y part of movements distinctly western) it was unable to survive into the next century. The movement, trounced in the national elections of 1896, has created a problem of interpretation for historians. Were the Populists co-opted like many third parties? Or, alternatively, did they die an ignominious death, unable to expand their western and southern base to include the numerous workers of the north? History is unlimited in its ability to ask questions, of course, but limited by its complexity and contradictions to come up with answers. The rest of this paper will attempt to answer the riddle that is the Populist movement. It goes to the heart of the change in America that is so much a part of this course and Americas past. As America grew, it turns out, the social, economic, and political pressure was too much for the agricultural sector in the west and the south. The west in later years like the Dust Bowl of the Depression, would travel even farther west in search of the American dream; the south, likewise, especially the blacks of Louisiana, Texas, and Oklahoma, would venture west later, finally settling in places like Central Avenue in LA, or the banks of the Bay in west Oakland. But before all of that, the Populists drew a line in the proverbial sand and stood up and fought for their beliefs. The Populist agenda was not revolutionary in the traditional sense. Far from desiring the abolition of the compact of 1789, the Populists sought instead to facilitate a more direct democracy at the federal level. They demanded that US senators be selected by the people and not by the once removed method of selection by state legislatures. Furthermore, they demanded a secret ballot to counter balance the northern machines, arguable their natural allies, and supported universal suffrage for women. All of these political concerns were ultimately met, and, to my point, place the Populists squarely in the century they never entered, not ...
