Civil War and Reconstruction in Alabama

by Walter L. Fleming

In spite of efforts to keep the question in the background, the social equality of the negro race was demanded by one or two irrepressible Mobile mulattoes, and a discussion was precipitated. The scalawags with few exceptions were opposed to admitting negroes to the same privileges as whites,—in theatres, churches, on railroads and boats, and at hotels,—though they were willing to require equal but separate accommodations for both races. Semple reported from his committee an ordinance requiring equal and separate accommodations, but declared that equality of civil rights was not affected by such a measure. By a vote of 32 to 46 this measure failed to pass.[1432] Griffin[1433] (white) of Ohio briefly attacked Semple for proposing such an iniquitous measure. McLeod (negro) said he did not exactly want social equality, and added “suppose one of you white gentlemen want a negro in the same car with you. The conductor would not allow it. This should be changed.” Caraway (negro) objected to having his wife travel in the coach with low and obscene white men. Jim Green (negro) said it was a “common thing to put cullud folks in de same cyar wid drunk and low white folks. We want nebber be subjic to no sich disgrace,” but wanted to be allowed to go among decent white people. Gregory (negro) made some scathing observations at the expense of Semple and his associates, who were hoping to make political use of the negro, yet did not want to ride in the same car with him. How could the delegates, he said, go home to their constituents, nineteen-twentieths of whom were negroes, after voting against their enjoying the same rights as the whites? Did Semple feel polluted by sitting by Finley, his colored colleague? Why then should he object to sitting in the same car with him? He (Gregory) was as good a man as Napoleon on his throne, and could not be honored by sitting by a white man, but “in de ole worl de cullud folks ride wid de whites” and so it should be here. Rapier (negro) of Canada said that the manner in which colored gentlemen and ladies were treated in America was beyond his comprehension. He (Rapier) had dined with lords in his lifetime, and though he did not feel flattered by sitting by a white man, yet he would vote for social equality. Some of the negroes feebly opposed the agitation of the question on the ground that the civil and political rights of the negro were not yet safe and should not be endangered by the agitation of the social question. Griffin of Ohio and Keffer of Pennsylvania supported the negroes in all their demands. The carpet-baggers in general were in favor of social equality, but most of them thought it much more important that the spoils be secured first. The negroes were placated with numerous promises and by a special resolution opening the galleries to “their ladies” and inviting the latter to be present[1434] at the sessions of the convention.

Debates on Disfranchisement

The debates on the question of suffrage were the most extended and showed the most violent spirit on the part of most of the members. Dustan of Iowa proposed that the new constitution should in no degree be proscriptive, but his resolution was voted down by a vote of 30 to 51. Some of the negroes voted for it.[1435] Rapier (negro) proposed that the convention memorialize Congress to remove the political disabilities of those who might aid in reconstruction according to the plan of Congress. This was adopted and Griffin, the most radical member of the committee, was made chairman to make merciful recommendations. Gardner of Massachusetts, representing Butler County, said that there were persons in the state who should have been tried and convicted of felony and would thus have been disfranchised, but owing to fault of courts and juries they were not convicted. He wanted a special commission to disfranchise such persons. The majority report on the franchise[1436] called for the disfranchisement of those who had mistreated Union prisoners, those who were disfranchised by the Reconstruction Acts, and those who had registered under the acts and had later refrained from voting. Such persons were not to be allowed to vote, register, or hold office. An oath was to be taken repudiating belief in the doctrine of secession, accepting the civil and political equality of all men, and agreeing never to attempt to limit the suffrage. “The only question is,” they reported, “whether we have not been too liberal.” It was necessary that all who registered be forced to vote in the election on pain of being disfranchised, in order to get a sufficient number of voters to the polls, though the report stated that Congress was not bound by the law of March 23 to reject the constitution if a majority did not vote; the convention had the right to say that men must vote or be disfranchised; as to the oath, any one who would refuse to take it had no faith in American principles and was hostile to the Constitution and laws of the United States.[1437]

The minority report[1438] objected to going beyond the acts of Congress in disfranchising whites. Lee (negro) said that such a course would endanger the ratification of the constitution and if the negroes did not get their rights now, they would never get them. He wanted his rights at the court-house and at the polls and nothing more. Charity and moderation would be better than proscription.[1439] Speed said that the measure would disfranchise from 30,000 to 40,000 men beyond the acts of Congress.[1440] Griffin of Ohio, speaking in favor of the majority report, said that “the infernal rebels had acted like devils turned loose from hell,” and that his party could not stand against them in a fair political field; and therefore proscription was necessary. Another advocate of sweeping disfranchisement wanted all the leading whites disfranchised until 1875, in order to prevent them from regaining control of the government.[1441]

Numerous amendments were offered to the majority report. Haughey of Scotland wanted to disfranchise all Confederates above the rank of captain, and all who had held any civil office anywhere, or who had voted for secession. A stringent test oath was to discover the disabilities of would-be electors. Again, he wanted every elector to prove that on November 1, 1867, he was a friend of the Reconstruction Acts. He would have voters and office-holders swear to accept the civil and political equality of all men, and to resist any change, and also swear that they had never held office, aided the Confederacy, nor given aid or comfort to Confederates.[1442] Nearly all the amendments included a provision forcing the voter or office-holder to accept the political and civil equality of all men, and to swear never to change. Springfield of St. Clair thought that all who were opposed to Reconstruction should be disfranchised, and Russell of Barbour, with Applegate of Wisconsin, held that all Confederates should be disfranchised who had voluntarily aided the Confederacy.[1443]

D. H. Bingham of New York thought that voters should swear that on March 4, 1864, they preferred the United States government to the Confederacy, and would have abandoned the latter had they had the opportunity.[1444] Applegate thought that no citizen, officer, or editor who opposed congressional Reconstruction ought to be permitted to vote before 1875.[1445] Silsby of Iowa would also exclude from the suffrage those who had killed negroes during the last two years, who opposed Reconstruction, or dissuaded others from attending the election.[1446] Garrison of Blount wanted to disfranchise those who were in the convention of 1861 and voted for secession, Confederate members of Congress who voted for the conscription law, those disfranchised by the Reconstruction Acts, Confederates above the rank of captain, and state and Confederate officials of every kind above justice of the peace and bailiff.[1447] Skinner of Franklin wanted to disfranchise enough rebels to hold the balance of power. “We have the rod over their heads and intend to keep it there.”[1448] The most liberal amendments were proposed by Peters of Lawrence, who would continue the disfranchisement made by Congress unless the would-be voter would swear that he was in favor of congressional Reconstruction. Rapier (negro) would have all disabilities removed by the state as soon as they were removed by Congress.[1449] The price of pardon in all ordinary cases was support of congressional Reconstruction.

The debate lasted for four days, and it was all that Swayne could do to prevent a division in the Radical party. An agent was sent to Washington for instructions. The violent character of the proceedings of the convention made the northern friends of Reconstruction nervous, and Horace Greeley persuaded Senator Wilson to exert his influence to prevent the adoption of extreme measures by the convention. Wilson wrote to Swayne that the convention and especially such men as D. H. Bingham were doing much harm to Reconstruction and to the Republican party. The northern Republican press generally seemed afraid of the action of the convention, and suggested more liberal measures. So we find Pope and Swayne advocating moderation.[1450] Peck, the president of the convention, still spoke out for the test oath and disfranchisement. It was necessary to secure the fruits of Reconstruction, and the test oath would keep out many; but, he said, if the old leaders, who were honorable men, should take the oath, they would abide by it,[1451] and Reconstruction would then be safe. The oath finally adopted, which had to be taken by all who would vote or hold office, was the usual oath to support the Constitution and laws with the following additions: “I accept the civil and political equality of all men; and agree not to attempt to deprive any person or persons, on account of race, color or previous condition, of any political or civil right, privilege or immunity, enjoyed by any other class of men; and furthermore, that I will not in any way injure or countenance in others any attempt to injure any person or persons on account of past or present support of the government of the United States, the laws of the United States, or the principles of the political and civil equality of all men, or for affiliation with any political party.”[1452] It was finally settled that in addition to those disfranchised by the Reconstruction Acts others should be excluded for violation of the rules of war.[1453] They could neither register, vote, nor hold office until relieved by the vote of the general assembly for aiding in Reconstruction, and until they had accepted the political equality of all men.[1454] It was estimated that the suffrage clause would disfranchise from voting or holding office 40,000 white men. The oath was likely to exclude still more. Bingham thought the oath as adopted was a back-down, and demanded the iron-clad oath. The committee on the franchise wanted to prohibit the legislature from enfranchising any person unless he had aided in Reconstruction.[1455]

Legislation by the Convention

The convention organized a new militia system, giving most of the companies to the black counties. All officers were to be loyal to the United States, that is, they were to be reconstructionists. No one who was disfranchised could enlist. The proceeds of the sale of contraband and captured property taken by the militia were to be used in its support.[1456] Stay laws were enacted to go into force with the adoption of the constitution, also exemption laws which exempted from sale for debt more property than nineteen-twentieths of the people possessed.[1457] The war debt of Alabama was again declared void, and the ordinance of secession stigmatized as “unconstitutional, null and void.”[1458] Contracts made during the war, when the consideration was Confederate money, were declared null and void at the option of either party, as were also notes payable in Confederate money and debts made for slaves. Bingham forced through an ordinance providing for a new settlement in United States currency of trust estates settled during the war in Confederate securities.[1459] Judicial decisions in aid of the war were declared void. Defendants in civil cases against whom judgment was rendered during the war were entitled to a revision or to a new trial.[1460]

The negroes were complaining about the cotton tax, and a memorial was addressed to Congress, asking for its repeal on the ground that when the tax was imposed the state had no voice in the government; that it was oppressive, amounting to 20 per cent of the gross value of the cotton crop, and fell heavily on the negroes, who were the principal producers; that for two years the tax had made cotton cultivation unprofitable, and had driven away capital.[1461]