at a very low rate of interest, direct to the farmers in return for agricultural products which they should deposit in warehouses. The government was expected to advance some 80 per cent of the market value of the products deposited. This scheme would have established direct relationship between the government as lender and the individual as borrower through government credit.11 Although hardheaded business men poked fun and sharp words at this plank of the St. Louis platform, it was popular in many sections of the country. It was in a way identical in principle with the operation of the Alabama state bank, 1823-1852, when the state owned and operated banks and lent the state's money to its citizens, from the effects of which the state has never recovered.12 But the Alliance did not regard the subtreasury plank as a sine qua non. "A better plan" than the subtreasury would be gladly accepted by the needy farmers. As Colonel L. L. Polk, President of the National Farmers' Alliance, expressed it in an address previous to the defeat of the subtreasury plan by the United States Senate:13 "We do not claim it (the subtreasury plan) as the only measure through which relief may be brought to our suffering and distressed people. . . . We would be only too happy to receive at your hands a wiser and better measure, but the suffering millions must have relief. They ask for bread and will not be content with a stone."

The St. Louis convention pledged its delegates to support only such men as would vote for or favor the "platform" it adopted.14 Southern Democratic papers considered it an attempt to break and destroy the Democratic party, and incidentally the "solid South." The amalgamation of the Farmers' Alliance with the National Knights of Labor, itself "practically a northern organization of wide influence," appeared inimical to the Democracy of the South.15 Of the effects of the St.

11 Miller, Alabama, p. 284; Buck, Agrarian Crusade, p. 130; The Birmingham News, Nov. 30, 1891.

12 Miller, Alabama, p. 284; Cheap-Money Experiments, pp. 82 ff; Brown, Alabama; see National Economist, II, pp. 210 ff., Dec., 1889. 18 Progressive Farmer, June 10, 1890.

14 Advertiser, Dec. 24, 1889; Arnett, loc cit.

15 Muzzey, The United States of America 11, p. 233. Says Muzzey on the attitude of the Southern Alliance toward the second St. Louis conference, Feb. 22, 1892, which "selected a National Committee" to call the Omaha convention of July 2, 1892, where the Populist ticket was announced, on the basis of the St. Louis platform of 1889: "The largest of the farmers' associations, for ex

Louis propaganda on Alabama, one writer16 said: "The force of the action at St. Louis proved of determinate adverse effect upon the growth and influence of the Farmers' Alliance in Alabama and worked a revolution in the politics of the state." Individuals, press and alliances began to align themselves regarding the St. Louis propaganda. Delegates to the convention were quizzed and criticised and the question of a third party became paramount.

Upon his return from St. Louis, Commissioner Kolb announced,17 December 22, 1889, his candidacy in the Birmingham Age-Herald for the governorship. He sought the nomination on the Democratic ticket. The Advertiser, self-constituted guardian of the orthodox Democratic party, remarked that it would be interesting to hear from Captain Kolb on the platform adopted by the National Farmers' Alliance and Industrial Union as his announcement said nothing of those resolutions.18 Commissioner Kolb denied having anything to do with the resolutions or knowing anything about them, and denied voting for them.19 He said he was a Democrat, believed in white supremacy and that there was no idea of a third party in the St. Louis platform20 The Alabama delegates, after being heckled by the attitude of the home people, endeavored to leave the impression that some of the St. Louis resolutions had been thrust upon them. This excuse has little plausibility when it is remembered that most of the delegates were from the South.21

Action by the various local alliances followed the St. Louis Convention, many of them endorsing the resolutions and Kolb's candidacy, while others opposed the St. Louis "amalgam," fearing it an attempt of the Northern politicians to disrupt the Democratic party in the South

ample, was the Southern Alliance, which claimed a membership of three million. But delegates from seven southern states threatened to withdraw from the St. Louis conference if an independent political party were formed. Their purpose was to capture and transform the Democratic party. The inevitable negro question forced the whites of the South to hesitate before launching abruptly into Populism as a distinct party."

16 DuBose, Article No. 80, in Jones, V, p. 54.

17 Advertiser, Jan. 5, 1890.

18 Advertiser, Dec. 24, 1889.

19 Advertiser, Jan. 5, 1890; Advertiser, Jan. 7, 15, 18, 24, 1890. 20 Advertiser for Jan. 5, 1890; DuBose, Article No. 82, in Jones, Scrap Book, V, p. 59.

21 Advertiser, Jan. 7, 1890; see Morgan, Wheel and Alliance, pas

and to throw the alliance into politics.22 Such was the action of such county alliances as Montgomery, Talladega and Clay, bitterly denouncing the action of the Alabama delegates at St. Louis. These alliances affirmed their intention to resist all efforts to organize the Alliance into politics.23 They would continue to try to aid the farmers but would not affiliate with other organizations and would repel every attempt to crush the Democratic party of the state.24 On the other hand Tuscaloosa county Alliance, for example, with T. M. Barbour, President, declared openly for Kolb and the entire St. Louis platform.25 Naturally the Alliance-Advocate at Montgomery declared favorably toward both Kolb and the resolutions.26 While the Age-Herald, friendly to the Alliance, admitted its opposition to the St. Louis platform, with no ill will toward its makers, the Advertiser proclaimed it a diabolical plot "Totally undemocratic and subversive of white supremacy in Alabama." It was not warring on the Alliance, but opposed to the idea of a new party as born at St. Louis, and believed as did the Herald that real Democrats in the Alliance would stick to their party.27

Not waiting till the opening of the new year, Kolb was in Birmingham December 24, and 25, 1889 and the AgeHerald carried an account of an "Interview with the Leading Gubernatorial Candidate," in which Captain Kolb availed himself of the opportunity to set forth his views. The Alliance was not, he said, a political body, but an organization made up of Democrats and Republicans alike. Though a big majority of the Alliance members in Alabama were Democrats, there was nothing in the organization to prevent a member of any party from joining the Alliance. It was composed of farmers who saw the need not only of organization but of legislation, and through the men who made the laws they hoped to secure aid. Mr. Kolb saw no reason why farmers, even though organized, should not discuss their needs as did lawyers, bankers, and boards of trade, and even frame laws and

22 See Arnett, Populist Movement in Georgia, pp. 83, 101.

23 Henceforth, few took at par the assertions that the Alliance was non-partisan (See H. C. Nixon, The Populist Movement in Iowa, p. 43).

24 Advertiser, Dec. 24, 1889; Advertiser Jan. 5, 1890.

25 Advertiser, Jan. 12, 1890.

26 Advertiser, Dec. 22, 1889.

27 Advertiser, Dec. 26, 1889; Jan. 5, 1890.

have them passed.28 These crafts would not think of voting for men opposed to their interests and the same should be true with farmers. He said the Alliance's position in politics, if it had such, was to educate the farmers to a fuller appreciation of the needs and dangers, and each member of the Alliance was free to act as he pleased on that, and the Alliance had not thought of disorganizing the Democratic party, thereby causing a defeat of all their aims. The Alliancemen were loyal to their party, and would be found in the beat meetings, in the primaries, and in the conventions along with other Democrats who were not Alliance members.

In reply to the criticism that he was using the Alliance and commissionership to ride into office as governor, Captain Kolb said that he had never thought his holding that office disqualified him for, or made it improper, to aspire to the governorship, that it had never been considered improper for a governor to aspire to the United States Senate.29 He denied that he had ever sought the aid of other than Democrats; however, his wide acquaintance with, and long identification with, the farmers made it reasonable for him to hope for large sympathy and support from those whom he had worked to serve; otherwise it would be self-confessed failure on his part. He was a Democrat and would go before the convention as a Democrat,30 "and could not be induced to accept any nomination or office except at the hands of the organized Democracy." "I am," said Mr. Kolb, "a candidate before the Democratic party and on the platform of doing all I can to promote the best interests of all the peoplefarmers and artisans, merchants, and manufacturers, county and city, miner and lumbermen, employer and employe."81

28 Age-Herald, Dec. 25, 1889.

29 In the light of the provisions of the state Constitution of 1901 Commissioner Kolb probably misstated the facts in this issue. 30 This statement rose often later to plague him.

31 Advertiser, Dec. 24, 1889; Age-Herald, Dec. 25, 1889; AgeHerald, Jan. 22, 1890.

Mr. Kolb's political principles were expounded by "Bartemus," a farmer of Uniontown, who defended Kolb's Democracy and upheld his right to participate in government, stating that all complaint was coming from those ineligible to the Alliance, and that Kolb's Democracy could not be a matter of controversy and that the fact that he was sent as a delegate to the St. Louis convention should not impair his democracy. According to Bartemus, "the farmer," Kolb had the best record of any man in the race for governor, the farmers being solid for him and he was "INVINCIBLE

One unique incident of the St. Louis convention was its provision for and appointment of a national lecturerBenjamin Terrell, a Democrat of Texas, a good speaker and an Allianceman. In his speech of acceptance as national lecturer Terrell said:32 "We made our Congressmen. If they refuse to do as we bid them, we will make others to take their places." And, interesting enough, Mr. Terrell seems to have made his way straight to Alabama to open his fireworks,33 for in early January, 1890, this paid lecturer of the National Farmers' Alliance and Industrial Union was in Alabama "stumping" the state for Kolb, "the Democrat" and advocating the St. Louis platform.34

In a speech at Scottsboro, Jackson county, Terrell said that, since consolidation with the Northern Alliance, they had three million members, a number sufficient to accomplish wonders in politics. Referring to the Farmers' Alliance and Industrial Union, he said: "We shall say to our Congressmen, 'we own you. Do as we tell you or you don't go back.' That's the way the monied powers have dictated to them. It's our turn now."35 He denounced all Alabama Congressmen as "frauds," saying that the Alabama government had been rotten for twenty years; and that the Alliance with the Exchange behind it had all necessary power to control the whole "field of agriculture, manufacturing and commerce."36

in the black land country. Strict construction of delegated powers, commerce burdened by revenue only, bullion money and white supremacy are Democracy, and if carried to full and fair play will give relief to all and make us the happiest as well as the greatest people on earth.”

32 DuBose, Article No. 82, in Jones, V, p. 59.

33 Advertiser, Jan. 8, 10, and Feb. 1, 1890.

34 Advertiser, Jan. 8, 1890.

He urged the people to support an unlimited issue of Greenbacks, government control of railroads and telegraphs, free and unlimited coinage of gold and silver at the ratio of 16 to 1, abolition of national banks of issue and direct issues of all paper money by the government itself. He urged Congress to abolish future dealings in cotton and grain, prohibit alien ownership of land, pay off the national debt and not increase it. Only those officers who agreed to support these planks should be voted for by the farmers.

35 Ibid.

36 Dubose, Article No. 82, in Jones, V, p. 59; Advertiser, Jan. 10, 1890; Advertiser, Feb. 1, 1890.

Was not this politics? Why should the Alliance pay a man to stump Alabama in favor of an aspirant for a political office? Was there no danger to the Alliance in such procedure? Were not