Preface to The Climax of Populism - Robert Durden

Seldom in American history has a third political party had such impact on contemporary events and been the object of such continuing interest among historians as the People's party, or Populists, of the 1890's. The colorful characteristics of some of the leaders of the party--largely an agrarian one--are by no means the sole reason for the continuing attention the party receives. Although the flamboyance and eccentricity of a few "Pops" caused conservatives at the time, and some historians since, to ridicule them as provincial cranks, by no means all of the Populist leaders were "sockless," as an enemy dubbed Congressman Jerry Simpson of Kansas. 
A young Populist leader and United States Senator from North Carolina, Marion Butler, played a central role in the political events of 1896. Although he certainly had a farm background, as did well over half of the American people at the time, Butler was graduated from the University of North Carolina. And he was, like many of his coworkers in the People's party, an educated man of considerable dignity and polish. 
Not their alleged eccentricities then, but the reform ideas and efforts of the Populists account for their lasting importance. Their demands foreshadowed a considerable part of the achievements of the Progressives and New Dealers in the twentieth century. In their own time, the Populists exerted great influence not only in the southern and western states where they were strongest but also on the political life of the nation as a whole. [vii]

~key~
The purpose of this book, then, is to show first that the Populists were not tricked into naming Bryan as their candidate and that there was no "conspiracy" at the St. Louis convention. Rather, the Populists' nomination of the Nebraskan Democrat was not only consistent with their principles but was essential if the party was to remain national in scope. In the campaign itself, despite embarrassment caused by Tom Watson, who had allowed himself to be sadly miscast in the political drama, the national leaders of the Populists worked out a largely effective policy policy of electoral-ticket fusion with the Democrats. And this policy made possible both the preservation of the Populist national and state organizations and the participation by the Populists in the great allied effort for Bryan and national reforms. The year 1896, in short, saw the climax of Populism, the time of its greatest significance in American history. [ix]

That MicKinley and the status quo triumphed over Bryan [ix] and reform was not because of any failure of the Populists. They, together with their political allies for silver, concentrated their efforts in the campaign on the farmers and industrial workers in the pivotal north central states. And there, through circumstances largely beyond the control of the reform parties, the reformers lost their first great bid for progressive change. [x]

Mostly farmers, the Populists were not spokesmen for a static society, nor were they opposing and fleeing from the industrial future of the nature. They sought rather to capture federal power and use it both negatively to end economic abuses that had flourished since the Civil War and positively to improve the lot of the farmers and industrial workers of the land. The Populists failed in 1896--but their failure was by no means ignominious, and in one sense they triumphed at a later day when their reforms were introduced under other auspices and the "Pops" had become but a fading memory. 
Perhaps two other points should be made here about the intensely human and political story that follows. First, political "spoils" in the form of salaried offices, high and low, did play a large part in the politics of the 1890's, larger perhaps than is true of our own prosperous day. This fact was true of the Populists just as it was of the Democrats and Republicans, and it did not mean that Americans were then more venal or selfish. The reason was simple: the depression that began in 1893 was merely the lowest point in a deflationary cycle that reached far back into the Gilded Age. Incredibly low farm prices, unemployment, and grinding poverty made many men desperate for an office--almost any office--that paid a fixed salary in an era when the dollar grew scarcer as its purchasing power increased. 
Secondly, the truism that ours is a federal system of politics as well as of government needs repeating in advance. The Populists' struggles to reconcile their conflicting sectional [x] interests with their national organization and policies led to an amazing complexity in the election of 1896. Indeed, the infinite variety of politics in the United States has never been more strikingly demonstrated. The reader who remembers that American political parties are not and have never been primarily concerned about their ideological purity and that they are composed of many state and sectional units rather than being national monoliths will appreciate rather than deplore some of the aspects of the climactic struggle of the Populists. [xi]