This Day in Labor History: December 11, 1886. The Colored Farmers Alliance is born in Lovelady, Texas. Let's talk about this critical moment of black rural organizing and the limitations of cross-racial alliances in American history. 
The Farmers Alliance itself was an organization formed to speak to the very real concerns of increasing poverty and economic marginalization of southern farmers within the burgeoning industrial capitalist world. But of course real integration was not going to happen.
The reality of segregation and racism is the reality of American history. There's no getting around this fact. Any analysis of American history that does not center race is not a correct analysis. Period.
The Farmers Alliance is an interesting organization in its own right, a strategy created by southern economic radicals that would bridge away from the Democratic Party and toward a “third party of the industrial millions” through cooperative strategies.
As the white radicals knew, black farmers were as interested in these ideas as they were. Beginning in December 1886, black organizations began forming under the name the Colored Farmers Alliance to argue for black rights within the larger Alliance movement.
Interestingly, while 16 of the people at the Lovelady gathering, including the nominal president, were African-American, the 17th attendee was ex-Confederate officer R.M. Humphrey.
It was on Humphrey’s farm where the meeting took place and Humphrey would serve as the national spokesman for the organization despite his race.
Humphrey was an interesting guy. He seems to have started the Colored Farmers Alliance as a way to propel him into Congress. In a majority black district where voter suppression hadn’t taken place yet, he used the organization in its first two years as his own political machine.
But when he lost his bid in 1888, rather than give up, he actually committed himself to building it as a legitimate group to fight for black labor rights.
Organizers moved across the South, organizing African-Americans for higher crop prices, lower railroad rates, and other policies that would help the sharecroppers and small land owners who found themselves increasingly squeezed by capitalism.
While all small southern farmers had problems in the late 19th century, black farmers had it worse. Both races had much in common: the crop lien, the inability to finance your own crop without going into debt, the desire to control your own labor and livelihood.
Both had similar goals–a flexible currency, higher commodity prices, railroad regulation, etc. But black labor was also caught in the racial realities of their day. The sheer existence of independent black labor was an affront to the southern society of the Gilded Age.
Only 20 years after the end of the Civil War, much of the white supremacist violence used against African-Americans was about tying labor in place–powerless, cheap, and controllable.
What African-Americans understood, as the great historian of Populism Lawrence Goodwyn tells it, was that neither the capitalists nor the white Populists had any real capacity to question their own position in the racial caste system.
African-Americans knew that an economic answer to the problems of independent farm labor was not enough for they also were stuck in a lower caste.
The response of elite whites to the Colored Farmers Alliance was one of disdain. Race baiting proved an effective method to undermine the burgeoning and always uncomfortable alliance between whites and blacks.
The Montgomery Advertiser wrote that “the white people don’t want any more Negro influence in their affairs than they already have, and they won’t have it.”
Given the hostility of powerful whites, Colored Farmers Alliance organizers worked quietly, without the fanfare and open political organizing of the white Alliances. It worked not unlike the beginnings of a labor union or the civil rights movement in the 1950s.
They found local leaders and tried to cultivate that leadership into something more. Because they worked so secretively, even a historian of Goodwyn’s preeminence admits that he can’t find much about their day to day actions.
We know that the organization did engage in public political activities such as the Ocala Convention of 1890 and the founding of the People’s Party in 1892, but other than that, it’s hard to know. Still, by 1890, the organization at least claimed to have 1.2 million members.
Part of this was absorbing other populist-related black organizations such as the black versions of the Agricultural Wheel, providing more evidence to the very real efforts of black farmers to stand up for their economic and political rights.
In 1891, it attempted to institute a strike to raise the price of cotton, but the CFA simply did not have the power to pull such an event off and it failed.
While some Alliance leaders talked a good game of racial cooperation in the 1880s and early 1890s, the tolerance of any southern white for black participation in the political process and economic discourse was limited.
Tom Watson may have started his career touting racial cooperation, but he quickly moved to the worst kind of race-baiting white supremacist. The two Alliance organizations split over the issue of an introduced bill in Congress to provide federal supervision of southern elections.
The Colored Alliance supported the protection of black voting rights wholeheartedly while the white Alliance turned toward white supremacy and the rejection of policies they associated with Reconstruction.
Moreover, Goodwyn argues that white supremacy made the real sustenance of the Colored Alliances impossible to maintain because without public acts in the political process, no meaningful movement culture could develop.
And public political acts was a good way to get yourself lynched or otherwise murdered at this time, often with white Farmers Alliances participating in the violence.
In the end, the significance of the Colored Farmers Alliance from a labor perspective is that it served as an organization that tried to hold on to the fading independence of a black farm labor.
For sharecroppers, which made up a significant percentage of the membership of both Alliances, the organization was the one possibility of fighting for policies that would help their lives.
Being independent of white labor domination was at the core of rejecting slavery and its near-imitations that eventually reclaimed much of southern black labor.
In terms of thinking about these issues today, for people who would rather talk about class than race, you can squint and find cross-racial alliances like this, but you can also actually open your eyes all the way and see their extreme limitations.
Race simply has to be at the center of our labor history. There's no way around it. "Class not Race" is simply not a legitimate way to understand American history and American society. It's a seemingly intentional way to not understand it.
Back on Friday with a discussion of the full employment legislation at the end of World War II.
