John D. Hicks was a member of the history department at Berkeley for thirty years. He was the Morrison Professor of American history from 1942 until 1957, when he became Morrison Professor Emeritus.
This was one of my favorite books. A correspondent in Russia dialogued with me about this book, and I finally sent him my copy. Fortunately, I found a replacement. I also bought Hicks' general history of the U.S.
"The Populist Revolt" is rich in information, detailed to the point of intimidation. But it is the very details, along with the straight-forward writing style, and of course the author's perspective, that made this book such a favorite with me.
Hicks covers the rise and glory of Populism, which means also the beginnings of labor parties and farmers' parties even before the Civil War (War of Southern Independence). The central time period for the peak of populist sentiments, unfortunately (or fortunately?) divided among several political parties, ranges from the 1880s to the 1990s.
After reading this book in 1980, I realized that Professor Hicks had persuaded me, whether that was his intention or not, that I was a Populist at heart. (I have since then further evolved my political views.)
For a person taking even a simply survey course of U.S. history, such as American colleges generally require (or, sadly, once required but today do not), this book will give such a more colorful, exciting picture of that era. I truly believe this book should be required reading in American history courses.
With all the talk of the "Populist" appeal of Sarah Palin and Mike Huckabee, one should read a little bit about the original.
This is the standard history of the movement. It shows the strength of racism over common economic interest with the inability of the mid-Western and Southern White farmers to get together when the southerners were totally paranoid that the black farmers might get something out of it. The current "populism" continues the exclusion of black Americans.
The other major difference between then and now is the anti-government attacks of the modern "populists."
The classic history of the American Populist movement, the only thing wrong with Hicks' comprehensive treatment of the People's Party and its actors is that its breadth is almost too broad. Hicks is unable to devote space to any African-American Populists, the women of the Populist movement, or much to anything other than a quick treatment of the economic ills facing American society that led to the Populist movement, a political history of its existence, and a quick history of its downfall. Hicks' historiography, although relying upon Frederick Turner, can and must be the foundation (along with more recent scholarship) of a progressive history of the People's Party as a working-class movement in United States history.