ideal and the Liberal State: The Case of Thurman Arnold,” Journal of American History 80, no. 2 (09 1993), 557–79; Gressley Gene M., “Thurman Arnold, Antitrust, and the New Deal,” Business History Review 38, no. 2 (Summer 1964), 214–31; Miscamble Wilson D., “Thurman Arnold Goes to Washington: A Look at Antitrust Policy in the Later New Deal,” Business History Review 56, no. 1 (Spring 1982), 1–15.
92. See Brinkley Alan, Voices of Protest: Huey Long, Father Coughlin, and the Great Depression (New York, 1982);McCoy Donald R., Angry Voices: Left-of-Center Politics in the New Deal Era (Lawrence, Kans., 1958); Ribuffo Leo P., The Old Christian Right: The Protestant Far Right from tht Great Depression to the Cold War (Philadelphia, 1983): Kazin Michael, “The Grass-Roots Right: New Histories of U.S. Conservatism in the Twentieth Century,” American Historical Review 97, no. 1 (02 1992), 136–55; Ferkiss Victor C., “Populist Influences on American Fascism,” Western Political Quarterly 10, no. 2 (06 1957), 350–73; Hofstadter, Age of Reform, 77–81.
93. On populism in contemporary American politics, see Crawford Alan, “Right-Wing Populism,” Social Policy 11, no. 1 (05–06 1980), 2–9; Federici Michael P., The Challenge of Populism: The Rise of Right-Wing Democratism in Postwar America (New York, 1991): Nisbet Robert A., “Public Opinion Versus Popular Opinion,” Public Interests 41, no. 3 (Fall 1975), 166–92;. id., “The Dilemma of Conservatives in a Populist Society,” Policy Review 4, no. 1 (Spring 1978); 91–104; Anderson Kenneth, Berman Russell A., Lake Tim, Piccone Paul, and Traves Michael “The Empire Strikes Out: A Roundtable on Populist Politics,” Telos 87 (Spring 1991), 3–37; Tindall George B., “Populism: A Semantic Identity Crisis,” Virginia Quarterly Review 48, no. 4 (Autumn 1972), 501–18; Allen Tip H. Jr, and Krane Dale A., “Class Receptors Race: The Reemergence of Neopopulism in Mississippi Gubernatorial Politics,” Southern Studies 19, no. 2 (Summer 1980). 182–92; Boyte Harry C. and Rissman Frank, eds., The New Populism: The Politics of Empowerment (Philadelphia, 1986).
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.
Full text views reflects the number of PDF downloads, PDFs sent to Google Drive, Dropbox and Kindle and HTML full text views.
* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 22nd November 2017. This data will be updated every 24 hours.