Holloway 1
Amanda Holloway
Writing and Culture 015-17
16 Dec. 2015
Rising Against Adversity: The Colored Farmers’ Alliance
At the country’s inception, Founding Father Thomas Jefferson believed that every man was entitled to a piece of land (Krall 131). Such ideals came to underlie much of the American Dream. Thus In the late nineteenth century, many Americans moved out of the East coast to settle and make their mark on the land. People were looking for an alternative to laboring in the oppressive industrial factories that permeated the East coast. Americans were looking for a way to make their own mark and shape their own destiny. Yet, in a time of powerful manufacturers and banks, few small farmers were able to fully realize this dream. According to Omar Ali’s book, In the Lion’s Mouth, most farmers at the time were “poverty stricken and indebted.” (3) Especially in the South, as Jessica Nembhard points out in Collective Courage, farmers were suffering from rising cost of farming equipment, falling prices of cotton, and rural isolation (53). Many farmers blamed their misfortune on competitive railroads and grain elevators that used farmers to monopolize the agricultural industry. Furthermore, neither the Democratic nor the Republican party were concerned with struggling farmers (Ali 23).
In light of this, indebted farmers united to create their own populist parties, like the Grange and Southern Alliance, to advocate for socialist reforms like a graduated income tax and government ownership of railroads (29). But despite such radical demands, the Populist movement was largely white, and wanted to remain so. In spite of the movement’s blatant discrimination, however, black farmers were inspired rather than deterred and created their own populist movement. But for the very reasons that kept them from participating in the mainstream populist movement, the black populist movement was short-lived.
Southern black farmers were facing the same problems as their white counterparts, as well as stubborn and profound problems of racial discrimination. When Reconstruction ended in 1877, most of the progress made during the decade-long era reverted back to antebellum ways. After the civil war, “confiscated land had been placed back into the hands of wealthier white southerners” and newly freed blacks were relegated as sharecroppers for the white planters. In their article, “We didn’t get Nothing’ : The Plight of Black Farmers,” Waymon Hinson and Edward Robinson compares this “iniquitous system” to slavery (288). In fact black sharecroppers were so impoverished that in his article, “The Leflore County Massacre and the Demise of the Colored Farmers’ Alliances,” William Holmes even compares them to the “peasant classes” in nineteenth century Europe (268). Needless to say, black farmers needed representation too.
But most populist parties refused to work with black farmers, and the few that did only accepted their support and did not acknowledge the issues specific to black farmers. In his article, “Agrarian Socialism and the Negro in Oklahoma,” H.L. Meredith cites the Oklahoma Socialist Party, in particular, who enlisted the help of blacks, and even “endorse Negro suffrage” as a way to gain state political power (280). At the same time he notes that not all party members, particularly low-level leaders, were supportive of racial justice and were content that “the Negro could never expect equality with the white element” (282). Mainstream populist movements used black farmers as a means to achieve their own goals but were unwilling to reciprocate the support for struggles specific to blacks. Thus, black farmers could not rely on already established programs to support them in their fight for full economic independence.
Undeterred, blacks farmers created their own alliance to achieve economic independence. The largest and most influential group to arise from the black populist movement was the Colored Farmers Alliance (CFA). The Colored Farmers Alliance was founded on December 11, 1886, by sixteen African-American men and one white man in Houston County, Texas (Ali 48). The sixteen black delegates consisted of farmers and clergyman, while the only white delegate, Richard M. Humphrey, a Baptist preacher and a farmer himself, served as the organization’s spokesperson (49).
The CFA’s expansive and hierarchical structure demonstrates its widespread influence in the southern black agrarian community. The CFA engulfed other “black focused agrarian organizations” like the Colored Agricultural Workers, the Knights of Labor, and the Cooperative Workers of America” (Nembhard 55). By 1891, the CFA boasted over a million members (55). Although actual records estimate there were only a half million members, the CFA was undoubtedly the largest Black organization of its time (55). Most of the local leaders were black while the state superintendents were white (55). The superintendents’ role was “to expand the organization” and report to the “general superintendent who was elected by the national trustees of the Colored Alliance” (IAli 51). There was a hierarchy of alliances within each state and delegates from subordinate alliances were sent to national meetings so national leaders to be attuned with issues at the local level (51).
Ironically and perhaps unfortunately, the CFA depended on the political and social status of whites leadership to gain credibility. Humphrey was chosen as the spokesperson because of “confidence [among African-Americans] in him as a friend of the race” (49). Humphrey served as a necessary liaison with the Southern Alliance and the state governments. Furthermore, white leadership conciliated local whites’ fears and suspicious of the black organization. As Nembhard explains, the white leadership allowed blacks “to organize openly” where they would might have faced attack from local whites (56).
Despite Humphrey and other whites’ leading role in the CFA, Ali contends that blacks did the “lion’s share” of expanding the movement and recruiting new members (59). Churches were the crux of the black community and helped the growth and reputation of the CFA. CFA organizers often “convened in black churches,” where each meeting “began with a minister leading a prayer” and “displayed on a nearby table were ‘a Bible, a copy of the Declaration of Independence” (Meredith 192). As Ali describes, “Black Baptist and Methodist churches dotted the landscape and served as centers for cultivation of black leadership” (In the Lion’s Mouth 60). Furthermore, black churches also served as a safe house to appease local whites who were suspicious of the CFA.
Newsletters were used to publicize the CFA and inform members on the alliance’s new initiatives. Although newsletters “were often read aloud to reach large numbers of people, many of whom were illiterate,” they were nevertheless offered useful information for the isolated, disadvantaged farmers (54). Topics covered complex economic issues and practices including: “issues of taxation, pending legislation, discussion about currency flow…price fixing, inflated interest rates” (54). Newspapers were another effective way to promote the CFA, as papers were passed from home to home and was the topic of discussion.
The CFA’s widespread presence among southern black farmers soon translated into political power. In his article, “Standing Guard at the Door of Liberty: Black Populism in South Carolina, 1886-1895,” Omar Ali notes that George Washington Murray, the South Carolina CFA state lecturer, was elected to U.S. Congress as a Republican in 1893 (198). While in Congress, Murray supported other “Populist-oriented” congressmen, spoke out against corporate interest, and the systematic disenfranchisement of blacks in the south (In the Lion’s Mouth 128).
Even though the Murray was a Republican, historians still debate about where the CFA falls on the political spectrum. Some historians, like Holmes, contend that the CFA was a “conservative group,” that advocated self-help (Leflore Country Massacre 268). The CFA taught members farming techniques and encouraged them to “purchase their own land and homes, and improve their education” (Nembhard 56). Some CFA branches established exchanges, “cooperative stores/warehouses and credit outlets,” along the ports in Norfolk, Charleston, Mobile, New Orleans, and Houston allowed for “large-scale purchases and sale of staple crops” (In the Lion’s Mouth 52). The CFA even promoted collectivization, an ambitious socialist system where land is own by a group (Nemhard 56). The CFA’s emphasis on group effort was praised by great leaders like Booker T. Washington, founder of the Tuskegee Institute, who believed that “the more land African-Americans owned and cultivated the sooner they would get their rights.” (Hinson et. al 288).
Moreover, some historians even see the CFA as an “appendage” to the Southern Alliance whose main purpose was to support the initiatives of the all-white alliance (Leflore Country Massacre 269). Holmes notes that both organizations protested similar issues such as the Louisiana Lottery which left many farmers in debt (269). The CFA even “supported the Southern Alliance’s subtreasury plan” that would create low-interest loans for farmers in 1890 (269). Despite common goals, the Southern Alliance often objected to CFA concerns that strayed too far from the mainstream Populist platform. For instance, when the CFA organized a strike for cotton pickers in 1891, a job relegated to blacks, the Southern Alliance vehemently opposed it (269). When the CFA supported the Lodge Bill, which would enfranchise blacks, the Southern Alliance denounced it (269).
Because of such instances, some historians, like Nembhard, characterize the CFA’s platform as militant, particularly with regard to issues that affected the black community. The organization called for more federal regulation including, “credit and educational assistance to regulation of monopolistic businesses and election oversight” (50). The CFA also protested the convict-lease system. This system was both a highly profitable and abusive system that allowed planters and other employers to buy labor, most of whom who were disproportionately black men incarcerated for petty crimes (50). Although this issue was not specific to black farmers, this system was a point of contention in the black community and was a major obstacle for blacks to be independent. The alliance was staunch in their demands and often boycotted stores owned by planters and allied merchants (56). Such protest proved the CFA’s strong influence in the southern black agrarian community.
Despite this strong hold, internal conflicts between the white and black leaders in the CFA were frequent and ultimately contributed to the demise of the alliance. According to Holmes, Humphrey was “not attuned to the demands of Black constituents” (The Demise of the Colored Farmers’ Alliance 189). In one incident, Humphrey told a local reporter that the Lodge Bill, which would protect black votes, was “unnecessary,” unaware himself that the CFA strongly supported the bill (190). Humphrey’s paternalistic attitude also caused him to overreach his duty as the representative and tried to “impose his own policies” (190). Such was the case in 1891, when the CFA Virginia state convention elected a black man named William Warwick as state superintendent. Humphrey and the incumbent, also a white man, opposed the decision and “circulated a petition” among Virginia CFA members against it (190). Similarly, Humphrey casted votes on behalf of the CFA for the St. Louis’ People’s Party in 1892, against black representatives’ wishes (190).
Moreover, disenfranchisement tragically hindered both the alliance’s growth and its ability to fix institutionalized discrimination. Despite the Fifteenth Amendment that gave black men the right to vote, there were many nefarious bureaucratic obstacles prevented black enfranchisement in the South. Local governments used a variety of tactics to prevent blacks from voting such as “election fraud, the selling of votes…literacy tests, the ‘eighth-box law,’ and poll taxes.” (In the Lion’s Mouth 119) Such practices became ingrained in the southern election system as Southern Democrats enforced them to secure political positions and Republicans turned a blind eye. So when Murray went to Congress to protest such tactics, he received little to no support. In 1895, Murray turned to the local level and took a leave of absence from Congress to go back to South Carolina (Standing Guard at the Door of Liberty 202). From there, he planned a campaign to change the state constitution that would allow blacks to vote (202). Yet, when the constitutional convention was held, South Carolina adopted the “Mississippi Plan,” which ensured disenfranchisement for all blacks (202). Without enfranchisement, the CFA was rendered impotent.
Even more detrimental to the CFA’s growth was the tension between the organization and local whites which commonly resulted into violence. Of these terrorist incidents, the most publicized was the Leflore Massacre. Leflore County was located in Yazoo- Mississippi Delta region that consisted of mainly “plantations and small trading centers,” where blacks drastically outnumbered whites (The Leflore County Massacre 270). In the summer of 1889, a black man by the name of Oliver Cromwell started to organize a CFA chapter in Leflore (270). According to Holmes, Cromwell traveled to different plantations promoting the CFA in his charismatic speeches, and allegedly encouraged blacks to stop doing business with local merchants (270). Obviously, this upset many local merchants who were losing black business and more importantly, it threatened the control of the white supremacy that had reigned in the region.
In response, the local whites tried to diminish Cromwell’s influence in Leflore. Rumors began to spread that Cromwell was an ex-convict who used “membership dues for his own enjoyment” (271). Tensions further heightened when Cromwell gave a speech at Shell Mound in a militaristic tone (271). Fearing an imminent race war, Mississippi Governor Lowry sent the National Guard to Leflore County (271). Within the four days of the National Guards’ arrival, the posse invaded and terrorized the blacks. Although Cromwell managed to escape the massacre, blacks in the area “were shot down like dogs” and the Guards invaded homes and killed women and children (271). In the end, an estimated 25 blacks were killed (271).
The Lelflore Country Massacre marked the demise of the CFA. After the massacre, white planters resolved to abolish the CFA and ordered local companies “to desist from selling goods or loaning money to the Colored Alliance” (274). Also, many CFA leaders like Cromwell were driven away from the area, and the CFA lacked the direction needed to progress its platform and the black populist movement. CFA member were stigmatized by employers, and many members lost their jobs (Nembhard 58). By 1896, the CFA had dissolved nationwide (57).
In the end, the same racial discrimination that inspired black farmers to start the CFA, proved to be too powerful to overcome and ultimately caused the demise of the organization. The factors that led to the CFA’s downfall show that racism was not only a sentiment felt by southern whites but also a systematic practice that ensured white supremacy and prevented blacks from gaining political, social, and economic independence.