Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T10:33:08.583Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Political Economy of American Populism from Jackson to the New Deal

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 December 2008

Thomas Goebel
Thomas Goebel
Affiliation:
German Historical Institute, Washington, D.C.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

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.

Type
Articles
Information
Studies in American Political Development , Volume 11 , Issue 1 , Spring 1997 , pp. 109 - 148
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1997

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

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)Google Scholar: Pollack, Normal, The Just Polity: Populism, Law, and Human Welfare (Urbana, Ill., 1987)Google Scholar; Hahn, Steven, The Roots of Southern Populism: Yeoman Farmers and the Transformation of the Georgia Upcountry, 1850–1890 (New York, 1983)Google Scholar; Clanton, O. Gene, Kansas Populism: Ideas and Men (Lawrence, Kans., 1969)Google Scholar; Cherny, Robert W., Populism, Progressivism, and the Transformation of Nebraska Politics, 1885–1915 (Lincoln, Nebr., 1981)Google Scholar; Argersinger, Peter H., Populism and Politics: William Alfred Peffer and the People's Party (Lexington, Ky., 1974)Google Scholar: Hofstadter, Richard, The Age of Reform: From Bryan to F.D.R. (New York, 1955)Google Scholar; and Hicks, John D., The Populist Revolt: A History of the Farmers' Alliance and the People's Party (Minneapolis, Minn., 1931)Google Scholar.

3. Turner, James, “Understanding the Populists,” Journal of American History 67, no. 2 (09 1980), 372CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For an overview of research on Populism, see also Holmes, William F., “Populism; In Search of Context,” Agricultural History 64, no. 4 (10 1990), 26–58Google Scholar; Launius, Roger D., “The Nature of the Populists: An Historiographical Essay,” Southern Studies 22, no. 4 (Winter 1983), 366–85Google Scholar; and Ridge, Martin, “Populism Redux: John D. Hicks and the Populist Revolt,” Reviews in American History 13, no. 1 (03 1985), 142–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

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), 1079–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar. 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)Google Scholar; 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), 3–15Google Scholar, 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), 866–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

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), 166–79Google Scholar; Richard Hofstadter, “North America,” in ibid., 9–27; Canovan, Margaret, Populism (New York, 1981)Google Scholar, 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)Google Scholar, 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)Google Scholar; Gerstle, Gary, Working-Class Americanism: The Politics of Labor in a Textile City, 1914–1960 (Cambridge, 1989)Google Scholar; Greene, David, Shaping Political Consciousness: The Language of Politics in America from McKinley to Reagan (Ithaca, N.Y., 1987)Google Scholar: Hatzenbuehler, Ronald L. and Ivie, Robert L., Congress Declares War: Rhetoric, Leadership, and Partisanship in the Early Republic (Kent, Ohio, 1983)Google Scholar; Lucas, Stephen E., Portents of Rebellion: Rhetoric and Revolution in Philadelphia, 1765–1776 (Philadelphia, 1976)Google Scholar; Zarefsky, David, Lincoln, Douglas, and Slavery: In the Crucible of Public Debate (Chicago, 1990)Google Scholar; Ball, Terence, Transforming Political Discourse: Political Theory and Critical Conceptual Theory (Oxford, 1988)Google Scholar; Clark, Gregory and Halloran, S. Michael, eds., Oratorical Culture in Nineteenth-Century America: Transformations in the Theory and Practice of Rhetoric (Carbondale, Ill., 1993)Google Scholar; and Condit, Celeste M. and Lucaites, John Lewis, Crafting Equality: America's Anglo-African World (Chicago, 1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

9. See, e.g., Evans, Peter, Skocpol, Theda, and Rueschemeyer, Dietrich, eds., Bringing the State Back In (Cambridge, 1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Skocpol, , Protecting Soldiers and Mothers: The Political Origins of Social Policy in the United Stales (Cambridge, Mass., 1992)Google Scholar.

10. Bailyn, Bernard, The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution (Cambridge, Mass., 1967)Google Scholar; Wood, Gordon S., The Creation of the American Republic, 1776–1787 (Chapel Hill, N.C., 1969)Google Scholar; Bushman, Richard L., King and People in Provincial Massachusetts (Chapel Hill, N.C., 1985)Google Scholar; 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), 49–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

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), 4Google Scholar; Rodgers, Daniel T., Contested Truths: Keywords in American Politics Since Independence (New York, 1987)Google Scholar, 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), 120Google Scholar; 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), 97–124Google Scholar, 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), 143Google Scholar.

13. Crowley, J.E., This Sheba, Self: This Conceptualization of Economic Life in Eighteenth-Century America (Baltimore, 1974), 151–53Google Scholar; Banning, Lance, The Jefjersonian Persuasion: Evolution of a Party Ideology (Ithaca N.Y., 1978), 199Google Scholar; Shalhope, Robert E., John Taylor of Caroline: Pastoral Republican (Columbia, M., 1980)Google Scholar; 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), 128–61Google Scholar.

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), 161Google Scholar. See also Appleby, Joyce, Capitalism and a New Social Order: The Republican Vision of the 1790s (New York, 1984)Google Scholar.

16. Skowronek, Stephen, Building a New American State: The Expansion of National Administra live Capacities, 1877–1920 (Cambridge, 1982)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; 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), 121–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Bensel, Richard F., Yankee Leviathan: The Origins of Central Slate Authority in America, 1859–1877 (Cambridge, 1990)Google Scholar.

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)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; 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)Google Scholar; 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), 135–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Pisani, Donald J., “Promotion and Regulation: Constitutonalism and the American Economy,” Journal of American History 74, no. 3 (12 1987), 740–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Taylor, George Rogers, The Transportation Revolution, 1815–1860 (New York, 1951)Google Scholar.

18. Handlin, Oscar and Handlin, Mary Flugg, “The Origins of the American Business Corporation,” Journal of Economic History 5, no. 1 (05 1945), 22CrossRefGoogle Scholar. 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 [1905])Google Scholar.

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), 194–95Google Scholar: Horwitz, Morton J., The Transformation of American Law, 1780–1860 (Cambridge, Mass., 1977), 112Google Scholar; Hurst, James W., The Legitimacy of the Business Corporation in the Law of the United States, 1780–1970 (Charlottesville, Va., 1970), 136–38Google Scholar; Nelson, William E., Americanization of the Common Law: The Impact of Legal Change on Massachusetts, 1760–1803 (Cambridge, Mass., 1975), 135–36Google Scholar.

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), 17–18Google Scholar.

21. Meyers, Marvin, The Jacksonian Persuasion: Politics and Belief (Stanford, Calif., 1957), 10Google Scholar; the Jackson quote is on pages 23–24. See also Ward, John W., Andrew Jackson: Symbol for an Age (New York, 1955)Google Scholar; and Kohl, Lawrence F., The Politics of Individualism: Parties and American Character in the Jacksonian Era (New York, 1989)Google Scholar.

22. Quoted in Ashworth, Jon, “Agrarians” and “Aristocrats”: Party Political Ideology in the United States, 1837–1846 (Cambridge, 1983), 128Google Scholar. See also Conklin, Paul K., Prophets of Prosperity: America's First Political Economists (Bloomington, Ind., 1980)Google Scholar.

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), 740–741Google Scholar. On American banking policies in general, see Timberlake, Richard H., Monetary Policy in the United States: An Intellectual and Institutional History (Chicago, 1993)Google Scholar.

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, 596–99Google Scholar; Cole, Donald B., Jacksonian Democracy in New Hampshire, 1800–1851 (Cambridge, Mass., 1970), 199–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Watson, Harry L., Jacksonian Politics ami Community Conflict: The Emergence of the Second American Party System in Cumberland County, North Carolina (Baton Rouge, 1981)Google Scholar; Sharp, James R., TheJacksonians Versus the Banks: Politics in the States after the Panic of 1837 (New York, 1970)Google Scholar: Shade, William G., Banks or No Banks: the Money Issue in Western Politics, 1832–1865 (Detroit, 1972)Google Scholar.

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, 241Google Scholar; 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), 92–93Google Scholar; Horwitz, Morton J., “Santa Clara Revisited: The Development of Corporate Theory,” West Virginia Law Review 88, no. 1 (Fall 1985), 181Google Scholar; Seavoy, Ronald E., The Origins of the American Business Corporation, 1784–1855: Broadening the Concept of Public Service during Industrialization (Westport, Conn., 1982)Google Scholar.

27. Wilentz, Sean, Chants Democratic: New York City & the Rise of the American Working Class, 1788–1850 (New York, 1984)Google Scholar; 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), 37–77Google Scholar; Laurie, Bruce, Artisans into Workers: Labor in Nineteenth-Century America (New York, 1989)Google Scholar; Ross, Steven J., Workers on the Edge: Work, Leisure, and Politics in Industrializing Cincinnati, 1788–1890 (New York, 1985)Google Scholar; 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), 614–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

28. Bridges, Amy, A City in the Republic: Antebellum New York and the (higins of Machine Politics (Cambridge, 1984), 114CrossRefGoogle Scholar; 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), 157–96Google Scholar.

29. Laurie, Bruce, Working People of Philadelphia, 1800–1850 (Philadelphia, 1980), 109Google Scholar, 173; Pessen, Edward, Most Uncommon Jacksonians: The Radical Leaders of the Early Labor Movement (Albany, N.Y., 1967), 121, 191Google Scholar; Faler, Paul G., Mechanics and Manufacturers in the Early Industrial Revolution: Lynn, Massachusetts, 1780–1860 (Albany, N.Y, 1981), 215Google Scholar; Hugins, Walter, Jacksonian Democracy and the Working Class: A Study of the New York Workingmen's Movement (Stanford, Calif., 1960), 149Google Scholar; 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)Google Scholar.

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), 581–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Degler, Carl N., “The Loco-Focos: Urban ‘Agrarians’,” Journal of Economic History 16, no. 3 (09 1956), 322–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Trimble, William. “Diverging Tendencies in New York Democracy in the Period of the Loco Focos,” American Historical Review 24, no. 3 (04 1919), 396–421CrossRefGoogle Scholar. 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)Google Scholar; 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)Google Scholar; 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), 470–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Foner, Eric, Politics and Ideology in the Age of the. Civil War (New York, 1980), 24Google Scholar; 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)Google Scholar.

32. Unger, Irwin, The Greenback Era: A Social and Political History of American Finance, 1865–1879 (Princeton,'N.J., 1964)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Destler, Chester M., American Radicalism, 1865–1901: Essays and Documents (Chicago, 1946), 3–8Google Scholar; Nugent, Walter T.K., Money and American Society 1865–1880 (New York, 1968), 210–12Google Scholar; Woodward, C. Vann, Origins of the New South, 1871–1913 (Baton Rouge, 1951), 84–85Google Scholar; Martin, Roscoe C., The People's Party in Texas: A Study in Third Party Politics (Austin, Tex., 1933), 23Google Scholar; Weinstein, Allen, Prelude to Populism: Origins of the Silver Issue, 1867–1878 (New Haven, Conn., 1970)Google Scholar. 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), 369–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

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), 19Google Scholar; 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), 421–22Google Scholar.

35. Benson, Lee, Merchants, Farmers, and Railroads: Railroad Regulation and New York Politics, 1850–1887 (Cambridge, Mass., 1955), VIIICrossRefGoogle Scholar; Miller, George H., Railroads and the Granger Laws (Madison, Wis., 1971)Google Scholar; Treleven, Dale E., “Railroads, Elevators, and Grain Dealers: The Genesis of Antimonopolism in Milwaukee,” Wisconsin Magazine of History 52, no. 3 (Spring 1979), 205–22Google Scholar; Woodman, Harold D., “Chicago Businessmen and the ‘Granger’ Laws,” Agricultural History 36, no. 1 (01 1962), 16–24Google Scholar.

36. Buck, Solon J., The Granger Movement: A Story of Agricultural Organization and Its Political, Economic, and Social Manifestations, 1870–1880 (Cambridge, Mass., 1913), 89Google Scholar, 98–100; Throne, Mildred, “The Anti-Monopoly Party in Iowa, 1873–1874,” Town Journal of History 52, no. 4 (10 1954), 289–326Google Scholar; Ostler, Jeffrey, Prairie Populism: The Fate of Agrarian Radicalism in Kansas, Nebraska, and Iowa, 1880–1892 (Lawrence, Kans., 1993), 38–39Google Scholar; Clanton, Gene, Populism: The Humane Preference in America, 1890–1900 (Boston, 1991), 8–12Google Scholar. 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), 33Google Scholar; Clark, John B., Populism in Alabama, 1874–1896 (Auburn, Ala., 1927), 40Google Scholar; and Saloutos, Theodore, Farmer Movements in the South, 1865–1933 (Berkeley, 1960), 38Google Scholar.

37. Nordin, D. Sven, Rich Harvest: A History of the Grange, 1867–1900 (Jackson, Miss., 1974), 240Google Scholar; Woods, Thomas A., Knights of the Plow: Oliver H. Kelley and the Origins of the Grange in Republican Ideology (Ames, Iowa, 1991)Google Scholar.

38. Carr, Ezra S., The Patrons of Husbandry on the Pacific Coast … (San Francisco, 1875)Google Scholar; Castensen, Vernon, ed., Farmer Discontent, 1865–1900 (New York, 1974), 30, 83Google Scholar; Curtis, George T., “The Ownership of Railroad Property,” North American Review 132 (04 1881), 345–55Google Scholar; Norris, Edward W., History of the Grange, or, The Farmer's War against Monopolies (Philadelphia, 1967 [1873])Google Scholar.

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)Google Scholar; and McAfee, Ward M., “A Constitutional History of Railroad Rate Regulation in California, 1879–1911,” Pacific Historical Quarterly 37, no. 3 (08 1968), 265–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar. 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), 66CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

40. Lloyd, Henry Demarest, “Lords of Industry,” North American Review 138, no. 331 (06 1884), 552Google Scholar; 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), 205–17Google Scholar. For a different perspective, compare Carnegie, Andrew, “The Bugaboo of Trusts,” North American Review 148 (02 1889), 141–150Google Scholar.

41. Knauth, Oswald W., The Policy of the United States toward Industrial Monopoly (New York 1914), 16Google Scholar.

42. Palmer, Bruce, “Man Over Money”: The Southern Populist Critique of American Capitalism (Chapel Hill, N.C., 1980), 219Google Scholar; Goodwyn, , Democratic Promise; id., “Rethinking ‘Populism’: Paradoxes of Historiography and Democracy,” Telos 88 (Summer 1991), 37–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Hahn, Roots of Southern Populism; Rogers, William W., The One-Gallused Rebellion: Agrarianism in Alabama, 1865–1896 (Baton Rouge, 1970)Google Scholar; 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), 1–29Google Scholar; 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), 253–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

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), 261–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar; 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), 125Google Scholar.

44. Weaver, James B., A Call to Action: An Interpretation of the Great Uprising. Its Source and Causes (Des Moines, Iowa, 1892), 394Google Scholar.

45. McDonald-Valesh, Eva, “The Strength and Weakness of the People's Movement,” The Arena 5, no. 30 (05 1892) 729Google Scholar.

46. On the populist movement, see also Peffer, William A., The Farmer's Side: His Troubles and Their Remedies (New York, 1891), 169Google Scholar; id., Populism: Its Rise and Fall, ed. Argersinger, Peter H. (Lawrence, Kans., 1992), 36Google Scholar; Larson, Robert W., Populism in the Mountain West (Albuquerque, N.Mex., 1986), 13Google Scholar; 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)Google Scholar; Griffiths, David, Populism in the Western United States, 1890–1900 (Lewiston, 1992)Google Scholar; McMath, Robert C. JrAmerican Populism: A Social History (New York, 1993)Google Scholar; Miller, Worth R., Oklahoma Populism: A Hsitory of the People's Party in Oklahoma Territory (Norman, Okla., 1987)Google Scholar; Nugent, Walter T.K., The Tolerant Populists: Kansas Population and Nativism (Chicago, 1963)Google Scholar; Shaw, Burton, The Wool-Hal Boys: Georgia's Populist Party (Baton Rouge, 1984)Google Scholar; Parsons, Stanley B. Jr, The Populist Context: Rural Versus Urban Power on a Great Plains Frontier (Westport, Conn., 1973)Google Scholar.

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)Google Scholar; Bridges, Hal, “The Robber Baron Concept in American History,” Business History Review 32, no. 1 (Spring 1958), 1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar; 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), 28–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

48. Flower, Benjamin O., “Is Socialism Desirable?,” The Arena 3, no. 18 (05 1891), 753Google Scholar; 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), 56Google Scholar: 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, 141Google Scholar; Sticknev, A.B., The Railway Problem (St. Paul, Minn., 1891), 162, 168–69Google Scholar.

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), 43–59Google Scholar; 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), 139–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Morris, John R., Davis H. Waite: The Ideology of a Western Populist (Washington, D.C., 1982)Google Scholar.

50. Quoted in Hicks, John D., The Populist Revolt: A History of the Farmers' Alliance and the People's Party (Minneapolis, Minn., 1931), 79Google Scholar. 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), 28–54Google Scholar; and Westin, Alan F., “Populism and the Supreme Court.” Supreme Court Historical Society Yearbook, 1980, 62–77Google Scholar.

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), 69Google Scholar; Rapsher, W.M., “Dangerous Trusts,” North American Review 146 (05 1888), 509–14Google Scholar; Watson, Thomas E., “Why the People's Party Should Elect the Next President,” The Arena 6, no. 32 (05 1892), 201–204Google Scholar; Thelen, David P., The New Citizenship: Origins of Progressivism in Wisconsin, 1885–1900 (Columbia, Mo., 1972), 2Google Scholar, 208–210; Willard, Cvrus F., “Trusts,” The Arena 2, no. 11 (10 1890), 626–29Google Scholar.

52. Spahr, Charles B., An Essay on the Present Distribution of Wealth in the United States (New York, 1896), 3Google Scholar; Taubeneck, Herman E., “The Concentration of Wealth, Its Cause and Results,” The Arena 18, no. 94 (09 1897), 300Google Scholar.

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), 23243Google Scholar; and Pentecost, Hugh O., “Poverty and Plutocracy: A Glance at Our Present Strained Conditions,” The Arena 2, no. 9 (08 1890), 373–75Google Scholar.

54. Bryce, Lloyd S., “Errors in Prof. Bryce's ‘Commonwealth’,” North American Review 148 (03 1889), 352Google Scholar. 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), 115–16Google Scholar.

55. See Berk, Gerald, “Constituting Corporations and Markets: Railroads in Gilded Age Politics,” Studies in American Political Development 4 (1990), 130–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar; 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), 258–395Google Scholar; 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), 970–1005CrossRefGoogle Scholar; 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), 51–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Adams, Alton D., “State Control of Trusts,” Political Science Quarterly 18, no. 4 (09 1903), 462–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Small, Albion W., “The State of Semi-Public Corporations,” American Journal of Sociology 1, no. 4 (01 1896), 398–410CrossRefGoogle Scholar; 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, 50Google Scholar.

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), 91Google Scholar.

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), 90–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Schneider, Linda, “The Citizen Striker: Workers' Ideology in the Homestead Strike of 1892,” Studies in American Political Development 23, no. 1 (Winter 1982), 47–66Google Scholar; Levine, Susan, “Labor's True Woman: Domesticity and Equal Rights in the Knights of Labor,” Journal of American History 70, no. 2 (09 1983), 323–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Montgomery, David, “Labor and the Republic in Industrial America, 1860–1920,” Le Mouvement Social 111 (04–06 1980), 206Google Scholar; 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), 14–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Voss, Kim, The Making of American Exceptionalism: The Knights of Labor and Class Formation in the Nineteenth Century (Ithaca, N.Y, 1993)Google Scholar.

61. Gompers, Samuel, “Organized Labor in the Campaign,” North American Review 155 (07 1892), 93Google Scholar; 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), 1257–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar; 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), 520–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Saxton, Alexander, “San Francisco Labor and the Populist and Progressive Insurgencies,” Pacific Historical Quarterly 34, no. 4 (11 1965), 421–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar. 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), 599–613CrossRefGoogle Scholar. 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)Google Scholar.

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), 157–69Google Scholar; Hackney, Sheldon, Populism to Progressivism in Alabama (Princeton, N.J., 1969), XIIIGoogle Scholar: Clanton, Gene, “Populism, Progressivism, and Equality: The Kansas Paradigm,” Agricultural History 51, no. 3 (07 1977), 559–81Google Scholar; McCormick, Richard L., From Realignment to Reform: Political Change in New York State, 1893–1910 (Ithaca, N.Y., 1981)Google Scholar: Hammack, David, Power and Society: Greater New York at the Turn of the Century (New York, 1982)Google Scholar; Buenker, John D., “Urban, New-Stock Liberalism and Progressive Reform in New Jersey,” New Jersey History 87, no. 2 (Summer 1969), 79–104Google Scholar.

63. Rodgers, Daniel T., “In Search of Progressivism,” Reviews in American History 10, no. 4 (12 1892), 123–24Google Scholar.

64. Bryce, James, “America Revisited: The Changes of a Quarter-Century,” The Outlook 79 (04 1, 1905), 848–49Google Scholar. 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), 523–531Google Scholar.

65. Howe, Frederick C., Privilege and Democracy in America (New York, 1910), 51Google Scholar, 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), 40–50Google Scholar.

66. Mohler, Charles K., “Public Utility Regulation by Los Angeles,” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 53 (05 1914), 117CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Phelan, James B., “Municipal Conditions in California,” The Arena 17, no. 91 (06 1897), 991–92Google Scholar.

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), 47Google Scholar. 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)Google Scholar; 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)Google Scholar; McCormich, From Realignment to Reform

68. Taft quoted in Buenker, John D., The Income Tax and the Progressive Era (NewYork, 1985), 107Google Scholar; Conant, Charles A., “The New Corporation Tax,” North American Review 190 (08 1909), 235Google Scholar. 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), 730–38Google Scholar; Seligman, E.R.A., “The Franchise Tax Law in New York,” Quarterly Journal of Economics 13 (07 1899), 445–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

69. Johnson, Arthur M., “Antitrust Policy in Transition, 1908: Ideal and Reality,” Mississippi Valley Historical Review 48, no. 3 (12 1961), 415–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Urofsky, Melvin I., “Proposed Federal Incorporation in the Progressive Era,” American Journal of Legal History 26, no. 2 (04 1982), 160–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Grosscup, Peter S., “Is There Common Ground on Which Thoughtful Men Can Meet on the Trust Question,” North American Review 195 (03 1912), 293–309Google Scholar.

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), 170–174Google Scholar; Fillebrown, C.B., “The Taxation of Privilege,” The Outlook, 02 5, 1910, 311–13Google Scholar. 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)Google Scholar.

72. Smith, Herbert K., “Corporate Regulation – An Administrative Office,” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 42 (07 1912), 287CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

73. Roosevelt, Theodore, “Nationalism and Democracy,” The Outlook, 03 25, 1911, 622–23Google Scholar; 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, 24Google Scholar, 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), 541Google Scholar.

76. Croly, Herbert, “Democratic Factions and Insurgent Republicans,” North American Review 191 (05 1910), 627Google Scholar; 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), 289–95Google Scholar.

77. Brandeis, Louis, The Curse of Bigness: Miscellaneous Papers of Louis Brandeis, ed. Fraenkel, Osmond K. (Port Washington, N.Y., 1965), 138Google Scholar, 105; id., Other People's Money How the Bankers Use It (New York, 1967 [1914]), 111, 128. On Brandeis, see also Strum, Philippa, Louis D. Brandeis: Justice for the People (Cambridge, Mass., 1984)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; id., Brandeis: Beyond Progressivism (Lawrence, Kans., 1993); Urofsky, Melvin I., A Mind of One Piece: Brandeis and American Reform (New York, 1971)Google Scholar; McCraw, Thomas K., Prophets of Regulation: Charles Francis Adams, Louis D. Brandeis, James M. Landis, Alfred E. Kahn (Cambridge, Mass., 1984)Google Scholar. See also Meade, E.S., “The Fallacy of ‘Big Business,’“ Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 42 (07 1912), 83–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

78. Wilson, Woodrow, The New Freedom: A Call for the Emancipation of the Generous Energies of a People (New York, 1913), 180Google Scholar; Urofsky, Melvin I., “Wilson, Brandeis, and the Trust Issue, 1912–1914,” Mid-America 49, no. 1 (01 1967), 3–28Google Scholar. 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)Google Scholar.

79. Ely, Richard T., Monopolies and Trusts (New York, 1900), 28–29Google Scholar; Bemis, Edward W., “The Trust Problem – Its Real Nature,” Forum 28 (12 1899), 412–26Google Scholar; Bullock, Charles J., “Trust Literature: A Survey and a Criticism,” Quarterly Journal of Economics 15 (02 1901), 167–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Jenks, Jeremiah, “The Development of the Whiskev Trust,” Political Science Quarterly 4, no. 2 (06 1889), 296–319CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

80. Commons, John R., The Distribution of Wealth (New York, 1905), 103–106Google Scholar; Durand, Edward D., The Trust Problem (Cambridge, Mass., 1914)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Adams, Alton D., “Legal Monopoly,” Political Science Quarterly 19, no. 2 (06 1904), 173–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Clark, John B., “Monopolies and the Law,” Political Science Quarterly 16, no. 3 (09 1901), 463–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Clark, John B. and Clark, John M., The Control of Trusts (New York, 1914)Google Scholar; Jennings, Edwin B., Democracy and the Trusts (New York, 1900)Google Scholar; Jenks, Jeremiah W., “Capitalist Monopolies and Their Relation to the State,” Political Science Quarterly 9, no. 3 (09 1894), 486–509CrossRefGoogle Scholar; id., The Trust Problem (New York, 1901); Kleberg, Rudolph, “State Control of Trusts,” The Arena 22, no. 2 (08 1899), 191–200Google Scholar; Wyman, Bruce, “Unfair Competition by Monopolistic Corporations,” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 42 (07 1912), 67–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Fine, Sidney, Laissez Faire and the General-Welfare State: A Study of Conflict in American Thought, 1865–1901 (Ann Arbor, 1956)Google Scholar; Dewey, Donald, The Antitrust Experiment in America (New York, 1990)Google Scholar: Galambos, Louis, The Public Image of Big Business in America, 1880–1940: A Quantitative Study in Social Change (Baltimore, 1975)Google Scholar. 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), 296–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

81. Sinsheimer, Paul, “Commission Government: Public Utility Regulation in California,” The Outlook, 09 6, 1916, 32Google Scholar.

82. Gaston, Herbert E., The Nonpartisan League (New York, 1920), 3–4, 321Google Scholar; Davenport, Frederick M., “The Farmers' Revolution in North Dakota,” The Outlook, 10 11, 1916, 325–27Google Scholar; Russell, Charles E., The Story of the Nonpartisan League: A Chapter in American Revolution (New York, 1920)Google Scholar; Saloutos, Theodore and Hicks, John D., Twentieth Century Populism: Agricultural Discontent in the Middle West, 1900–1939 (Lincoln, Nebr., 1951), 191, 546–47Google Scholar; Saloutos, , “The Montana Society of Equity,” Pacific Historical Review 14, no. 4 (12 1945), 393–408CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

83. Gieske, Millard L., Minnesota Farmer-Laborism: The Third Party Alternative (Minneapolis, Minn., 1979)Google Scholar; Valelly, Richard M., Radicalism in the States: The Minnesota Farmer-Labor Party and the American Political Economy (Chicago, 1989)Google Scholar. 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), 183–205Google Scholar.

84. Tobin, Eugene M., Organize or Perish; America's Independent Progressives, 1913–1933 (Westport, Conn., 1986), 150Google Scholar; Doan, Edward N., The La Follettes and the Wisconsin Idea (New York, 1947), 129Google Scholar; Lowitt, Richard, George W. Norris: The Persistence of a Progressive, 1913–1933 (Urbana, Ill., 1971)Google Scholar; Ashby, LeRoy, The Spearless leader: Senator Borah and the Progressive Movement in the 1920s (Urbana, Ill., 1972)Google Scholar.

85. Berle, Adolph A. Jr, and Means, Gardiner C., The Modern Corporation and Private Property (New York, 1968 [1932]), 120Google Scholar, 3–5; Pells, Richard H., Radical Visions and American Dreams: Culture and Social Thought in the Depression Years (New York, 1974), 69–71Google Scholar; Moley, Raymond, After Seven Years (New York, 1939), 24Google Scholar; Fusfeld, Daniel R., The Economic Thought of Franklin D. Roosevelt and the Origins of the New Deal (New York, 1956), 220Google Scholar, 245–46; Hawley, Ellis W., The New Deal and the Problem of Monopoly: A Study in Economic Ambivalence (Princeton, N.J., 1966)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. 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), 303–4Google Scholar.

86. Feinman, Ronald L., Twilight of Progressivism: The Western Republican Senators and the New Deal (Baltimore, 1981)Google Scholar; Lowitt, Richard, George W. Norris: The Triumph of a Progressive, 1933–1944 (Urbana, Ill., 1978)Google Scholar: Mulder, Ronald A., The Insurgent Progressives in the United States Senate and the New Deal, 1933–1939 (New York, 1979)Google Scholar; Horowitz, David A., “Senator Borah's Crusade to Save Small Business from the New Deal,” Historian 55, no. 4 (Summer 1993), 693–708CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Ashby, The Spearless Leader; Graham, Otis L. Jr, An Encore for Reform: The Old Progressives and the New Deal (New York, 1967)Google Scholar.

87. McCraw, Thomas K., “Rethinking the Trust Question,” in Regulation in Perspective, ed. McCraw, Thomas K. (Cambridge, Mass., 1981), 47Google Scholar; Blumenfeld, Juliet, “Retail Trade Regulations and Their Constitbtutionality,” California Law Review 22, no. 1 (11 1933), 96CrossRefGoogle Scholar; “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), 640–700CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

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), 95–98Google Scholar; 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), 124–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

89. Francisco, Don, “How Business Can Make Friends,” California-Magazine of the Pacific 28, no. 1 (01 1938), 9Google Scholar; 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), 428–40Google Scholar.

90. Moley, After Seven Years, 372–73; Lynch, David, The Concentration of Economic Power (New York, 1946), 24–28Google Scholar; 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), 180CrossRefGoogle Scholar; “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), 557–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Gressley, Gene M., “Thurman Arnold, Antitrust, and the New Deal,” Business History Review 38, no. 2 (Summer 1964), 214–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar; 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), 1–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

92. See Brinkley, Alan, Voices of Protest: Huey Long, Father Coughlin, and the Great Depression (New York, 1982)Google Scholar;McCoy, Donald R., Angry Voices: Left-of-Center Politics in the New Deal Era (Lawrence, Kans., 1958)Google Scholar; Ribuffo, Leo P., The Old Christian Right: The Protestant Far Right from tht Great Depression to the Cold War (Philadelphia, 1983)Google Scholar: Kazin, Michael, “The Grass-Roots Right: New Histories of U.S. Conservatism in the Twentieth Century,” American Historical Review 97, no. 1 (02 1992), 136–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Ferkiss, Victor C., “Populist Influences on American Fascism,” Western Political Quarterly 10, no. 2 (06 1957), 350–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar; 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), 2–9Google Scholar; Federici, Michael P., The Challenge of Populism: The Rise of Right-Wing Democratism in Postwar America (New York, 1991)Google Scholar: Nisbet, Robert A., “Public Opinion Versus Popular Opinion,” Public Interests 41, no. 3 (Fall 1975), 166–92Google Scholar;. 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), 3–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Tindall, George B., “Populism: A Semantic Identity Crisis,” Virginia Quarterly Review 48, no. 4 (Autumn 1972), 501–18Google Scholar; 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). 182–92Google Scholar; Boyte, Harry C. and Rissman, Frank, eds., The New Populism: The Politics of Empowerment (Philadelphia, 1986)Google Scholar.