While the Advertiser had begun hurling its missiles at "Colonel Ben," the Age Herald37 was commending him for a great speech at Birmingham on January 7, where he had said the Alliance had only good as its object and had no secrets. He lauded it as having the purest motives of any organization he knew except the Christian religion. Speaking of the Alliance from a political standpoint, he said it had no confidence in any man who would sell his vote, or buy a vote. The Alliance was not solely for the Democrats, but for the improvement of all farmers, and would help them to stay out of debt thus shunning the iniquitous mortgage system. However, Mr. Terrell urged Alliance members to "stay in the party" and deplored the rumors that the Alliance was trying to form a third party.38 Aside from the strictly political aspects, the farmers, as a compactly organized body, were now conscious of the wrongs they were enduring and, thanks to educational campaigns, lectures, speeches and literature, they were aroused to a full realization of their civic duties, and were determined to take more interest in matters where they had been remiss. Many of the farmers realized for the first time that their woes were due partially to their own neglect to participate in beat meetings and primaries, having left these matters to a few who liked to dabble in politics and who had manipulated affairs in their own interests.39

The St. Louis resolutions have been rather fully discussed because of their great effects upon the future history of the Alliance, state and national. In the opinion of J. W. DuBose, 40 the St. Louis convention and platform, with their aftermath, were largely responsible for the Alliance's failure in its efforts to gain political control of the Alabama political machinery and control of the party convention of 1890.

Another convention, the second in chronology, was to be as influential in many respects as the first and

the policies of the Alabama Alliance being dominated largely from without and by the officers and policies of the National Alliance? 37 Advertiser, Jan. 8, 1890; see J. T. Morgan, "Danger of the Farmers' Alliance," in FORUM, XII, pp. 399-409, Nov., 1891. 38 Advertiser, Jan. 8, 1890.

39 Age-Herald, Jan. 1, 1890.

It was by many regarded as a wholesome sign that the farmers were beginning to manifest such an active interest in governmental affairs. Certainly this offense alone was not sufficient justification for proscribing or reading any one out of the party.

40 DuBose, Article No. 97, in Age-Herald.

although this convention was held after the 1890 elections, it is here discussed because it fits in naturally with the St. Louis convention. During the early part of December, 1890, the National Farmers' Alliance and Industrial Union, with two other organizations, met in its first annual convention at Ocala, Marion county, Florida, Colonel L. L. Polk, presiding. A platform was brought forth here around which the political history of Alabama and the nation revolved for several succeeding years.41 "The Ocala Platform," or "Demands," like the St. Louis platform, contained eight planks, and the two platforms differed in no great respect, other than that the Ocala platform substituted government control for government ownership of railroads, telegraphs, and telephones and demanded tariff revision.42

Some two hundred delegates from "everywhere" attended the convention,43 which was in session a week. The distressing economic conditions of the farmer were discussed, the "Force Bill" denounced, and the Kansas delegates endeavored in vain to launch a third party movement. Southern delegates opposed a break with the old party. The radical "Ocala demands" virtually set the nation on fire during the next few years. They became the test of orthodox Democracy. Aspirants for office had to express their stand upon these demands. Nor indeed were Alliance members a unit on them, and local and state alliances spent the next year endorsing or rejecting the platform of the Florida convention.44

The Alabama State Alliance in annual session at Brundidge endorsed, with one lone dissenting vote, the Ocala platform45 and most of the county alliances took similar action. However, the demands caused a rift in some of the locals. As some put it, the Ocala platform had captured the Alliance and had next gone out to bag the Democratic party. Nearly all Democrats, as W. C. Oates, J. T. Morgan, et al ripped to pieces the subtreasury

41 McVey, Populist Movement, p. 137; Muzzey, United States, 11, p. 232; Arnett, op. cit., pp. 124 ff.

42 McVey, Populist Movement, pp. 137-138; DuBose, Article No. 97; The Ocala Banner, July 1, 1925. (Reprint); Personal letter from F. Harris, Editor, The Ocala Banner, June 20, 1925.

43 Age-Herald, Dec. 24, 1890. Alabama's delegates to Ocala were S. M. Ransom, Opelika; J. S. Jackson, and C. F. Noe.

44 Birmingham News, July 21, 1891; Age-Herald, Nov. 26, 1890; Birmingham News, Nov. 6, 1891; Arnett, loc cit.

45 Advertiser, Aug. 12, 1891; Herald, Nov. 1, 1891.

Advertiser, Aug. 15, 1891; Age

plan and the plan46 for government control or ownership of public utilities. One of the ablest and sanest discussions of the Ocala platform appeared seriatim in the Montgomery Advertiser from the pen of Honorable J. W. Stone, Chief Justice of the State Supreme Court. His exposition was made at the request of General E. W. Pettus, H. C. Tompkins and others. Judge Stone showed the impracticability of some of the "demands," but showed, contrary to newspaper propaganda, that many of them were no nightmares to go crazy over, but were just what many of the foremost Democrats of the United States had always advocated. Just here, in order to show the dynamics of political opinion in a third of a century, it is interesting to quote from Senator John Sharp Williams of Mississippi. No doubt Mr. Williams was in 1890 opposed to the Ocala platform, but in 1923 he said: "The old Ocala platform which the Populist party adopted thirty years ago was an angel of light in comparison with the Norris Bill "for establishing the Farmers' and Consumers' Financing Corporation.

THE EXCITING CAMPAIGN OF 1890.

In the South there was a strong tendency for the new party to work within the old party lines, while in the West it worked mainly outside the older parties and especially against the Republicans.47 In Alabama the Alli

ance, now a political movement, waged its battle of 1890 within the Democratic ranks, but the Democrats split two years later and the independent faction, the "Popocrats, still professing to be Democrats, fought out the campaigns of 1892, 1894, and 1896 under the name of "Jeffersonian Democrats." This was distinctly a Populist movement and they were Populists, though not the officially organized Populist party, the latter being organized and led by "the boy orator," Joel C. Manning.48 The preliminaries to the state convention and campaign of

46 Which seems not to have been discarded, as McVey says. Populist Movement, pp. 138, 142. See also Arnett, Populist Movement in Georgia, p. 124.

47 Appleton, Annual Cyclopedia, 1890, p. 300; Buck, Agrarian Crusade, p. 170; Haynes Third Parties, passim; F. E. Haynes, "The New Sectionalism," in Quart, Jr. Econ., X, p. 271, April, 1896.

48 J. C. DuBose, Alabama, p. 294; see DuBose Article No. 106 in Jones, Scrap Book, 11, p. 20; Advertiser, April 11, 1892; News, April 15, 20, 1892. Two years later, the Populist party was for

1890 were quite in contrast to those of previous years. Public excitement ran higher than at any time since 1874. January 1, 1890 found only two candidates announced for the governorship-Thomas Goode Jones and Reuben Franklin Kolb.49 Jones was regarded as the Advertiser's candidate, the machine candidate a Democrat "without prefix or suffix"; while Kolb as Commissioner of Agriculture was the candidate of the State Alliance-a body corporate whose members were oath bound, all white and virtually all Democrats.50 Not all Alliancemen, however, were for Kolb, and not all Democrats were Alliance members.

In the early part of the year, three other candidates entered the gubernatorial race with much talk of a northern Alabamian for governor. These three men were Judge William Richardson of Huntsville, James Crook, of Anniston, former member of the State Railroad Commission, and Captain Joseph Forney Johnston, Birmingham banker, but formerly of Selma. Many thought the Advertiser would kill off Kolb by its attacks and Jones by its support, and the nomination would then go to some other candidate. There were intimations that with Kolb out of the way political harmony might be restored between white counties and the black belt by conceding the nomination to a candidate from the northern part of the state, "a farmer governor," and thus quash all semblance of a third party.51

The press of the state was somewhat divided, Jones being perhaps the choice of a majority of the editors. The Advertiser was for him, though it refrained from calling his name for quite a while. It waged a daily attack upon Commissioner Kolb, charging that he had used the Alliance for personal, political aggrandizement, that he had not cleared, to the satisfaction of the people, the charge against him to the effect that he had ridden on free railroad passes and charged the same to the state. On Kolb's side soon entered the brilliant, yet erratic,

mally launched at Ashland, Clay county, April 10, 1892, by J. C. Manning.

49 For sketches of Kolb and Jones, see Owen, Dictionary of Alabama Biography and Brant and Fuller Memorial Record of Alabama.

50 DuBose, Articles Nos. 82 and 84; Advertiser, May 18, 1889 and Jan. 24, 1890. Brown, Alabama, p. 307.

51 Advertiser, Feb. 7, 1890; Brown, Alabama, pp. 306-7; J. C. DuBose, Alabama, p. 293.

Frank Baltzell as editor of the Alliance Herald of Montgomery.52 Kolb was the only Alliance candidate, and as such the only one who could boldly advocate the Alliance propaganda.58 He was busy with his institutes among the farmers, and from the outset "had so conducted the office as to rally the farmers around him." It early became evident that the only chance to beat Kolb was to put out favorite sons from several parts of the state to draw votes from him, and then to merge these forces.54

The state convention was set by the executive committee for May 28, in Montgomery, and was to have 541 delegates.55 For a clear understanding of the personnel of the convention, as well as the methods of election of delegates, especially since there was complaint against the convention system, it is necessary to trace somewhat in detail the beat and county elections. In the latter part of January, 1890, the counties began to select their quota of delegates to the state convention. Beat primaries in which county delegates were elected and county primaries or conventions which named delegates to the state cenvention was the usual method of procedure. Some counties followed the unit rule, others divided their delegation.56

The first shot was fired by Blount, a rural, hill county in the north central section of the state. The convention instructed its delegates for Judge Richardson of Madison county.57 This action was immediately denounced by Kolb who claimed Richardson's nomination impossible, and that Blount's action was tantamount to Kolb's support. Dallas, a black-belt county, followed next, with a primary, instructing a solid delegation for her former son, Captain J. F. Johnston. The Jefferson county primary went for Johnston, the county vote going largely for Kolb and the city vote for Johnston. The Calhoun convention instructed its delegates for James Crook, though the convention was said to be controlled

52 DuBose, Article No. 87 in Jones, V, p. 59; DuBose, Article

No. 88, in Jones, V, p. 61; Advertiser, March 11, 1890.

53 Miller, Alabama, p. 285; Advertiser, Jan. 24, 30, 1890.

54 Jones, Scrap Book, 1, p. 56; Miller, Alabama, p. 284; DuBose, Article No. 95, in Jones, V, p. 65.

55 DuBose, Article No. 88, in Jones V, p. 61.

56 Age-Herald, April 30, 1890.

57 DuBose, Article No. 88.