The Populist movement promised to cause a healthy division of the whites into two parties. But the tactics of the national Republican organization in trying to profit by this division, by running in the negroes, resulted in a close reunion of the discordant whites, the Populists furnishing to the reunited party some new principles and many new leaders, while the Democrats furnished the name, traditions, and organization.

To make possible some sort of division and debate among the whites the system of primary elections was adopted. In these elections the whites were able to decide according to the merits of the candidate and the issues involved. The candidate of the whites chosen in the primaries was easily elected. This plan had the merit of placing the real contest among the whites, and there was no danger of race troubles in elections. In the Black Belt the primary system was legalized and served by its regulations to confine the election contests to regularly nominated candidates, and hence to whites, the blacks having lost their organization.

[Larger Image]

The Fourteenth and Fifteenth amendments in their operation gave undue political influence to the whites of the Black Belt, and this was opposed by whites of other districts. It also resulted in serious corruption in elections. There was always danger in the Black Belt that the Republicans, taking advantage of divisions among the whites, would run in the negroes again. There were instances when the whites simply counted out the negro vote or used “shotgun” methods to prevent a return to the intolerable conditions of Reconstruction. The people grew weary of the eternal “negro in the woodpile,” and a demand arose for a revision of the constitution in order to eliminate the mass of the negro voters, to do away with corruption in the elections and to leave the whites free. The conservative leaders, like Governors Jones and Oates, were rather opposed to a disfranchising movement. The Black Belt whites were somewhat doubtful, but the mass of the whites were determined, and the work was done; the stamp of legality was thus placed upon the long-finished work of necessity, and the “white man’s movement” had reached its logical end.[2166]

The mistakes and failures of Reconstruction are clear to all. Whether any successes were achieved by the Congressional plan has been a matter for debate. It has been strongly asserted that Reconstruction, though failing in many important particulars, succeeded in others. The successes claimed may be summarized as follows: (1) there was no more legislation for the negro similar to that of 1865-66, that following the Reconstruction being “infinitely milder”; (2) Reconstruction gave the negroes a civil status that a century of “restoration” would not have accomplished, for though the right to vote is a nullity, other undisputed rights of the black are due to the Reconstruction; the unchangeable organic laws of the state and of the United States favor negro suffrage, which will come the sooner for being thus theoretically made possible; (3) Reconstruction prevented the southern leaders from returning to Washington as irreconcilables, and gave them troubles enough to keep them busy until a new generation grew up which accepted the results of war; (4) by organizing the blacks it made them independent of white control in politics; (5) it gave the negro an independent church; (6) it gave the negro a right to education and gave to both races the public school system; (7) it made the negro economically free and showed that free labor was better than slave labor; (8) it destroyed the former leaders of the whites and “freed them from the baleful influence of old political leaders”; in general, as Sumner said, the ballot to the negro was “a peacemaker, a schoolmaster, a protector,” soon making him a fairly good citizen, and secured peace and order—the “political hell” through which the whites passed being a necessary discipline which secured the greatest good to the greatest number.[2167]

On the other hand, it may be maintained (1) that the intent of the legislation of 1865-1866 has been entirely misunderstood, that it was intended on the whole for the benefit of the negro as well as of the white, and that it has been left permanently off the statute book, not because the whites have been taught better by Reconstruction, but because of the amendments which prohibit in theory what has all along been practised (hence the gross abuses of peonage); (2) that the theoretical rights of the negro have been no inducement to grant him actual privileges, and that these theoretical rights have not proven so permanent as was supposed before the disfranchising movement spread through the South; (3) that the generation after Reconstruction is more irreconcilable than the conservative leaders who were put out of politics in 1865-1867—that the latter were willing to give the negro a chance, while the former, able, radical, and supported by the people, find less and less place for the negro; (4) that if the blacks were united, so were the whites, and in each case the advantage may be questioned; (5) that the value of the negro church is doubtful; (6) that as in politics, so in education, the negro has no opportunities now that were not freely offered him in 1865-1866, and the school system is not a product of Reconstruction, but came near being destroyed by it; (7) that negro free labor is not as efficient as slave labor was, and the negro as a cotton producer has lost his supremacy and his economic position is not at all assured; (8) that the whites have acquired new leaders, but the change has been on the whole from conservatives to radicals, from friends of the negro to those indifferent to him. In short, a careful study of conditions in Alabama since 1865 will not lead one to the conclusion that the black race in that state has any rights or privileges or advantages that were not offered by the native whites in 1865-1866.

For the misgovernment of Reconstruction, the negro, who was in no way to blame, has been made to suffer, since those who were really responsible could not be reached; so politically the races are hostile; the Black Belt has had, until recently, an undue and disturbing influence in white politics; the Federal official body and the Republican organization in the state have not been respectable, and the growth of a white Republican party has been prevented; the whites have for thirty-five years distrusted and disliked the Federal administration which, until recent years, showed little disposition to treat them with any consideration;[2168] the rule of the carpet-bagger, scalawag, and negro, and the methods used to overthrow that rule, weakened the respect of the people for the ballot, for law, for government; the estrangement of the races and the social-equality teachings of the reconstructionists have made it much less safe than in slavery for whites to reside near negro communities, and the negro is more exposed to imposition by low whites.

In recent years there have been many signs of improvement, but only in proportion as the principles and practices that the white people of the state understand are those of Reconstruction are rejected or superseded. To the northern man Reconstruction probably meant and still means something quite different from what the white man of Alabama understands by the term. But as the latter understands it, he has accepted none of its essential principles and intends to accept none of its so-called successes.