The Wool-Hat Boys: Georgia's Populist Party

by Barton C. Shaw

extremely rare,very good condition

231 pages, Hardcover

First published June 1, 1984

Reviews

[David · Rating 3 out of 5]

Very good in demonstrating the opportunism of the Georgian Populist Party, particularly pushing back on the myth of the Georgia Populists as attempting a multiracial coalition along the same veins of the North Carolina Populist-Republicans when in fact they were ready to deploy racial demagoguery such as quickly and with more violence than Democratic machines—as depressing as that conclusion is for radical coalition-building in the South.

Shaw makes the interesting point that the Georgian Populist Party was nearly identical to the Democrats once they entered the legislature, as the Democrats were controlled by the reform element by that point. The Populists continued to survive until 1900 almost entirely on Watson's personal charisma and the 10th District's anti-Bourbon neo-Confederate legacy alone.

[Will · Rating 3 out of 5]

By focusing on the Populist movement in a single state, Shaw is able to analyze the Populist movement closer than many of the national or regional studies. This approach allows him to push back on some of the generalizations widely accepted. For example, the Georgia movement was not concentrated in regions which were predominately white, economically devastated, or influenced by the Farmer's Alliance. Instead, he traces the movement to regions with a history of opposition to the Democratic Party. While this is an important conclusion, it is unclear what it tells us about the Populist movement more broadly. Too often, the book fails to put the Georgia movement in a national context. As a history of a failed political party, it is effective; as a contribution to our understanding of Populism writ large, it largely fails.
Shaw has clearly spent a great deal of time in the archives, and he uses newspapers and letters very effectively. However, for a political history, he too often neglects election returns as a key piece of evidence. Election returns, particularly at the county level, would be useful for understanding better how Populist strength varied across the state and across time. Collecting this data and running regressions with it could more effectively test how various factors relate to Populist support, rather than his hand-waving discussion of the causes. Ultimately, the book raises more questions than it answers.