Civil War and Reconstruction in Alabama
by Walter L. Fleming · English · Gutenberg #41680 · 2,060,557 chars · public domain (US)
The Project Gutenberg eBook of Civil War and Reconstruction in Alabama
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and
most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online
at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States,
you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located
before using this eBook.
Title: Civil War and Reconstruction in Alabama
Author: Walter L. Fleming
Release date: December 21, 2012 [eBook #41680]
Most recently updated: October 23, 2024
Language: English
Other information and formats: www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/41680
Credits: Produced by The Online Distributed Proofreading Team at
http://www.pgdp.net (This file was produced from images
generously made available by The Internet Archive/Canadian
Libraries.)
*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK CIVIL WAR AND RECONSTRUCTION IN ALABAMA ***
CIVIL WAR AND RECONSTRUCTION IN ALABAMA
CIVIL WAR AND RECONSTRUCTION IN ALABAMA
BY WALTER L. FLEMING, PH.D.
PROFESSOR OF HISTORY IN WEST VIRGINIA UNIVERSITY
[Illustration]
New York
THE COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY PRESS
THE MACMILLAN COMPANY, AGENTS
LONDON: MACMILLAN & CO., LTD.
1905
_All rights reserved_
COPYRIGHT, 1905,
BY THE MACMILLAN COMPANY.
Set up and electrotyped. Published October, 1905.
Norwood Press
J. S. Cushing & Co.--Berwick & Smith Co.
Norwood, Mass., U.S.A.
TO MY WIFE MARY BOYD FLEMING
PREFACE
This work was begun some five years ago as a study of Reconstruction in
Alabama. As the field opened it seemed to me that an account of
ante-bellum conditions, social, economic, and political, and of the effect
of the Civil War upon ante-bellum institutions would be indispensable to
any just and comprehensive treatment of the later period. Consequently I
have endeavored to describe briefly the society and the institutions that
went down during Civil War and Reconstruction. Internal conditions in
Alabama during the war period are discussed at length; they are important,
because they influenced seriously the course of Reconstruction. Throughout
the work I have sought to emphasize the social and economic problems in
the general situation, and accordingly in addition to a sketch of the
politics I have dwelt at some length upon the educational, religious, and
industrial aspects of the period. One point in particular has been
stressed throughout the whole work, viz. the fact of the segregation of
the races within the state--the blacks mainly in the central counties, and
the whites in the northern and the southern counties. This division of the
state into "white" counties and "black" counties has almost from the
beginning exercised the strongest influence upon the history of its
people. The problems of white and black in the Black Belt are not always
the problems of the whites and blacks of the white counties. It is hoped
that the maps inserted in the text will assist in making clear this point.
Perhaps it may be thought that undue space is devoted to the history of
the negro during War and Reconstruction, but after all the negro, whether
passive or active, was the central figure of the period.
Believing that the political problems of War and Reconstruction are of
less permanent importance than the forces which have shaped and are
shaping the social and industrial life of the people, I have confined the
discussion of politics to certain chapters chronologically arranged, while
for the remainder of the book the topical method of presentation has been
adopted. In describing the political events of Reconstruction I have in
most cases endeavored to show the relation between national affairs and
local conditions within the state. To such an extent has this been done
that in some parts it may perhaps be called a general history with
especial reference to local conditions in Alabama. Never before and never
since Reconstruction have there been closer practical relations between
the United States and the state, between Washington and Montgomery.
As to the authorities examined in the preparation of the work it may be
stated that practically all material now available--whether in print or in
manuscript--has been used. In working with newspapers an effort was made
to check up in two or more newspapers each fact used. Most of the
references to newspapers--practically all of those to the less reputable
papers--are to signed articles. I have had to reject much material as
unreliable, and it is not possible that I have been able to sift out all
the errors. Whatever remain will prove to be, as I hope and believe, of
only minor consequence.
Thanks for assistance given are due to friends too numerous to mention all
of them by name. For special favors I am indebted to Professor L. D.
Miller, Jacksonville, Alabama; Mr. W. O. Scroggs of Harvard University;
Professor G. W. Duncan, Auburn, Alabama; Major W. W. Screws of the
_Montgomery Advertiser_; Colonel John W. DuBose, Montgomery, Alabama; Mrs.
J. L. Dean, Opelika, Alabama; Major S. A. Cunningham of the _Confederate
Veteran_, Nashville, Tennessee; and Major James R. Crowe, of Sheffield,
Alabama. I am indebted to Mr. L. S. Boyd, Washington, D.C., for numerous
favors, among them, for calling my attention to the scrap-book collection
of Edward McPherson, then shelved in the Library of Congress along with
Fiction. On many points where documents were lacking, I was materially
assisted by the written reminiscences of people familiar with conditions
of the time, among them my mother and father, the late Professor O. D.
Smith of Auburn, Alabama, and the late Ryland Randolph, Esq., of
Birmingham. Many old negroes have related their experiences to me. Hon.
Junius M. Riggs of the Alabama Supreme Court Library, by the loan of
documents, assisted me materially in working up the financial history of
the Reconstruction; Dr. David Y. Thomas of the University of Florida read
and criticised the entire manuscript; Dr. Thomas M. Owen, Director of the
Alabama Department of Archives and History, has given me valuable
assistance from the beginning to the close of the work by reading the
manuscript, by making available to me not only the public archives, but
also his large private collection, and by securing illustrations. But
above all I have been aided by Professor William A. Dunning of Columbia
University, at whose instance the work was begun, who gave me many helpful
suggestions, read the manuscript, and saved me from numerous pitfalls, and
by my wife, who read and criticised both manuscript and proof, and made
the maps and the index and prepared some of the illustrations.
WALTER L. FLEMING.
NEW YORK CITY,
August, 1905.
CONTENTS
PART I
_INTRODUCTION_
CHAPTER I
PERIOD OF SECTIONAL CONTROVERSY
PAGE
Composition of the Population of Alabama 3
The Indians and Nullification 8
Slavery Controversy and Political Divisions 10
Emancipation Sentiment in North Alabama 10
Early Party Divisions 11
William Lowndes Yancey 13
Growth of Secession Sentiment 14
"Unionists" Successful in 1851-1852 16
Yancey-Pryor Debate, 1858 17
The Charleston Convention of 1860 18
The Election of 1860 19
Separation of the Churches, 1821-1861 21
Senator Clay's Farewell Speech in the Senate 25
CHAPTER II
SECESSION FROM THE UNION
Secession Convention Called 27
Parties in the Convention 28
Reports on Secession 31
Debate on Secession 31
Political Theories of Members 34
Ordinance of Secession Passed 36
Confederate States Formed 39
Self-denying Ordinance 41
African Slave Trade 42
Commissioners to Other States 46
Legislation by the Convention 49
North Alabama in the Convention 53
Incidents of the Session 56
PART II
_WAR TIMES IN ALABAMA_
CHAPTER III
MILITARY AND POLITICAL EVENTS
Military Operations 61
The War in North Alabama 62
The Streight Raid 67
Rousseau's Raid 68
The War in South Alabama 69
Wilson's Raid and the End of the War 71
Destruction by the Armies 74
Military Organization 78
Alabama Soldiers: Number and Character 78
Negro Troops 86
Union Troops from Alabama 87
Militia System 88
Conscription and Exemption 92
Confederate Enrolment Laws 92
Policy of the State in Regard to Conscription 95
Effect of the Enrolment Laws 98
Exemption from Service 100
Tories and Deserters 108
Conditions in North Alabama 109
Unionists, Tories, and Mossbacks 112
Growth of Disaffection 114
Outrages by Tories and Deserters 119
Disaffection in South Alabama 122
Prominent Tories and Deserters 124
Numbers of the Disaffected 127
Party Politics and the Peace Movement 131
Political Conditions, 1861-1865 131
The Peace Society 137
Reconstruction Sentiment 143
CHAPTER IV
ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL CONDITIONS
Industrial Development during the War 149
Military Industries 149
Manufacture of Arms 150
Nitre Making 153
Private Manufacturing Enterprises 156
Salt Making 157
Confederate Finance in Alabama 162
Banks and Banking 162
Issues of Bonds and Notes by the State 164
Special Appropriations and Salaries 168
Taxation 169
Impressment 174
Debts, Stay Laws, Sequestration 176
Trade, Barter, Prices 178
Blockade-running and Trade through the Lines 183
Scarcity and Destitution, 1861-1865 196
The Negro during the War 205
Military Uses of Negroes 205
Negroes on the Farms 209
Fidelity to Masters 210
Schools and Colleges 212
Confederate Text-books 217
Newspapers 218
Publishing Houses 221
The Churches during the War 223
Attitude on Public Questions 223
The Churches and the Negroes 225
Federal Army and the Southern Churches 227
Domestic Life 230
Society in 1861 230
Life on the Farm 232
Home Industries; Makeshifts and Substitutes 234
Clothes and Fashions 236
Drugs and Medicines 239
Social Life during the War 241
Negro Life 243
Woman's Work for the Soldiers 244
PART III
_THE AFTERMATH OF WAR_
CHAPTER V
SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC DISORDER
Loss of Life in War 251
Destruction of Property 253
The Wreck of the Railways 259
The Interregnum: Lawlessness and Disorder 262
The Negro testing his Freedom 269
How to prove Freedom 270
Suffering among the Negroes 273
Relations between Whites and Blacks 275
Destitution and Want, 1865-1866 277
CHAPTER VI
CONFISCATION AND THE COTTON TAX
Confiscation Frauds 284
Restrictions on Trade in 1865 284
Federal Claims to Confederate Property 285
Cotton Frauds and Stealing 290
Cotton Agents Prosecuted 297
Statistics of the Frauds 299
The Cotton Tax 303
CHAPTER VII
THE TEMPER OF THE PEOPLE
After the Surrender 308
"Condition of Affairs in the South" 311
General Grant's Report 311
Carl Schurz's Report 312
Truman's Report 312
Report of the Joint Committee on Reconstruction 313
The "Loyalists" 316
Treatment of Northern Men 318
Immigration to Alabama 321
Troubles of the Episcopal Church 324
PART IV
_PRESIDENTIAL RESTORATION_
CHAPTER VIII
FIRST PROVISIONAL ADMINISTRATION
Theories of Reconstruction 333
Presidential Plan in Operation 341
Early Attempts at "Restoration" 341
Amnesty Proclamation 349
"Proscribing Proscription" 356
The "Restoration" Convention 358
Personnel and Parties 358
Debates on Secession and Slavery 360
"A White Man's Government" 364
Legislation by the Convention 366
"Restoration" Completed 367
CHAPTER IX
SECOND PROVISIONAL ADMINISTRATION
Status of the Provisional Government 376
Legislation about Freedmen 378
The Negro under the Provisional Government 383
Movement toward Negro Suffrage 386
New Conditions of Congress and Increasing Irritation 391
Fourteenth Amendment Rejected 394
Political Conditions, 1866-1867; Formation of Parties 398
CHAPTER X
MILITARY GOVERNMENT, 1865-1866
The Military Occupation 408
The Army and the Colored Population 410
Administration of Justice by the Army 413
The Army and the White People 417
CHAPTER XI
THE WARDS OF THE NATION
The Freedmen's Bureau 421
Department of Negro Affairs 421
Organization of the Bureau 423
The Bureau and the Civil Authorities 427
The Bureau supported by Confiscations 431
The Labor Problem 433
Freedmen's Bureau Courts 437
Care of the Sick 441
Issue of Rations 442
Demoralization caused by Bureau 444
The Freedmen's Savings-bank 451
The Freedmen's Bureau and Negro Education 456
The Failure of the Bureau System 469
PART V
_CONGRESSIONAL RECONSTRUCTION_
CHAPTER XII
MILITARY GOVERNMENT UNDER THE RECONSTRUCTION ACTS
Administration of General John Pope 473
Military Reconstruction Acts 473
Pope's Control of the Civil Government 477
Pope and the Newspapers 485
Trials by Military Commissions 487
Registration and Disfranchisement 488
Elections and the Convention 491
Removal of Pope and Swayne 492
Administration of General George G. Meade 493
Registration and Elections 493
Administration of Civil Affairs 495
Trials by Military Commissions 498
The Soldiers and the Citizens 500
From Martial Law to Carpet-bag Rule 501
CHAPTER XIII
THE CAMPAIGN OF 1867
Attitude of the Whites 503
Organization of the Radical Party in Alabama 505
Conservative Opposition Aroused 512
The Negro's First Vote 514
CHAPTER XIV
THE "RECONSTRUCTION" CONVENTION
Character of the Convention 517
The Race Question 521
Debates on Disfranchisement of Whites 524
Legislation by the Convention 528
CHAPTER XV
THE "RECONSTRUCTION" COMPLETED
"Convention" Candidates 531
Campaign on the Constitution 534
Vote on the Constitution 538
The Constitution fails of Adoption 541
The Alabama Question in Congress 547
Alabama readmitted to the Union 550
CHAPTER XVI
THE UNION LEAGUE OF AMERICA
Origin of the Union League 553
Its Extension to the South 556
Ceremonies of the League 559
Organization and Methods 561
PART VI
_CARPET-BAG AND NEGRO RULE_
CHAPTER XVII
TAXATION AND THE PUBLIC DEBT
Taxation during Reconstruction 571
Administrative Expenses 574
Effect on Property Values 578
The Public Bonded Debt 580
The Financial Settlement 583
CHAPTER XVIII
RAILROAD LEGISLATION AND FRAUDS
Federal and State Aid to Railroads before the War 587
General Legislation in Aid of Railroads 589
The Alabama and Chattanooga Railroad 591
Other Indorsed Railroads 600
County and Town Aid to Railroads 604
CHAPTER XIX
RECONSTRUCTION IN THE SCHOOLS
School System before Reconstruction 607
School System of Reconstruction 609
Reconstruction of the State University 612
Trouble in the Mobile Schools 618
Irregularities in School Administration 621
Objections to the Reconstruction Education 624
Negro Education 625
Failure of the Educational System 632
CHAPTER XX
RECONSTRUCTION IN THE CHURCHES
"Disintegration and Absorption" Policy 637
The Methodists 637
The Baptists 640
The Presbyterians 641
The Churches and the Negro during Reconstruction 642
The Baptists and the Negroes 643
The Presbyterians and the Negroes 646
The Roman Catholics 647
The Episcopalians 647
The Methodists and the Negroes 648
CHAPTER XXI
THE KU KLUX REVOLUTION
Causes of the Ku Klux Movement 654
Secret Societies of Regulators before Ku Klux Klan 659
Origin and Growth of Ku Klux Klan 661
The Knights of the White Camelia 671
The Work of the Secret Orders 675
Ku Klux Orders and Warnings 680
Ku Klux "Outrages" 686
Success of the Ku Klux Movement 690
Spurious Ku Klux Organizations 691
Attempts to suppress the Ku Klux Movement 694
State Legislation 695
Enforcement Acts 697
Ku Klux Investigation 703
Later Ku Klux Organizations 709
CHAPTER XXII
REORGANIZATION OF THE INDUSTRIAL SYSTEM
Break-up of the Ante-bellum System 710
The Freedmen's Bureau System 717
Northern and Foreign Immigration 718
Attempts to organize a New System 721
Development of the Share and Credit Systems 723
Superiority of White Farmers 727
Decadence of the Black Belt 731
CHAPTER XXIII
POLITICAL AND SOCIAL CONDITIONS DURING RECONSTRUCTION
Politics and Political Methods 733
The First Reconstruction Administration 733
Reconstruction Judiciary 744
Campaign of 1868 747
The Administration of Governor Lindsay 750
The Administration of Governor Lewis 754
Election of Spencer to the United States Senate 755
Social Conditions during Reconstruction 761
Statistics of Crime 762
Social Relations of Negroes 763
Carpet-baggers and Scalawags 765
Social Effects of Reconstruction on the Whites 766
Economic Conditions 769
CHAPTER XXIV
THE OVERTHROW OF RECONSTRUCTION
The Republican Party in 1874 771
Whites desert the Party 771
The Demand of the Negro for Social Rights 772
Disputes among Radical Editors 773
Demand of Negroes for Office 773
Factions within the Party 774
Negroes in 1874 775
Promises made to them 775
Negro Social and Political Clubs 776
Negro Democrats 777
The Democratic and Conservative Party in 1874 778
Attitude of the Whites toward the Blacks 779
The Color Line Drawn 780
"Independent" Candidates 781
The Campaign of 1874 782
Platforms and Candidates 782
"Political Bacon" 783
"Hays-Hawley Letter" 786
Intimidation by Federal Authorities 789
Intimidation by Democrats 791
The Election of 1874 793
The Eufaula Riot 794
Results of the Election 795
Later Phases of State Politics 798
Whites make Secure their Control 798
The "Lily Whites" and the "Black and Tans" 799
The Failure of the Populist Movement 799
The Primary Election System 800
The Negroes Disfranchised 800
SUCCESSES AND FAILURES OF RECONSTRUCTION 801
APPENDICES:
Cotton Production in Alabama, 1860-1900 804
Registration of Voters under the New Constitution 806
INDEX 809
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
PAGE
Alabama Money _Facing_ 178
Buckley, Rev. C. W. " 552
"Bully for Alabama" " 738
Callis, John B. " 552
Clanton, General James H. " 760
Clemens, Jere " 36
Confederate Capitol, Montgomery " 96
Confederate Monument, Montgomery " 96
Confederate Postage Stamps " 178
Crowe, Major James R. " 760
Curry, Dr. J. L. M. " 626
Davis, Jefferson " 54
Davis, Inauguration of " 96
Davis, Residence of, Montgomery " 96
Gaineswood, a Plantation Home " 8
Hays, Charles " 552
"Hon. Mr. Carraway" " 738
Houston, Governor George S. " 760
John Brown Extra " 18
Johnson, President Andrew " 336
Ku Klux Costumes 675
Ku Klux Hanging Pictures 612
Ku Klux Warning 678
Lewis, Governor D. P. _Facing_ 600
Lindsay, Governor R. B. " 760
Meade, General George G. " 476
Moore, Governor Andrew B. " 130
Negro Members of the Convention of 1875 " 600
"Nigger, Scalawag, Carpetbagger" " 738
Parsons, Governor L. E. " 600
Patton, Governor R. M. " 760
Pope, General John " 476
Prescript (Original) of Ku Klux Klan, Facsimile
of Page of " 670
Prescript (revised and amended) of Ku Klux Klan,
Facsimile of Page of 665
Private Money _Facing_ 178
Rapier, J. T. " 552
Ritual of the Knights of the White Camelia,
Facsimile of Page of " 670
Shorter, Governor John Gill " 130
Smith, Governor William H. " 600
Smith, William R. " 36
Spencer, Senator George E. " 552
Stephens, Alexander H. " 36
Stevens, Thaddeus " 336
Sumner, Charles " 336
Swayne, General Wager " 476
"The Speaker cried out, 'Order!'" " 738
Thomas, General George H. " 476
Union League Constitution, Facsimile of Page of " 566
Walker, General L. P. " 36
Warner, Senator Willard " 552
Watts, Governor Thomas H. " 130
Wilmer, Bishop R. H. " 130
Yancey, William Lowndes " 36
LIST OF MAPS
PAGE
1. Population in 1860 4
2. Nativity and Distribution of Public Men 6
3. Election for President, 1860 20
4. Parties in the Secession Convention 29
5. Disaffection toward the Confederacy, 1861-1865 110
6. Industrial Development, 1861-1865 150
7. Devastation by Invading Armies 256
8. Parties in the Convention of 1865 359
9. Registration of Voters under the Reconstruction Acts 494
10. Election for President, 1868 747
11. Election of 1870 750
12. Election of 1872 755
13. Election of 1874 795
14. Election of 1876 796
15. Election of 1880 798
16. Election of 1890 799
17. Election of 1902 under New Constitution 800
PART I
INTRODUCTION
CIVIL WAR AND RECONSTRUCTION IN ALABAMA
CHAPTER I
THE PERIOD OF SECTIONAL CONTROVERSY
When Alabama seceded in 1861, it had been in existence as a political
organization less than half a century, but in many respects its
institutions and customs were as old as European America. The white
population was almost purely Anglo-American. The early settlements had
been made on the coast near Mobile, and from thence had extended up the
Alabama, Tombigbee, and Warrior rivers. In the northern part the Tennessee
valley was early settled, and later, in the eastern part, the Coosa
valley. After the river valleys, the prairie lands in central Alabama were
peopled, and finally the poorer lands of the southeast and the hills south
of the Tennessee valley. The bulk of the population before 1861 was of
Georgian birth or descent, the settlers having come from middle Georgia,
which had been peopled from the hills of Virginia. Georgians came into the
Tennessee valley early in the nineteenth century. The Creek reservation
prevented immigration into eastern Alabama before the thirties, but the
Georgians went around and settled southeast Alabama along the line of the
old "Federal road." When the Creek Indians consented to migrate, it was
found that the Georgians were already in possession of the country,--more
than 20,000 strong, and a government was at once erected over the Indian
counties. People from Georgia also came down the Coosa valley to central
Alabama. The Virginians went to the western Black Belt, to the Tennessee
valley, and to central Alabama. North Carolina sent thousands of her
citizens down through the Tennessee valley and thence across country to
the Tombigbee valley and western Alabama; others came through Georgia and
followed the routes of Georgia migration. South Carolinians swarmed into
the southern, central, and western counties, and a goodly number settled
in the Tennessee valley. Tennessee furnished a large proportion of the
settlers to the Tennessee valley, to the hill counties south of the
Tennessee, and to the valleys in central and western Alabama. Among the
immigrants from Virginia, North and South Carolina, and Tennessee was a
large Scotch-Irish element, and with the Tennesseeans came a sprinkling of
Kentuckians. In western Alabama were a few thousand Mississippians, and
into southeast Alabama a few hundred settlers came from Florida. From the
northern states came several thousand, principally New England business
men. The foreign element was insignificant--the Irish being most numerous,
with a few hundred each of Germans, English, French, and Scotch. In Mobile
and Marengo counties there was a slight admixture of French blood in the
population.[1]
[Illustration: POPULATION IN 1860.]
In regard to the character of the settlers it has been said that the
Virginians were the least practical and the Georgians the most so, while
the North Carolinians were a happy medium. The Georgians were noted for
their stubborn persistence, and they usually succeeded in whatever they
undertook. The Virginians liked a leisurely planter's life with abundant
social pleasures. The Tennesseeans and Kentuckians were hardly
distinguishable from the Virginians and Carolinians, to whom they were
closely related. The northern professional and business men exercised an
influence more than commensurate with their numbers, being, in a way,
picked men. Neither the Georgians nor the Virginians were assertive
office-seekers, but the Carolinians liked to hold office, and the politics
of the state were moulded by the South Carolinians and Georgians. All were
naturally inclined to favor a weak federal administration and a strong
state government with much liberty of the individual. The theories of
Patrick Henry, Jefferson, and Calhoun, not those of Washington and John
Marshall, formed the political creed of the Alabamians.
[Illustration: NATIVITY OF PUBLIC MEN
Each figure represents some person who became prominent before 1865, and
indicates his native state. The location of the figure on the map
indicates his place of residence. Note the segregation along the rivers
and the Black Belt.]
The wealthy people were found in the Tennessee valley, in the Black Belt
extending across the centre of the state, and in Mobile, the one large
town. They were (except a few of the Mobilians) all slaveholders. The
poorer white people went to the less fertile districts of north and
southeast Alabama, where land was cheap, preferring to work their own poor
farms rather than to work for some one else on better land. But nearly
every slave county had its colony of poorer whites, who were invariably
settled on the least fertile soils. Among these settlers there was a
certain dislike of slavery, because they believed that, were it not for
the negro, the whites might themselves live on the fertile lands. Yet they
were not in favor of emancipation in any form, unless the negro could be
gotten entirely out of the way--a free negro being to them an abomination.
If the negro must stay, then they preferred slavery to continue.
Over the greater part of Alabama there were no class distinctions before
1860; the state was too young. In the wilderness classes had fused and the
successful men were often those never heard of in the older states. A
candidate of "the plain people" was always elected, because all were
frontier people. This does not mean that in Huntsville, Montgomery,
Greensboro, and Mobile there were not the beginnings of an aristocracy
based on education, wealth, and family descent. But these were very small
spots on the map of Alabama, and there were no heartburnings over social
inequalities.[2]
Such was the composition of the white population of Alabama before 1860.
No matter what might be their political affiliations, in practice nearly
all were Democrats of the Jeffersonian school, believing in the largest
possible liberty for the individual and in local management of all local
affairs, and to the frontier Democrat nearly all questions that concerned
him were local. The political leaders excepted, the majority of the
population knew little and cared less about the Federal government except
when it endeavored to restrain or check them in their course of conquest
and expansion in the wilderness. The relations of the people of Alabama
with the Federal government were such as to confirm and strengthen them in
their local attachments and sectional politics. The controversies that
arose in regard to the removal of the Indians, and over the public lands,
nullification, slavery, and western expansion, prevented the growth of
attachment to the Federal government, and tended to develop a southern
rather than a "continental" nationality. The state came into the Union
when the sections were engaged in angry debate over the Missouri
Compromise measures, and its attitude in Federal politics was determined
from the beginning. The next most serious controversy with the Federal
government and with the North was in regard to the removal of the Indians
from the southern states. The southwestern frontiersmen, like all other
Anglo-Americans, had no place in their economy for the Indian, and they
were determined that he should not stand in their way.
Indians and Nullification
For half a century, throughout the Gulf states, the struggle with the
Indian tribes for the possession of the fertile lands continued, and in
this struggle the Federal government was always against the settlers.
Before the removal of the Indians, in 1836, the settlers of Alabama were
in almost continual dispute with the Washington administration on this
subject.[3] The trouble began in Georgia, and thousands of Georgians
brought to Alabama a spirit of jealousy and hostility to the United States
government, and a growing dislike of New England and the North on account
of their stand in regard to the Indians. For when troubles, legal and
otherwise, arose with the Indians, their advisers were found to be
missionaries and land agents from New England. The United States wanted
the Indians to remain as states within states; the Georgia and Alabama
settlers felt that the Indians must go. The attitude of the Federal
government drove the settlers into extreme assertions of state rights. In
Georgia it came almost to war between the state and United States troops
during the administration of John Quincy Adams, a New Englander, who was
disliked by the settlers for his support of the Indian cause; and the
whole South was made jealous by the decisions of the Supreme Court in the
Indian cases. Had Adams been elected to a second term, there would
probably have been armed resistance to the policy of the United States.
Jackson, a southern and western man, had the feeling of a frontiersman
toward the Indians; and his attitude gained him the support of the
frontier southern states in the trouble with South Carolina over
nullification.
[Illustration: GAINESWOOD. A Marengo County Plantation Home. Abandoned
since the War.]
Immediately after the nullification troubles, the general government
attempted to remove the white settlers from the Indian lands in east
Alabama. The lands had been ceded by the Indians in 1832, and the
legislature of Alabama at once extended the state administration over the
territory. Settlers rushed in; some were already there. But by the treaty
the Indians were entitled to remain on their land until they chose to
move; and now the United States marshals, supported by the army, were
ordered to remove the 30,000 whites who had settled in the nine Indian
counties. Governor Gayle, who had been elected as an opponent of
nullification, informed the Secretary of War that the proposed action of
the central government meant nothing less than the destruction of the
state administration, and declared that he would, at all costs, sustain
the jurisdiction of the state government. The troops killed a citizen who
resisted removal, and the Federal authorities refused to allow the slayers
to be tried by state courts. There was great excitement in the state, and
public meetings were everywhere held to organize resistance. The
legislature authorized the governor to persist in maintaining the state
administration in the nine Indian counties. A collision with the United
States troops was expected, and offers of volunteers were made to the
governor,--even from New York. Finally the United States government
yielded, the whites remained on the Indian lands, the state authority was
upheld in the Indian counties, the soldiers were tried before state
courts, and the Indians were removed to the West. The governor proclaimed
a victory for the state, and the 30,000 angry Alabamians rejoiced over
what they considered the defeat of the unjust Federal government.[4]
Thus in Alabama nullification of Federal law was successfully carried out.
And it was done by a state administration and a people that a year before
had refused to approve the course of South Carolina. But South Carolina
was regarded in Alabama, as in the rest of the South, somewhat as an
erratic member that ought to be disciplined once in a while. A strong and
able minority in Alabama accepted the basis of the nullification doctrine,
_i.e._ the sovereignty of the states, and after this time this political
element was usually known as the State Rights party. They had no separate
organization, but voted with Whigs or Democrats, as best served their
purpose. Secession was little talked of, for affairs might yet go well,
they thought, within the Union. A majority of the Democrats, for several
years after 1832, were probably opposed in theory to nullification and
secession when South Carolina was an actor, but in practice they acted as
they had done in the Indian disputes which concerned them more closely.
The Slavery Controversy and Political Divisions
It was at the height of the irritation of the Indian controversy that the
agitation by the abolitionists of the North began. The question which more
than any other alienated the southern people from the Union was that
concerning negro slavery. From 1819 to 1860 the majority of the white
people of Alabama were not friendly to slavery as an institution. This was
not from any special liking for the negro or belief that slavery was bad
for him, but because it was believed that the presence of the negro, slave
or free, was not good for the white race. To most of the people slavery
was merely a device for making the best of a bad state of affairs. The
constitution of 1819 was liberal in its slavery provisions, and the
legislature soon enacted (1827) a law prohibiting the importation, for
sale, hire, or barter, of slaves from other states. For a decade there was
strong influence at each session of the state legislature in favor of
gradual emancipation; agents of the Quakers worked in the state, buying
and paying a higher price for cotton that was not produced by slave labor;
and in north Alabama, during the twenties and early thirties, there was a
number of emancipation societies.[5] An emancipation newspaper, _The
Huntsville Democrat_, was published in Huntsville, and edited by James G.
Birney, afterwards a noted abolitionist. The northern section of the
state, embracing the strong Democratic white counties, was distinctly
unfriendly to slavery, or rather to the negro, and controlled the politics
of the state.[6] The effect of the abolition movement in the North was the
destruction of the emancipation organizations in the South, and both
friends and foes of the institution united on the defensive. The
non-slaveholders were not deluded followers of the slave owners. After the
slavery question became an issue in politics, the non-slaveholders in
Alabama were rather more aggressive, and were even more firmly determined
to maintain negro slavery than were the slaveholders. To the rich
hereditary slaveholders, who were relatively few in number, it was more or
less a question of property, and that was enough to fight about at any
time. But to the average white man who owned no negroes and who worked for
his living at manual labor, the question was a vital social one. The negro
slave was bad enough; but he thought that the negro freed by outside
interference and turned loose on society was much more to be feared.[7]
The large majorities for extreme measures came from the white counties;
the secession vote in 1860 was largely a white county vote. But when
secession came, the Whiggish Black Belt which had been opposed to
secession was astonished not to receive, in the war that followed, the
hearty support of the Democratic white counties.
Before the nullification troubles in 1832 there was no distinct political
division among the people of Alabama; all were Democrats. Those of the
white counties were of the Jacksonian type, those of the black counties
were rather of the Jeffersonian faith; but all were strict
constructionists, especially on questions concerning the tariff, the
Indians, the central government, and slavery. The question of
nullification caused a division in the ranks of the Democratic party--one
wing supporting Jackson, the other accepting Calhoun as leader. For
several years later, however, the Democratic candidates had no opposition
in the elections, though within the party there were contests between the
Jacksonians and the growing State Rights (Calhoun) wing. But with the
settling of the country, the growth of the power of the Black Belt, and
the differentiation of interests within the state, there appeared a second
party, the Whigs. Its strength lay among the large planters and
slaveholders of the central Black Belt, though it often took its leaders
from the black counties of the Tennessee valley. This party was able to
elect a governor but once, and then only because of a division in the
Democratic ranks. After 1835 it secured one-third of the representation in
Congress and the same proportion in the legislature. It was the
"broadcloth" party, of the wealthier and more cultivated people. It did
not appeal to the "plain people" with much success; but it was always a
respectable party, and there was no jealousy of it then, and now "there
are no bitter memories against it."[8]
Numerically, the Whigs were about as strong as the anti-nullification wing
of the Democratic party, so that the balance of power was held by the
constantly increasing State Rights (Calhoun) element. When Van Buren
became leader of the national Democracy, the State Rights people in
Alabama united with the regular Democrats and voted with them for about
ten years. The State Rights men were devoted followers of Calhoun, but in
political theories they soon went beyond him. For a while they were
believers in nullification as a constitutional right, but soon began to
talk of secession as a sovereign right. They were in favor of no
compromise where the rights of the South were concerned. They were
logical, extreme, doctrinaire; they demanded absolute right, and viewed
every action of the central government with suspicion. A single idea
firmly held through many years gave to them a power not justified by their
numerical strength.
The Whigs did not stand still on political questions; as the Democrats and
the State Rights men abandoned one position for another more advanced, the
Whigs moved up to the one abandoned. Thus they were always only about one
election behind. It was the constant agitation of the slavery question
that drove the Whigs along in the wake of the more advanced party. Both
parties were in favor of expansion in the Southwest. They were indignant
at the New England position on the Texas question, and talked much of
disunion if such a policy of obstruction was persisted in. Again, after
the Mexican War all parties were furious at the opposition shown to the
annexation of the territory from Mexico. It was now the spirit of
expansion, the lust for territory, that rose in opposition to the
obstructive policy of northern leaders; and a new element was added when
an attempt was made to shut out southerners from the territory won mainly
by the South by forbidding the entrance of slavery.
The number of those in favor of resisting at every point the growing
desire of the North to restrict slavery was increasing steadily. The
leader of the State Rights men was William L. Yancey. He opposed all
compromises, for, as he said, compromise meant that the system was evil
and was an acknowledgment of wrong, and no right, however abstract, must
be denied to the South. He was a firm believer in slavery as the only
method of solving the race question, and saw clearly the dangers that
would result from the abolition programme if the North and South remained
united. So to prevent worse calamities he was in favor of disunion. He was
the greatest orator ever heard in the South. He was in no sense a
demagogue; he had none of the arts of the popular politician. Sent to
Congress in the heat of the fight between the sections, he resigned
because he thought the battle was to be fought elsewhere. For twenty years
he stood before the people of Alabama, telling them that slavery could not
be preserved within the Union; that before any effective settlement of
controversies could be made, Alabama and the other southern states must
withdraw and make terms from the outside, or stay out of the Union and
have done with agitation and interference. Secession was
self-preservation, he told a people who believed that the destruction of
slavery meant the destruction of society. For twenty years he and his
followers, heralds of the storm, were ostracized by all political parties,
which accepted his theories, but denied the necessity for putting them
into practice. When at last the people came to follow him, he told them
that they had probably waited too late, and that they were seceding on a
weaker cause than any of those he had presented for twenty years.
Yancey was a leader of State Rights men but never a leader in the
Democratic party. Once, in 1848, when all were angry on account of the
opposition on the Mexican question, Yancey was called to the front in the
Democratic state convention. He offered resolutions, which were
adopted,[9] to the effect (1) that the people of a territory could not
prevent the holding of slaves before the formation of a state
constitution, and that Congress had no power whatever to restrict slavery
in the territories; (2) that those who held the opposite opinion were not
Democrats, and that the Democratic party of Alabama would not support for
President any candidate who held such views. The delegates to the National
Democratic Convention at Baltimore were instructed to withdraw if the
Alabama resolutions were rejected. By a vote of two hundred and sixteen to
thirty-six they were rejected; yet none of the delegates except Yancey
withdrew. Refusing to support Cass for the presidency because he believed
in "squatter sovereignty," Yancey was again ostracized by the Democratic
leaders.[10] Now the State Rights men became more aggressive, for they
said this was the time to settle the slavery question, before it was too
late. The North, it was thought, would not be averse to separation from
the South. The Whigs began to advance non-intervention theories, and but
for the death of President Taylor, who adhered to the free-soil Whigs,
political parties in Alabama would probably have broken up in 1850 and
fused into one on the slavery question.
Growth of Secession Sentiment
The compromise measures of 1850 pleased few people in Alabama, and there
was talk of resistance and of assisting Texas by force, if necessary,
against the appropriation of her territory by the central government. The
moderates condemned the Compromise and said they would not yield again.
The more advanced demanded a repeal of the Compromise or immediate
secession. Yancey said there was no hope of a settlement and that it was
time to set the house in order. In 1850-1851 there was a widespread
movement toward a rejection of the Compromise and a secession of the lower
South, but the political leaders were disposed to give the Compromise a
trial. To the Nashville convention, held in June, 1850, to discuss
measures to secure redress of grievances, the Alabama legislature at an
unofficial meeting chose the following delegates: Benjamin Fitzpatrick,
William Cooper, John A. Campbell, Thomas J. Judge, John A. Winston, Leroy
P. Walker, William M. Murphy, Nicholas Davis, R. C. Shorter, Thomas A.
Walker, Reuben Chapman, James Abercrombie, and William M. Byrd--all Whigs
or Conservative Democrats. The resolutions passed by the convention were
cautious and prudent, and were generally supported by the Whigs and
opposed by the Democrats. In Montgomery, upon the return of the Alabama
delegation, a public meeting, held to ratify the action of the Nashville
convention, condemned it instead, and approved the programme of Yancey who
again declared that it was "time to set the house in order." The contest
in Alabama was simply between the Compromise, with maintenance of the
Union, and rejection of the Compromise to be followed by secession. It
was not a campaign between Whig and Democrat, but between Union and
Secession. The old party lines were not drawn. Associations were formed
all over the state to oppose the Compromise and to advocate secession. The
Unionists drew together, but less heartily. The compact State Rights
element lost influence on account of a division that now showed in its
ranks. One section, led by William L. Yancey, was for separate and
unconditional secession; another, led by J. J. Seibels, favored
coöperation of the southern states within the Union and united
deliberation before secession.[11] The State Rights Convention met in
Montgomery, February 10, 1851, and recommended a southern congress to
decide the questions at issue and declared that if any other state would
secede, Alabama should go also.[12] The action of the convention pleased
few and was repudiated by the "separate secessionist" element. The
candidates of the State Rights--now called the "Southern Rights"--party
were supported by a majority of the Democrats. They demanded the repeal of
the Compromise, and resistance to future encroachments; they demanded
southern ministers and southern churches, southern books and papers, and
southern pleasure resorts.
The "Union" leaders were Judge Benajah S. Bibb, James Abercrombie, Thomas
J. Judge, Henry W. Hilliard, Thomas H. Watts, Senator William R.
King,--nearly all Virginians or North Carolinians by birth or descent. At
the State "Union" Convention held in Montgomery, January 19, 1851, among
the more prominent delegates were: Thomas B. Cooper, R. M. Patton, W. M.
Byrd, B. S. Bibb, J. M. Tarleton, W. B. Moss, James H. Clanton, L. E.
Parsons, Robert J. Jamison, Henry W. Hilliard, R. W. Walker, Thomas H.
Watts, Nicholas Davis, Jr., and C. M. Wilcox,--all were Whigs, and were
Virginians, North Carolinians, and men of northern birth. This meeting
denied the "constitutional" right of secession. The Union candidates for
Congress were C. C. Langdon, James Abercrombie, Judge Mudd, William R.
Smith, W. R. W. Cobb, George S. Houston, and Alexander White,--each of
whom denied the "constitutional" right of secession, but said nothing
about it as a "sovereign" right.
The "Unionists"--the old Whigs and the Jacksonian Democrats--were
successful in the elections, but by accepting, though disapproving, the
Compromise measures, and by repudiating the doctrine of secession as a
"constitutional" right,[13] they had advanced beyond the position held by
Yancey in 1848.
After the success of the "Union" party in 1851-1852, the Southern Rights
Associations resolved to suspend for a time the debate on secession.
Thereupon the "Union" Democrats resumed their old party allegiance and the
"Union" party was left to consist of old Whigs alone. The Whigs wished to
continue the "Union" organization, for they no longer found it possible to
act with the northern Whigs, and in 1852 several of their prominent
leaders in Alabama refused to support the Whig presidential ticket. On the
other hand, the extreme "Southern Rights" men broke away from the
Democrats in 1852 and declared for immediate secession. They supported
Troup and Quitman, who polled, however, only 2174 votes in the state; but
the Whigs and the Democrats each lost about 15,000, who refused to vote.
And now came the break-up of old parties. The slavery question was always
before the people and was becoming more and more irritating. Compromises
had failed to quiet the controversy. The position of the "Union" Whigs in
the black counties became intolerable. They had to combat secession at
home, and they had to guard against trouble among their slaves caused by
the abolitionist propaganda. By 1855 almost all the Alabama Whigs had
become "Americans," at the same time searching for a new issue and
repudiating the principles upon which the "American" party was founded.
Again they were left alone by the antislavery stand taken by the northern
wing of this party. Yet in spite of every possible discouragement they
held together and controlled the black counties. When the Kansas question
arose all the parties in Alabama were united in reference to it. The
doctrine of squatter sovereignty was not accepted, but there was an
opportunity, both parties thought, to win Kansas peaceably and stay the
threatened separation, but the northern methods of settling Kansas by
organized antislavery emigration from New England paralyzed the efforts of
the moderate "Union" southerners. Similar methods were attempted by the
South, and several colonies of emigrants were sent from Alabama;[14] but
by 1857 it was known that Kansas was lost.
The great debate between William L. Yancey and Roger A. Pryor in the
Southern Commercial Convention held in Montgomery in May, 1858, showed
that the people of Alabama were then in advance of their political leaders
and were coming to the position long held by Yancey and the secessionists.
Pryor's position in favor of compromise and delay had the support of
nearly all the party leaders of Alabama; Yancey, always in disfavor with
party leaders, captured the convention with his policy of secession in
case of failure of redress of grievances. Secession was no longer a
doctrine to be condemned unless on the ground of expediency. Whig leaders
were now becoming Southern Rights Democrats. Many Democrats thought it was
time to force an issue and come to a settlement; this Yancey proposed to
do by demanding a repeal of all the laws against the slave trade because
they expressed a disapproval of slavery. If slavery were not wrong, then
the slave trade should not be denounced as piracy. Yancey had not the
slightest desire to reopen the slave trade, and knew that the North would
not consent to a repeal of the laws against it, yet he said the demand
should be made. He believed the demand to be legitimate, though sure to be
rejected. The national Democratic party would thus be divided and the
issue forced.[15]
For any purpose of opposing the Yancey programme the Alabama "Union" men
were rendered helpless by the turn politics were taking in the North. The
formation out of the wreck of the old Whig party of the distinctly
sectional and radical Republican party, the attitude of the leaders of
that party, the talk about the "irrepressible conflict" and the "Union
cannot endure half slave and half free," the indorsement of the "Impending
Crisis" with its incendiary teachings, the effect of "Uncle Tom's Cabin"
on thousands who before had cared nothing about slavery, and finally the
raid of John Brown into Virginia,[16]--these were influences more powerful
toward uniting the people to resistance than all the speeches of State
Rights leaders on abstract constitutional questions. After 1856 the people
were in advance of their leaders.
On January 11, 1860, the Democratic state convention unanimously adopted
resolutions favoring the Dred Scott decision as a settlement of the
slavery question. The delegation to the national nominating convention at
Charleston was instructed to withdraw in case these resolutions were not
accepted in substance as a part of the platform. At Charleston the
majority report of the committee on the platform sustained the Alabama
position. When the report was laid before the convention, a proposition
was made to set it aside for the minority report, which vaguely said
nothing. Yancey in a great speech delivered the ultimatum of the South,
the adoption of the majority report. The vote was taken and the South
defeated. L. Pope Walker[17] announced the withdrawal of the Alabama
delegation and the delegations from the other southern states
followed.[18] Both sections of the convention then adjourned to meet in
Baltimore. Influences for and against compromise were working, and it is
probable that a majority of the seceders would have harmonized had not the
Douglas organization declared the seats of the seceders vacant and
admitted delegates irregularly elected by Douglas conventions in the
South. After the damage was done, Yancey was pressed to take the
vice-presidency on the Douglas ticket.[19] Douglas was known to be in bad
health and Yancey was told that he might expect to be President within a
few months, if he accepted. But it was too late for further compromise,
and Yancey toured the North, speaking for Breckenridge. A State Rights
convention in Alabama indorsed the candidates of the seceded convention; a
convention of Douglas Democrats in Montgomery declared for Douglas; the
"Constitutional Union" party (the old Whigs and "Americans" or
"Know-nothings"), for Bell and Everett and old-fashioned conservative
respectability. During the campaign Douglas visited the state and was well
received, but aroused no enthusiasm, while Yancey was tumultuously
welcomed.
[Illustration: A JOHN BROWN EXTRA.]
As far back as February 24, 1860, the legislature had passed almost
unanimously a resolution concurring with South Carolina in regard to the
right and necessity of secession, and declaring that Alabama would not
submit to the domination of a "foul sectional party." In case of the
election of a "Black" Republican President a convention was to be called,
and $200,000 was appropriated for its use.[20] A committee was appointed
to reorganize the militia system of the state, and so important was the
work deemed that the committee was excused from all other duties. The
Senate declared that it was expedient to establish an arsenal, a firearms
factory, and a powder mill. A bill was passed to encourage the manufacture
of firearms in Alabama.[21] At this session seventy-four military
companies were incorporated and provision made for military schools.[22]
[Illustration: ELECTION FOR PRESIDENT, 1860.]
Elections returns were anxiously awaited.[23] It was certain that the
election of Lincoln and Hamlin would result in secession.[24] When the
news came the old "Union" leaders declared for secession and by noon of
the next day the "Union" party had gone to pieces. The leaders who had
opposed secession to the last--Watts, Clanton, Goldthwaite, Judge, and
Hilliard--now took their stand by the side of Yancey and declared that
Alabama must withdraw from the Union. Governor Moore, a very moderate man,
in a public speech said that no course was left but for the state to
secede, and with the other southern states form a confederacy. Public
meetings were held in every town and village to declare that Alabama would
not submit to the rule of the "Black Republican." A typical meeting held
in Mobile, November 15, 1860, arraigned the Republican party because: (1)
it had declared for the abolition of slavery in all territories and
Federal districts and for the abolition of the interstate slave trade; (2)
it had denied the extradition of murderers, marauders, and other felons;
(3) it had concealed and shielded the murderers of masters who had sought
to recover fugitive slaves; (4) it advocated negro equality and made it
the basis of legislation hostile to the South; (5) it opposed protection
of slave property on the high seas and had justified piracy in the case of
the _Creole_; (6) it had invaded Virginia and shed the blood of her
citizens on her own soil; and (7) had announced a policy of total
abolition.[25] In December, 1860, the Federal grand jury at Montgomery
declared the Federal government "worthless, impotent, and a nuisance," as
it had failed to protect the interests of the people of Alabama. The
presentment was signed by C. C. Gunter, foreman, and nineteen others.[26]
Had the governor been willing to call a convention at once, secession
would have been almost unanimous; but delay caused the more cautious and
timid to reflect and gave the so-called "coöperationists" time to put
forth a platform. The leaders of the party of delay representing north
Alabama, the stronghold of radical democracy, were William R. Smith, M. J.
Bulger, Nicholas Davis, Jere Clemens, and Robert J. Jemison, all strong
men, but none of them possessing the ability of the secessionist leaders
or of the former "Union" leaders who had joined the secession party. But
secession was certain,--it was only a question as to how and when. By law
the governor was to call a convention in case the "Black Republican"
candidates were elected, and December 24, 1860, was fixed as the time for
election of delegates, and January 4, 1861, the time for assembly.
Separation of the Churches
Before the political division in 1861 the religious division had already
occurred in the larger and in several of the smaller denominations. At the
close of 1861 every religious body represented in the South, except the
Roman Catholic church,[27] had been divided into northern and southern
branches. The political rather than the moral aspects of slavery had
finally led to strife in the churches. The southern churches protested
against the action of the northern religious bodies in going into
politics on the slavery question and thus causing endless strife between
the sections as represented in the churches. The response of the northern
societies to such protests resulted in the gradual alienation of the
southern members and finally in separation. The first division in Alabama
came in 1821, when the Associate Reformed Presbyterian church excluded
slaveholders from communion and thereby lost its southern members.[28]
Next came the separation of the two strongest Protestant denominations,
the Baptists and the Methodists. The southern Baptists were, as
slaveholders, excluded from appointment as missionaries, agents, or
officers of the Board of Foreign Missions, although they contributed their
full share to missions. The Alabama Baptist Convention in 1844 led the way
to separation with a protest against this discrimination. The Board stated
in reply that under no circumstances would a slaveholder be appointed by
them to any position. The Board of the Home Mission Society made a similar
declaration. The formal withdrawal of the southern state conventions
followed in 1844, and in 1845 the Southern Baptist Convention was
formed.[29]
In the Methodist Episcopal church the conflict over slavery had long been
smouldering, and in 1844 it broke out in regard to the ownership of slaves
by the wife of Bishop Andrew of Alabama. The hostile sections agreed to
separate into a northern and a southern church, and a Plan of Separation
was adopted. This was disregarded by the northern body and the question of
the division of property went to the courts. The United States Supreme
Court finally decided in favor of the southern church. From these troubles
angry feelings on both sides resulted. The southern church took the name
of the Methodist Episcopal Church South; the northern church retained the
old name.[30]
In 1858, the northern conferences of the Methodist Protestant Church,
having failed to change the constitution of the church in regard to
slavery, withdrew, and uniting with a number of Wesleyan Methodists,
formed the Methodist Church.[31]
The Southern Aid Society was formed in New York in 1854 for mission work
in the South because it was generally believed that the American Home
Mission Society was allied with the abolitionists, and because the latter
society refused to aid any minister or missionary who was a slaveholder.
In Alabama the Southern Aid Society worked principally among the
Presbyterians of north Alabama.[32]
The Presbyterians (N.S.) separated in 1858 "on account of politics," and
the southern branch formed the United Synod South.[33] The East Alabama
Presbytery (O.S.) in 1861 supported the Presbytery of Memphis in a protest
against the action of the General Assembly of the church in entering
politics. The Presbytery of South Alabama (O.S.) met at Selma in July,
1861, severed its connection with the General Assembly, and recommended a
meeting of a Confederate States Assembly. This Assembly was held at
Augusta and formed the Presbyterian Church in the Confederate States of
America. A long address was published, setting forth the causes of the
separation, the future policy of the church, and its attitude towards
slavery. It declared that the northern section of the church with its
radical policy was playing into the hands of both slaveholders and
abolitionists and thus weakening its influence with both. "We," the
address stated, "in our ecclesiastical capacity are neither the friends
nor foes of slavery." As long as they were connected with the radical
northern church the southern Presbyterians felt that they would be
excluded from useful work among the slaves by the suspicions of the
southern people concerning their real intentions.[34]
The Christian church was divided in 1854. During the war the southern
synods of the Evangelical Lutherans withdrew and formed the General Synod
South. There were few members of these churches in Alabama.[35]
The Cumberland Presbyterians, though separated by the war, seem not to
have formally established an independent organization in the Confederate
States. A convention was called to meet at Selma in 1864, but nothing
resulted.[36]
In May, 1861, the Protestant Episcopal Convention of Alabama declared null
and void that part of the constitution of the diocese relating to its
connection with the church in the United States. Instead of the President
of the United States, the Governor of Alabama, and later, the President of
the Confederate States, was prayed for in the formal prayer. Bishop Cobbs,
a strong opponent of secession, died one hour before the secession of the
state was announced. Rev. R. H. Wilmer, a Confederate sympathizer, was
elected to succeed him.[37] In July the bishops of the southern states met
in Montgomery to draft a new constitution and canons. A resolution was
passed stating that the secession of the southern states from the Union
and the formation of a new government rendered it expedient that the
dioceses within those states should form an independent organization. The
new constitution was adopted in November, 1861, by a general convention,
and the Protestant Episcopal Church in the Confederate States was
formed.[38] And thus the religious ties were broken.
* * * * *
Business had also become sectionalized by 1861. The southern states felt
keenly their dependence upon the states of the North for manufactures,
water transportation, etc. For two decades before the war the southern
newspapers agitated the question and advocated measures that would tend to
secure economic independence of the North. As an instance of the feeling,
many of the educators of the state were in favor of using only those
text-books written by southern men and printed in the South. Professor A.
P. Barnard[39] of the University of Alabama was strenuously in favor of
such action. He declared that nothing ought to be bought from the North.
From 1845 to 1861, fifteen "Commercial Conventions" were held in the
South, largely attended by the most prominent business men and
politicians. The object of these conventions was to discuss means of
attaining economic independence.
When Alabama withdrew from the Union in 1861, no bonds were broken.
Practically the only bond of Union for most of the people had been in the
churches; to the Washington government and to the North they had never
become attached. The feelings of the great majority of the people of the
state are expressed in the last speech of Senator C. C. Clay of north
Alabama in the United States Senate. It had been forty-two years, he said,
since Alabama had entered the Union amidst scenes of excitement and
violence caused by the hostility of the North against the institution of
slavery in the South (referring to the conflict over Missouri). In the
churches, southern Christians were denied communion because of what the
North styled the "leprosy of slavery." In violation of Constitution and
laws southern people were refused permission to pass through the North
with their property. The South was refused a share in the lands acquired
mainly by her diplomacy, blood, and treasure. The South was robbed of her
property and restoration was refused. Criminals who fled North were
protected, and southern men who sought to recover their slaves were
murdered. Southern homes were burned and southern families murdered. This
had been endured for years, and there was no hope of better. The
Republican platform was a declaration of war against the South. It was
hostile to domestic peace, reproached the South as unchristian and
heathenish, and imputed sin and crime to that section. It was a strong
incitement to insurrection, arson, and murder among the negroes. The
southern whites were denied equality with northern whites or even with
free negroes, and were branded as an inferior race. The man nominated for
President disregarded the judgment of courts, the obligations of the
Constitution, and of his oath by declaring his approval of any measure to
prohibit slavery in the territories of the United States. The people of
the North branded the people of the South as outlaws, insulted them,
consigned them to the execration of posterity and to ultimate destruction.
"Is it to be expected that we will or can exercise that Godlike virtue
that beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things,
endureth all things; which tells us to love our enemies, and bless them
that curse us? Are we expected to be denied the sensibilities, the
sentiments, the passions, the reason, the instincts of men?" Have we no
pride, no honor, no sense of shame, no reverence for ancestors and care
for posterity, no love of home, of family, of friends? Are we to confess
baseness, discredit the fame of our sires, dishonor ourselves and degrade
posterity, abandon our homes and flee the country--all--all--for the sake
of the Union? Shall we live under a government administered by those who
deny us justice and brand us as inferiors? whose avowed principles and
policy must destroy domestic tranquillity, imperil the lives of our wives
and children, and ultimately destroy the state? The freemen of Alabama
have proclaimed to the world that they will not.[40]
CHAPTER II
SECESSION FROM THE UNION
On November 12, 1860, a committee of prominent citizens, appointed by a
convention of the people of several counties, asked the governor whether
he intended to call the state convention immediately after the choice of
presidential electors or to wait until the electors should have chosen the
President. They also asked to be informed of the time he intended to order
an election of delegates to the convention.[41] Governor Moore replied
that a candidate for the presidency was not elected until the electors
cast their votes, and until that time he would not call a convention. The
electors would vote on December 5, and as he had no doubt that Lincoln
would be elected, he would then order an election for December 24, and the
convention would assemble in Montgomery on January 7, 1861. The date, he
said, was placed far ahead in order that the people might have time to
consider the subject. He summed up the situation as follows: Lincoln was
the head of a sectional party pledged to the destruction of slavery; the
non-slaveholding states had repeatedly resisted the execution of the
Fugitive Slave Law, even nullifying the statutes of the United States by
their laws intended to prevent the execution of the Fugitive Slave Law;
Virginia had been invaded by abolitionists and her citizens murdered;
emissaries had burned towns in Texas; and in some instances poison had
been given to slaves with which to destroy the whites. With Lincoln as
President the abolitionists would soon control the Supreme Court and then
slavery would be abolished in the Federal district and in the territories.
There would soon be a majority of free states large enough to alter the
Constitution and to destroy slavery in the states. The state of society,
with four million negroes turned loose, would be too horrible to
contemplate, and the only safety for Alabama lay in secession, which was
within her right as a sovereign state. The Federal government was
established for the protection and not the destruction of rights; it had
only the powers delegated by the states and hence had not the power of
coercion. Alabama was devoted to the Union, but could not consent to
become a degraded member of it. The state in seceding ought to consult the
other southern states; but first she must decide for herself, and
coöperate afterwards. The convention, the governor said, would not be a
place for the timid or the rash. Men of wisdom and experience were needed,
men who could determine what the honor of the state and the security of
the people demanded, and who had the moral courage to carry out the
dictates of their honest judgment.
The proclamation, ordering an election on Christmas Eve and the assembly
of the convention at Montgomery, on January 7, 1861, was issued on
December 6, the day after the choice of Lincoln by the electors. On
January 7, every one of the one hundred delegates was present. It was a
splendid body of men, the best the people could send.
There were the "secessionists," who wanted immediate and separate
secession of the state without regard to the action of the other southern
states; the "coöperationists," who were divided among themselves, some
wanting the coöperation of the southern states within the Union in order
to force their rights from the central government, and others wanting the
southern states to come to an agreement within the Union and then secede
and form a confederacy, while a third class wanted a clear understanding
among the cotton states before secession. It was said that there were a
few "submissionists," but the votes and speeches fail to show any.
At first both parties claimed a majority, but before the convention opened
it was known that the larger number were secessionists. A test vote on the
election of a presiding officer showed the relative strength of the
parties. William M. Brooks of Perry was elected over Robert Jemison of
Tuscaloosa by a vote of 54 to 46, north Alabama voting for Jemison,
central and south Alabama for Brooks. And thus the parties voted
throughout the convention.
It is probable that the majority of the delegates were formerly Whigs, and
a majority of them was still hostile to Yancey, who was the only prominent
agitator elected. His colleague, from Montgomery County, was Thomas H.
Watts, formerly a Whig. Other prominent secessionists were J. T. Dowdell,
John T. Morgan, Thomas H. Herndon, E. S. Dargan, William M. Brooks, and
Franklin K. Beck. The opposition leaders were William R. Smith, Robert
Jemison, M. J. Bulger, Nicholas Davis, Jeremiah Clemens, Thomas J.
McClellan, and David P. Lewis. Yancey, Morgan, and Watts excepted, the
opposition had the more able speakers and debaters and the more political
experience. The advantage of representation was with the white counties,
which sent 70 of the 100 delegates.
[Illustration: PARTIES IN SECESSION CONVENTION]
When the convention settled down to work, the grievances of the South had
no important place in the discussions. The little that was said on the
subject came from the coöperationists and that only incidentally. There
was a genuine fear of social revolution brought about by the Republican
programme, but the secessionists had been stating their grievances for
twenty years and were now silent.[42] All seemed to agree that the present
state of affairs was unbearable, and that secession was the only remedy.
The only question was, How to secede? To decide that question the leaders
of each party were placed on the Committee on Secession. A majority of the
convention was in favor of immediate, separate secession. They held the
logical state sovereignty view that the state, while a member of the
Union, should not combine with another against the government or the party
controlling it. Such a course would be contrary to the Constitution and
would be equivalent to breaking up the Union while planning to save it. As
a sovereign state, Alabama could withdraw from the Union, and hence
immediate, separate secession was the proper method. Then would follow
consultation and coöperation with the other seceded southern states in
forming a southern confederacy. From the first it was known that the
secessionists were strong enough to pass at once a simple ordinance of
withdrawal. They said but little because their position was already well
understood. The people were now more united than they would be after long
debates and outside influence. Yet, for policy's sake, and in deference to
the feelings of the minority, the latter were allowed to debate for four
days before the question at issue was brought to a vote. In that time they
had about argued themselves over to the other side. With the exception of
Yancey, the secessionists were silent until the ordinance was passed. The
first resolution declared that the people of Alabama would not submit to
the administration of Lincoln and Hamlin. Both parties voted unanimously
for this resolution.[43]
The coöperationists were determined to resist Republican rule, but did not
consider delay dangerous. Some doubtless thought that in some way Lincoln
could be held in check and the Union still be preserved, and a number of
them were doubtless willing to wait and make another trial. It was known
that an ordinance of secession would be passed as soon as the
secessionists cared to bring the question to a vote, but for four days the
Committee on Secession considered the matter while the coöperationists
made speeches.[44] On January 10 the committees made two reports. The
majority report, presented by Yancey, simply provided for the immediate
withdrawal of the state from the Union. The minority report, presented by
Clemens, was in substance as follows: We are unable to see in separate
state secession the most effectual mode of guarding our honor and securing
our rights. This great object can best be attained by concurrent and
concentrated action of all the states interested, and such an effort
should be made before deciding finally upon our own policy. All the
southern states should be requested to meet in convention at Nashville,
February 22, 1861, to consider wrongs and appropriate remedies. As a basis
of settlement such a convention should consider: (1) the faithful
execution of the Fugitive Slave Law and the repeal of all state laws
nullifying it; (2) more stringent and explicit provisions for the
surrender of criminals escaping into another state; (3) guarantees that
slavery should not be abolished in the Federal district or in any other
place under the exclusive jurisdiction of Congress; (4) non-interference
with the interstate slave trade; (5) protection of slavery in the
territories which, when admitted as states, should decide for themselves
the question of slavery; (6) right of transit through free states with
slave property; (7) the foregoing to be irrepealable amendments to the
Constitution. This basis of settlement was not to be regarded as absolute,
but simply as the opinion of the Alabama convention, to which its
delegates to the proposed convention were expected to conform as nearly as
possible. Secession should not be attempted except after the most thorough
investigation and discussion.[45]
The secessionists were of one mind in regard to secession and did not
debate the subject; the coöperationists--all from north Alabama--were
careful to explain their views at length in their speeches of opposition.
Bulger (c.)[46] of Tallapoosa thought that separate secession was unwise
and impolitic, but that an effort should be made to secure the
coöperation of the other southern states before seceding. To this end he
proposed a convention of the southern states to consider the grievances of
the South and to determine the mode of relief for the present and security
for the future, and, should its demands not be complied with, to determine
upon a remedy.
Clark (c.) of Lawrence denied the right of separate secession, which would
not be a remedy for existing evils. The slavery question would not be
settled but would still be a vital and ever present issue. Separate
secession would revolutionize the government but not the northern feeling,
would not hush the pulpits, nor calm the northern mind, nor purify Black
Republicanism. The states would be in a worse condition politically than
the colonies were before the Constitution was adopted. The border states
would sell their slaves south and become free states; separate secession
would be the decree of universal emancipation. A large majority of the
people were opposed to separate secession, and besides, the state alone
would be weak and at the mercy of foreign powers. The proper policy for
Alabama was to remain in a southern union, at least, with the border
states for allies. Would secession repeal "personal liberty" laws, return
a single fugitive slave, prevent abolition in the Federal district and
territories, or the suppression of interstate slave trade? By secession
Alabama would relinquish her interest in the Union and leave it in the
control of Black Republicans. It would be almost impossible to unite the
southern states after separate secession--as difficult as it was to form
the original Union. The only hope for peaceable secession was in a united
South, and now was the time for it, for southern sentiment, though opposed
to separate secession, was ripe for southern union. The "United South"
would possess all the requirements of a great nation--territory,
resources, wealth, population, and community of interests. Separate
secession would result in the deplorable disasters of civil war. He hoped
that even yet some policy of reconciliation might succeed, but if the
contrary happened, there should be no scruples about state sovereignty;
the United South would assert the God-given right of every community to
freedom and happiness. Jones (c.) of Lauderdale declared that it was a
great mistake to call his constituents submissionists, since time after
time they had declared that they would not submit to Black Republican
rule. They differed as to the time and manner of secession, believing
that hasty secession was not a proper remedy, that it was unwise,
impolitic, and discourteous to the border states.
Smith of Tuscaloosa, the leader of the coöperationists,[47] read the
platform upon which he was elected to the convention; which, in substance,
was to use all honorable exertions to secure rights in the Union, and
failing, to maintain them out of the Union. Allegiance, he went on to say,
was due first to the state, and support was due her in any course she
might adopt. If an ordinance of secession should be passed, it would be
the supreme law of the land. Kimball (c.) of Tallapoosa said that his
constituents were opposed to secession, but were more opposed to Black
Republicanism. Before taking action he desired a solid or united South. He
agreed with General Scott that with a certain unanimity of the southern
states it would be impolitic and improper to attempt coercion. To secure
the coöperation of the southern states and to justify themselves to the
world a southern convention should be called. However, rights should be
maintained even if Alabama had to withdraw from the Union.
Watkins (c.) of Franklin stated that he would vote against the ordinance
of secession in obedience to the will of the people he represented. He
believed that separate secession was wrong. Edwards (c.) of Blount said
that secession was unwise on the part of Alabama, while Beard (c.) of
Marshall thought the best, safest, and wisest course would be to consult
and coöperate with the other slave states. He favored resistance to Black
Republican rule, and his constituents, though desiring coöperation, would
abide by the action of the state.
Bulger (c.) of Tallapoosa stated that he had voted against every
proposition leading to immediate and separate secession. Yet he would give
to the state, when the ordinance was passed, his whole allegiance; and, if
any attempt were made to coerce the state, would join the army.[48]
Winston (c.) of De Kalb stated that his constituents were opposed to
immediate secession, yet they would, no doubt, acquiesce. He had written
to his son, a cadet at West Point, to resign and come home. A convention
of the slave states should be called to make an attempt to settle
difficulties. Davis (c.) of Madison, who had stoutly opposed separate
secession, now declared that since the meeting of the convention serious
changes had occurred. Several states had already seceded and others would
follow. Consequently Alabama would not be alone. Clemens (cs.) of Madison
said he would vote for secession, but would not do so if the result
depended upon his vote. He strongly preferred the plan proposed by the
minority of the committee on secession.
During the debates there was not a single strong appeal for the Union.
There was simply no Union feeling, but an intense dislike for the North as
represented by the Republican party. The coöperationists contemplated
ultimate secession. They wished to make an attempt at compromise, but they
felt sure that it would fail. Their plan of effecting a united South
within the Union was clearly unconstitutional and could only be regarded
as a proposition to break up the old Union and reconstruct a new one.[49]
Political Theories of the Members
The secessionists held clear, logical views on the question before them.
They clearly distinguished the "state" or "people" from "government." No
secessionist ever claimed that the right of secession was one derived from
or preserved by the Constitution; it was a sovereign right. Granted the
sovereignty of the state, the right to secede in any way at any time was,
of course, not to be questioned. Consequently, they said but little on
that point.
The coöperationists were vague-minded. Most of them were stanch believers
in state sovereignty and opposed secession merely on the ground of
expediency. A few held a confused theory that while the state was
sovereign it had no right to secede unless with the whole South. This view
was most strongly advocated by Clark of Lawrence. Separate secession was
not a right, he said, though he admitted the sovereignty of the state. To
secede alone would be rebellion; not so, if in company with other southern
states. Earnest (c.) of Jefferson said that the state was sovereign, and
that after secession any acts of the state or of its citizens to protect
their rights would not be treason. But unless the state acted in its
sovereign capacity, it could not withdraw from the Union, and her
citizens would be subject to the penalties of treason.[50] Sheffield (c.)
of Marshall believed in the right of "secession or revolution." Clemens of
Madison, elected as a coöperationist, said that in voting for secession he
did it with the full knowledge that in secession they were all about to
commit treason, and, if not successful, would suffer the pains and
penalties pronounced against the highest political crime. Acting "upon the
convictions of a lifetime" he "calmly and deliberately walked into
revolution."[51]
The coöperationists were generally disposed to deny the sovereignty of the
convention. Most of them were former Whigs, who had never worked out a
theory of government. Davis (c.) of Madison repeatedly denied that the
convention had sovereign powers; sovereignty, he said, was held by the
people. Clark (c.) of Lawrence complained that the convention was
encroaching upon the rights of the people whom it should protect, and
asserted it did not possess unlimited power, but that its power was
conferred by act of the legislature, which created only a general agency
for a special purpose; that the convention had no power to do more than
pass the ordinance of secession and acts necessary thereto. Smith (c.)
said that the convention was the creature of the legislature, not of the
people, and that the southern Congress was the creature of the convention.
Buford (s.) of Barbour[52] doubted whether the convention possessed
legislative powers. According to his views, political or sovereign power
was vested in the people; the convention was not above the constitution
which created the legislature. Watts (s.) of Montgomery believed that the
power of the convention to interfere with the constitution was confined to
such changes as were necessary to the perfect accomplishment of secession.
Yelverton (s.) of Coffee summed up the theory of the majority: the
convention had full power and control over the legislative, executive, and
judiciary; the people were present in convention in the persons of their
representatives and in them was the sovereignty, the power, and the will
of the state. This was the theory upon which the convention acted.
Passage of the Ordinance of Secession
On January 11, 1861, Yancey spoke at length, closing the debate on the
question of secession. Referring to the spirit of fraternity that
prevailed, he stated that irritation and suspicion had, in great degree,
subsided. The majority had yielded to the minority all the time wanted for
deliberation, and every one had been given an opportunity to record his
sentiments. The question had not been pressed to a vote before all were
ready. Though preferring a simple ordinance of secession, the majority
had, for the sake of harmony and fraternal feeling, yielded to amendment
by the minority. All, he said, were for resistance to Republican rule, and
differed only as to the manner of resistance. Some believed in secession,
others in revolution. The ordinance might mean disunion, secession, or
revolution, as the members preferred. The mode was organized coöperation,
not of states, but of the people of Alabama, in resistance to wrong. Yet
the ordinance provided for coöperation with other states upon the basis of
the Federal Constitution. Every effort, he said, had been made to find
common ground upon which the advocates of resistance might meet, and all
parties had been satisfied. This was not a movement of the politicians,
but a great popular movement, based upon the widespread, deep-seated
conviction that the government had fallen into the hands of a sectional
majority who were determined to use it for the destruction of the rights
of the South. All were driven by an irresistible tide; the minority had
been unable to repress the movement, the majority had not been able to add
one particle to its momentum; in northern, not in southern, hands was held
the rod that smote the rock from which flowed this flood.
Some, he said, concluded that by dissolving the Union the rich inheritance
bequeathed by the fathers was hazarded. But liberties were one thing, the
power of government delegated to secure them was another. Liberties were
inalienable, and the state governments were formed to secure them; the
Federal government was the common agent, and its powers should be
withdrawn when it abused them to destroy the rights of the people. This
movement was not hostile to liberty nor to the Federal Constitution, but
was merely a dismissal of an unfaithful agent. The state now resumed the
duties formerly delegated to that agent. The ordinance of secession was a
declaration of this fact and also a proposition to form a new
government similar to the old. All were urged to sign the ordinance, not
to express approval, but to give notice to their enemies that the people
were not divided. "I now ask that the vote may be taken," he said.
[Illustration: CIVIL WAR LEADERS.
ALEXANDER HAMILTON STEPHENS.
WILLIAM LOWNDES YANCEY.
GENERAL L. P. WALKER, First Confederate Secretary of War. President of
Convention of 1875.
WILLIAM R. SMITH, Leader of Coöperationists in 1861.
JERE CLEMENS.]
The ordinance was called up. It was styled "An Ordinance to dissolve the
Union between Alabama and other States united under the Compact styled
'The Constitution of the United States of America.'" The preamble stated
that the election of Lincoln and Hamlin by a sectional party avowedly
hostile to the domestic institutions, peace, and security of Alabama,
preceded by many dangerous infractions of the Constitution by the states
and people of the North, was a political wrong of so insulting and
menacing a character as to justify the people of Alabama in the adoption
of prompt and decided measures for their future peace and security. The
ordinance simply stated that Alabama withdrew from the Union and that her
people resumed the powers delegated by the Constitution to the Federal
government. A coöperationist amendment expressed the desire of the people
to form with the other southern states a permanent government, and invited
a convention of the states to meet in Montgomery on February 4, 1861, for
consultation in regard to the common safety. The ordinance was passed by a
vote of 69 to 31, every delegate voting. Fifteen coöperationists voted for
secession and 22 signed the ordinance.
In the convention opinions varied as to whether peace or war would follow
secession. The great majority of the members, and of the people also,
believed that peaceful relations would continue. All truly wished for
peace. A number of the coöperationists expressed themselves as fearing
war, but this was when opposing secession, and they probably said more
than they really believed. Yet in nearly all the speeches made in the
convention there seemed to be distinguishable a feeling of fear and dread
lest war should follow. However, had war been a certainty, secession would
not have been delayed or checked.
There was warm discussion on the question of submitting the ordinance to
the people for ratification or rejection. The coöperationists, both before
and after the passage of the ordinance, favored its reference to the
people in the hope that the measure would be delayed or defeated. No one
expected that it would be referred to the people, but this was a good
question for obstructive purposes. The minority report on secession
declared that, in a matter of such vital importance, involving the lives
and liberties of a whole people, the ordinance should be submitted to them
for their discussion, and that secession should be attempted only after
ratification by a direct vote of the people on that single issue.
Posey (c.) of Lauderdale said that his constituents expected the question
of secession to be referred to the people, and that they would submit more
willingly to a decision made by popular vote; that the ordinance was
objectionable to them unless they were allowed to vote on it. He further
stated that when the convention had refused to submit the ordinance to the
popular vote, the first impulse of some of the coöperationists had been to
"bolt the convention." However, not being responsible, they preferred to
remain and aid in providing for the emergencies of the future. Kimbal (c.)
of Tallapoosa said that the people were the interested parties, that
sovereignty was in the people, and that they ought to decide the question.
Edwards (c.) of Blount said that his constituents expected the ordinance
to be referred to them and had instructed him to use his best exertions to
secure reference to the people. Bulger (c.) of Tallapoosa voted against
all propositions looking toward secession without reference to the people.
Davis (c.) of Madison denied the sovereignty of the convention. He said
that the vote of the people might be one way and that of the convention
another. He believed that the majority in convention represented a
minority of the people.
In closing the debate on this subject, Yancey (s.) of Montgomery said
that, as a measure of policy, to submit the ordinance to a vote of the
people was wrong. The convention was clothed with all the powers of the
people; it was the people acting in their sovereign capacity; the
government was not a pure democracy, but a government of the people,
though not by the people. Historically the convention was the supreme
power in American political theory, and submission to the people was a new
doctrine. If the ordinance should be submitted to the people, the friends
of secession would triumph, but irritation and prejudice would be aroused.
Yancey's views prevailed.
Establishing the Confederacy
A number of the coöperationists professed to believe that secession would
result in disintegration and anarchy in the South. The secessionists were
accused of desiring to tear down, not to build up. These assertions were,
in fact, unfounded, since, during the entire debate, those favoring
immediate secession stated plainly that they expected to reunite with the
other southern states after secession. Williamson (s.) of Lowndes said
that to declare to the world that they were not ready to unite with the
other slave states in a permanent government would be to act in bad faith
and subject themselves to contempt and scorn; united action was necessary;
financial and commercial affairs were in a deplorable condition;
confidence was lost, and in the business world all was gloom and
despair--this could be remedied only by a permanent government. Whatley
(s.) of Calhoun was unwilling for it to be said by posterity that they
tore down the old government and failed to reconstruct a new; the cotton
states should establish a government modelled on the Federal Union.
In accordance with these views the ordinance of secession proposed a
convention of southern states, and a few days later a resolution was
passed approving the suggestion of South Carolina to form a provisional
government upon the plan of the old Union and to prepare for a permanent
government. Each state was to send as many delegates to the convention on
February 4 as it had had senators and representatives in Congress. The
Alabama convention (January 16) elected one deputy from each congressional
district and two from the state at large, most of them being
coöperationists or moderate secessionists.
Yancey, on January 16, read a unanimous report from the Committee on
Secession in favor of forming a provisional confederate government at
once. The report also stated that the people of Alabama had never been
dissatisfied with the Constitution of the United States; that their
dissatisfaction had been with the conduct of the northern people in
violating the Constitution and in dangerous misinterpretation of it,
causing the belief that, while acting through the forms of government,
they intended to destroy the rights of the South. The Federal
Constitution, the report declared, represented a complete scheme of
government, capable of being put into speedy operation, and was so
familiar to the people that when properly interpreted they would feel safe
under it. A speedy confederation of the seceded states was desirable, and
there was no better basis than the United States Constitution. The report
recommended the formation, first, of a provisional, and later, of a
permanent, government. The secessionists warmly advocated the speedy
formation of a new confederacy. The coöperationists renewed their policy
of obstruction. Jemison (c.) of Tuscaloosa proposed to strike out the part
of the resolution relating to the formation of a permanent government.
Another coöperationist wanted delay in order that the border states might
have time to take part in forming the proposed government. Others wanted
the people to elect a new convention to act on the question. Yancey
replied that delay was dangerous, if coercion was intended by the North;
that the issue had been before the people and that they had invested their
delegates with full power; that the convention then in session had ample
authority to settle all questions concerning a provisional or a permanent
government; that another election would only cause irritation; that delay,
waiting for the secession of the border states, would be suicidal. The
proposition for a new convention was lost by a vote of 53 to 36.
The convention decided to continue the work until the end. After choosing
delegates (January 16) to the southern convention, which was to meet in
Montgomery on February 4, the state convention adjourned until the
Confederate provisional government was planned and the permanent
constitution written. Then the state convention met again on March 4 to
ratify them. The coöperationists now proposed that the new plan of
government be submitted to the people. It was right and expedient, they
said, to let the people decide. Morgan[53] (s.) of Dallas said that the
proposition for ratification by direct vote of the people was absurd. The
people would never ratify, for too many unrelated questions would be
brought in. Dargan (s.) of Mobile said that the people had conferred upon
the convention full powers to act, and that a new election would harass
the candidates with new issues such as the slave trade, reconstruction,
etc., introduced by the opponents of secession. Stone (s.) of Pickens
thought that a new election would cause angry and bitter discussions,
wrangling, distrust, and division among the people; that the proposed
constitution was very like the United States Constitution, to which the
people were so devoted that they had given up the Union rather than the
Constitution; that Lincoln's inaugural address was a declaration of war,
and a permanent government was necessary to raise money for armies and
fleets. Still the coöperationists obstructed, saying that not to refer to
the people was unfair and illiberal; that the convention was usurping the
powers of the people, who desired to be heard in the matter; that
government by a few was like a house built on the sand; that there was no
danger in waiting, for the people would be sure to ratify and then would
be better satisfied, etc. Finally most of the coöperationists agreed that
it would be better not to refer the question to the people and the
permanent Confederate constitution was ratified on March 12 by the vote of
87 to 5.[54]
For the first time Yancey stood at the head of the people of the state.
They were ready to give him any office. But the coöperationists and a few
secessionist politicians in the convention were jealous of his rising
strength and desired to stay his progress. So Earnest (c.) of Jefferson
introduced a self-denying resolution making ineligible to election to
Congress the members of the state legislature and of the convention. It
was a direct attack by the dissatisfied politicians upon the prominent men
in the convention, and especially upon Yancey. The measure was supported
by Jemison (c.) who said that it was a practice never to elect a member of
a legislative body to an office created by the legislature. Clemens (cs.)
thought such a measure unnecessary, as the majority necessary to pass it
could defeat any undesirable candidate. Stone (s.) said that such a
resolution would cost the state the services of some of her best men when
most needed; that the best men were in the convention; and that the
southern Confederacy should be intrusted to the friends, not to the
enemies, of secession. Morgan (s.) of Dallas thought that, as a matter of
policy, the congressmen would be chosen from outside of the convention.
Bragg (s.) of Mobile wanted the best men regardless of place; this was no
ordinary work and the best men were needed; the people had already made a
choice of the members once and would approve them again. Yancey said that
in principle he was opposed to such a measure. He declared that he would
not be a candidate. But he believed that the people had a right to a
choice from their entire number, and that the convention had no right to
violate the equality of citizenship by disfranchising the 223 members of
the convention and the legislature. Yelverton (s.) of Coffee at first
favored the resolution, but upon discovering that it was aimed at a few
leaders and especially at Yancey, he opposed it. He did not wish the
leaders of secession to be proscribed.
The resolution was lost by a vote of 46 to 50, but the delegates sent to
the Provisional Congress were, with one exception, taken from outside the
convention. A few politicians among the secessionists united with the
coöperationists and, passing by the most experienced and able leaders,
chose an inexperienced Whiggish delegation.[55]
The African Slave Trade
The Committee on Foreign Relations reported that the power of regulating
the slave trade would properly be conferred upon the Confederate
government, but, meanwhile, believing that the slave trade should be
prohibited until the Confederacy was formed, the committee reported an
ordinance forbidding it. Morgan (s.) of Dallas opposed the ordinance
because it was silent as to the cause of the prohibition. He was opposed
to the slave trade on the ground of public policy. If at liberty to carry
out Christian convictions, he would have Africans brought over to be made
Christian slaves, the highest condition attainable by the negro. In
holding slaves, the South was charged with sin and crime, but the southern
people were unable to perceive the wrong and unwilling to cease to do what
the North considered evil. The present movement rested, in great measure,
upon their assertion of the right to hold the African in slavery. The laws
of Congress denouncing the slave trade as piracy had been a shelter to
those who assailed the South, and had affected the standing of the South
among nations. If the slave trade were wrong, then it was much worse to
bring Christian and enlightened negroes from Virginia to Alabama than a
heathen savage from Africa to Alabama. Slavery was the only force which
had ever been able to elevate the negro. He believed that on grounds of
public policy the traffic should be condemned, but it was a question
better left to the Confederate government, because the various states
would not make uniform laws. There were slaves enough for twenty years
and, when needed, more could be had. Reopening of the African slave trade
should be forbidden by the Confederate government expressly for reasons of
public policy.
Smith (c.) of Tuscaloosa said that the question of morality did not arise;
the slave trade was not wrong. The heathen African was greatly benefited
by the change to Christian Alabama. But no more negroes were needed; they
were already increasing too fast and there was no territory for extension.
Crowded together, the white and black might degenerate like the Spaniards
and natives in Mexico. He supported the ordinance as a measure to disarm
foes who charged that one of the reasons for secession was a desire to
reopen the African slave trade, which should be denied to the world. The
slave trade would lead to war, and "If Cotton is King, his throne is
peace," war would destroy him. Jones (c.) of Lauderdale did not want
another negro on the soil of Alabama. The people of the border states were
afraid that the cotton states would reopen the slave trade, but for the
sake of uniformity the question should be left to the Confederate
government. Posey (c.) of Lauderdale also thought the border states should
be reassured, and said that on the grounds of expediency alone he would
vote against the slave trade. There were already too many negroes; already
more land was needed, and that for whites. The slave trade should be
prohibited as a great evil to the South. Potter (c.) of Cherokee was
astonished that the slave trade and slavery were treated as if identical
in point of morality. It was a duty to support and perpetuate slavery; the
slave trade was immoral in its tendency and effects; the question,
however, should be settled on the grounds of policy alone.
Yelverton (s.) of Coffee[56] said that the slave trade should not now be
reopened nor forever closed, but that the regulation of it should be left
to the legislature. It was said that the world was against the South on
the slavery question; then the South should either own all the slaves, or
set them all free in deference to unholy prejudice. As the southern people
were not ready to surrender the negroes, they should be at liberty to buy
them in any market, subject simply to the laws of trade. Slavery was the
cause of secession and should not be left in doubt. A slave in Alabama
cost eight times as much as one imported from Africa. If the border states
entered the Confederacy, they could furnish slaves; if they remained in
the Union and thus became foreign country, the South should not be forced
to buy from them alone. Slavery was a social, moral, and political
blessing. The Bible sanctioned it, and had nothing to say in favor of it
in one country and against it in another. To restrict the slave market to
the United States would be a blow at states rights and free trade, and
with slavery stricken, King Cotton would become a petty tyrant. Slavery
had built up the Yankees, socially, politically, and commercially. The
English were a calculating people and would not hesitate, on account of
slavery, to recognize southern independence, and other nations would do
likewise. Expansion of territory would come and would cause an increased
demand for slaves. The arguments against the slave trade, he said, were
that fanaticism might be angered, that there were too many negroes
already, and that those who had slaves to sell might suffer from reduced
prices. But the larger part of the people would prefer to purchase in a
cheaper market, and non-slaveholders, as they grew wealthier, could become
slave owners. The argument against the slave trade, he added, was usually
the one of dollars and cents. The great moral effect was lost sight of,
and it seemed from some arguments that Christianity did not require the
Bible to be taught to the poor slave unless profit followed. The time was
not far distant when the reopening of the slave trade would be considered
essential to the industrial prosperity of the cotton states.
Stone (s.) of Pickens said that he would not hesitate, from moral reasons,
to purchase a slave anywhere. Slavery was sanctioned by the divine law; it
was a blessing to the negro. But on grounds of policy he would insist upon
the prohibition of the slave trade. Too many slaves would make too much
cotton; prices would then fall and weaken the institution. Keep the prices
high, and the institution would be strengthened; reduce the value of the
slaves, and the interest of the owners in the institution would be
reduced, and the border states would listen to plans for general
emancipation. There was no territory in which slavery could expand.
Yancey (s.) explained his course in the Southern Commercial Conventions in
preceding years when he had advocated the repeal of the laws against the
slave trade. He thought that the laws of Congress defining the slave
trade as piracy placed a stigma on the institution, condemned it from the
point of view of the government, and thus violated the spirit of the
Constitution by discriminating against the South. He did not then advocate
the reopening of the slave trade, nor would he do so at this time. For two
reasons he insisted that the Confederate Congress should prohibit the
slave trade: (1) already there were as many slaves as were needed; (2) to
induce the border states to enter the Confederacy.
Dowdell (s.) of Chambers proposed an amendment to the ordinance of
prohibition, declaring that slavery was a moral, social, and political
blessing, and that any attempt to hinder its expansion should be opposed.
He opposed reopening the slave trade, though he considered that there was
no moral distinction between slavery and the slave trade. The border
states, he said, need not be encouraged by declarations of policy; they
would join the Confederacy anyway. Slavery might be regulated by Congress,
but should not be prohibited by organic law. He expressed a wish that he
might never see the day when white immigration would drive out slave labor
and take its place, nor did he want social or political inequality among
white people whom he believed should be kept free, independent, and equal,
recognizing no subordinate except those made as such by God. The
legislature, he thought, should be left to deal with the evil of white
immigration from the North, so that the southern people might be kept a
slaveholding people. But, he asked, can that be done with slaves at $1000
a head? And must the hands of the people be tied because a fantastical
outside world says that slavery and the slave trade are morally wrong?
Watts (s.) of Montgomery proposed that the Confederacy be given power to
prohibit the importation of slaves from any place. Smith (c.) of
Tuscaloosa said that the proposal of Watts was a threat against the border
states, which would lose their slave market unless they joined the
Confederacy; that the border states must be kept friendly, a bulwark
against the North.
A resolution was finally passed to the effect that the people of Alabama
were opposed, for reasons of public policy, to reopening the slave trade,
and the state's delegates in Congress were instructed to insist on the
prohibition.
The debates show clearly the feeling of the delegates that, on the
slavery question, the rest of the world was against them, and hence, as a
measure of expediency, they were in favor of prohibiting the trade. Some
wished to have all the whites finally become slaveholders; others believed
that the negroes were the economic and social enemies of the whites, and
they wanted no more of them. But all agreed that slavery was a good thing
for the negro.
* * * * *
Yancey (s.) introduced a resolution favoring the free navigation of the
Mississippi. The North, he said, was uncertain as to the policy of the
South and must be assured that the South wished no restrictions upon
trade. "Free trade" was its motto. Dowdell (s.) proposed that the
navigation should be free only to those states and territories lying on
the river and its tributaries, while Smith (c.) thought that all
navigation should remain as unrestricted and open to all as before
secession. Yancey thought that absolutely unrestricted navigation would
tend to undermine secession, for it would tend to reconstruct the late
political union into a commercial union. Such a policy would discriminate
against European friends in favor of New England enemies. As passed, the
resolution expressed the sense of the convention that the navigation of
the Mississippi should be free to all the people of those states and
territories which were situated on that river or its tributaries.
Commissioners to Other States
As soon as the governor issued writs of election for a convention, fearing
that the legislatures of other states then in session might adjourn before
calling conventions, he sent a commissioner to each southern state to
consult and advise with the governor and legislature in regard to the
question of secession and later confederation. These commissioners made
frequent reports to the governor and convention and did much to secure the
prompt organization of a permanent government.[57]
After the ordinance of secession was passed a resolution was adopted to
the effect that Alabama, being no longer a member of the Union, was not
entitled to representation at Washington and that her representatives
there should be instructed to withdraw. A second resolution, authorizing
the governor to send two commissioners to Washington to treat with that
government, caused some debate.
Clemens (cs.) said that there was no need of sending commissioners to
Washington, because they would not be received. Let Washington send
commissioners to Alabama; South Carolina was differently situated; Alabama
held her own forts, South Carolina did not. Smith (c.) proposed that only
one commissioner be sent. One would do more efficient work and the expense
would be less. Watts (s.) said that Alabama as a former member of the
Union should inform the old government of her withdrawal and of her policy
for the future; that there were many grave and delicate matters to be
settled between the two governments; and that commissioners should be sent
to propose terms of adjustment and to demand a recognition of the new
order.
Webb (s.) of Greene said that Alabama stood in the same attitude toward
the United States as toward France. And the fact that the commissioners of
South Carolina had been treated with contempt should not influence
Alabama. If one was to be in the wrong, let it be the Washington
government. To send commissioners would not detract from the dignity of
the state, but would show a desire for amicable relations. Whatley (s.)
took the same ground, and added that, having seized the forts to prevent
their being used against Alabama, the state, as retiring partner, would
hold them as assets until a final settlement, especially as its share had
not been received. Some members urged that only one commissioner be sent
in order to save expenses. All were getting to be very economical. And
practically all agreed that it was the duty of the state to show her
desire for amicable relations by making advances.
Yancey thought the matter should be left to the Provisional Congress; the
United States had made agreements with South Carolina about the military
status of the forts and had violated the agreement; the other states also
had claims of public property, and negotiations should be carried on by
the common agent. Separate action by the state would only complicate
matters.
Finally, it was decided to send one commissioner, and the governor
appointed Thomas J. Judge, who proceeded to Washington, with authority to
negotiate regarding the forts, arsenals, and custom-houses in the state,
the state's share of the United States debt, and the future relations
between the United States and Alabama, and through C. C. Clay, late United
States senator from Alabama, applied for an interview with the President.
Buchanan refused to receive him in his official capacity, but wrote that
he would be glad to see him as a private gentleman. Judge declined to be
received except in his official capacity, and said that future
negotiations must begin at Washington.
* * * * *
Foreseeing war, Watts (s.) proposed that the general assembly be given
power to confiscate the property of alien enemies, and also to suspend the
collection of debts due to alien enemies. Shortridge (s.) thought that the
measure was not sufficiently emphatic, since war had practically been
declared. He said the courts should be closed against the collection of
debts due persons in the northern states which had passed personal liberty
laws. He stated that Alabama owed New York several million dollars, and
that to pay this debt would drain from the country the currency, which
should be held to relieve the strain.
Jones (c.) was opposed to every description of robbery. The course
proposed, he said, would be a flagrant outrage upon just creditors, as the
greater wrong would be done the friends of the South, for
nineteen-twentieths of the debt was due to political friends--merchants
who had always defended the rights of the South. Those debts should be
paid and honor sustained. The legislature, he added, would pass a
stay-law, which he regretted, and that would suffice. Smith (c.) said that
confiscation was an act of war, and would provoke retaliation. Every
action should look toward the preservation of peace.
Clarke (s.) of Marengo saw nothing wrong in the measure. There was no wish
or intention of evading payment of the debt; payment would only be
suspended or delayed. It was a peace measure. Lewis (cs.) said that only
the war-making power would have authority to pass such a measure, and that
this power would be lodged in the Confederate Congress. Meanwhile, he
proposed to give the power temporarily to the legislature.
Early in the session the secessionists introduced a resolution pledging
the state to resist any attempt by the United States to coerce any of the
seceded states. Alabama could not stand aside, they said, and see the
seceded states coerced by the United States government, which had no
authority to use force. All southern states recognized secession as the
essence and test of state sovereignty, and would support each other.
Earnest (c.) of Jefferson was of the opinion that this resolution was
intended to cover acts of hostility already committed by individuals, such
as Governor Moore and other officials, before the state seceded, and to
vote for the resolution subjected the voter to the penalties of treason.
When a state acted in its sovereign capacity and withdrew from the Union,
then those individuals were relieved. But to vote for such a measure
before secession was treason.
Morgan (s.) of Dallas said that, whether Alabama were in or out of the
Union, she could see no state coerced; the question was not debatable. To
attack South Carolina was to attack Alabama. "We are one united people and
can never be dissevered." The North was pledging men and money to coerce
the southern states, and its action must be answered. Jemison (c.) thought
the war alarms were false and that there was no necessity for immediate
action, while Smith (c.), his colleague, heartily indorsed the measure.
Jones (c.) declared that before the state seceded he would not break the
laws of the United States; that he had sworn to support the Constitution,
and only the state could absolve him from that oath; that such a measure
was not lawful while the state was in the Union.
After secession the resolution was again called up, and all speakers
agreed that aid should be extended to seceded states in case of coercion.
Some wanted to promise aid to any one of the United States which might
take a stand against the other states in behalf of the South. Events moved
so rapidly that the measure did not come to a vote before the organization
of the Provisional Congress.
Legislation by the Convention
Not only was the old political structure to be torn down, but a new one
had to be erected. In organizing the new order the convention performed
many duties pertaining usually to the legislature. This was done in order
to save time and to prevent confusion in the administration.
Citizenship was defined to include free whites only, except such as were
citizens of the United States before January 11, 1861. A person born in a
northern state or in a foreign country before January 11, 1861, must take
the oath of allegiance to the state of Alabama, and the oath of
abjuration, renouncing allegiance to all other sovereignties. The state
constitution was amended by omitting all references to the United States;
the state officers were absolved from their oath to support the United
States Constitution; jurisdiction of the United States over waste and
unappropriated lands and navigable waters was rescinded; and navigation
was opened to all citizens of Alabama and other states that "may unite
with Alabama in a Southern Slaveholding Confederacy." A registration of
lands was ordered to be made; the United States land system was adopted, a
homestead law was provided for, and a new land office was established at
Greenville, in Butler County. The governor was authorized to revoke
contracts made under United States laws with commissioners appointed to
locate swamps and overflowed lands. The general assembly was authorized to
cede to the Confederacy exclusive jurisdiction over a district ten miles
square for a seat of government for the Confederate States of America.
Provision was made for the military defence of Alabama, and the United
States army regulations were adopted almost in their entirety. The militia
was reorganized; all commissions were vacated, and new elections ordered.
The governor was placed in charge of all measures for defence. He was
authorized to purchase supplies for the use of the state army, to borrow
money for the same, and to issue bonds to cover expenses. Later, the
convention decreed that all arms and munitions of war taken from the
United States should be turned over to the Confederacy; only the small
arms belonging to the state were retained. The governor was authorized to
transfer to the Confederate States, upon terms to be agreed upon between
the governor and the president, all troops raised for state defence. Thus
all volunteer companies could be transferred to the Confederate service if
the men were willing, otherwise they were discharged. A number of
ordinances were passed organizing the state military system, and
coöperating with the Confederate government. Jurisdiction over forts,
arsenals, and navy yards was conferred upon the Confederate States. This
ordinance could only be revoked by a convention of the people.
The port of Mobile was resumed by the state. The collector of the port and
his assistants were continued in office as state officials who were to act
in the name of the state of Alabama. With a view to future settlement the
collector was ordered to retain all funds in his hands belonging to the
United States, and the state of Alabama guaranteed his safety, as to oath,
bond, etc. As far as possible, the United States customs and port
regulations were adopted. Vessels built anywhere, provided that one-third
was owned by citizens of the southern states and commanded by southern
captains, were entitled to registry as vessels of Alabama. The collector
was authorized to take possession in the name of the state of all
government custom-houses, lighthouses, etc., and to reappoint the officers
in charge if they would accept office from the state. The weights and
measures of the United States were adopted as the standard; discriminating
duties imposed by the United States, and regulations on foreign vessels
and merchandise were abolished; Selma and Mobile were continued as ports
of entry, and all ordinances relating to Mobile were extended to Selma.
Thaddeus Sanford, the collector of Mobile, reported to the convention that
the United States Treasury Department had drawn on him for $26,000 on
January 7, 1861, and asked for instructions in regard to paying it. The
Committee on Imports reported that the draft was dated before secession
and before the ordinance directing the collector to retain all United
States funds, that it was drawn to pay parties for services rendered while
Alabama was a member of the Union. So it was ordered to be paid.
After the Confederacy was formed, the convention ordered that the
custom-houses, marine hospital, lighthouses, buoys, and the revenue
cutter, _Lewis Cass_, be turned over to the Confederate authorities; and
the collector was directed to transfer all money collected by him to the
Confederate authorities, who were to account for all moneys and settle
with the United States authorities. The collector was then released from
his bond to the state.
Postal contracts and regulations in force prior to January 11, 1861, were
permitted to remain for the present. The general assembly was empowered
to make postal arrangements until the Confederate government should be
established. Meanwhile, the old arrangements with the United States were
unchanged.[58] Other ordinances adopted the laws of the United States
relating to the value of foreign coins, and directed the division of the
state into nine congressional districts.
The judicial powers were resumed by the state and were henceforth to be
exercised by the state courts. The circuit and chancery courts and the
city court of Mobile were given original jurisdiction in cases formerly
arising within the jurisdiction of the Federal courts. Jurisdiction over
admiralty cases was vested in the circuit courts and the city court of
Mobile. The chancery courts had jurisdiction in all cases of equity. The
state supreme court was given original and exclusive jurisdiction over
cases concerning ambassadors and public ministers. All admiralty cases,
except where the United States was plaintiff, pending in the Federal
courts in Alabama were transferred with all records to the state circuit
courts; cases in equity in like manner to the state chancery courts; the
United States laws relating to admiralty and maritime cases, and to the
postal service were adopted temporarily; the forms of proceedings in state
courts were to be the same as in former Federal courts; the clerks of the
circuit courts were given the custody of all records transferred from
Federal courts and were empowered to issue process running into any part
of the state and to be executed by any sheriff; United States marshals in
whose hands processes were running were ordered to execute them and to
make returns to the state courts under penalty of being prosecuted as if
defaulting sheriffs; the right was asserted to prosecute marshals who were
guilty of misconduct before secession. The United States laws of May 26,
1796, and March 27, 1804, prescribing the method of authentication of
public acts, records, or judicial proceedings for use in other courts,
were adopted for Alabama. In cases appealed to the United States Supreme
Court from the Alabama supreme court, the latter was to act as if no
appeal had been taken and execute judgment; cases appealed from inferior
Federal courts to the United States Supreme Court, were to be considered
as appealed to the state supreme court which was to proceed as if the
cases had been appealed to it from its own lower courts. The United States
were not to be allowed to be a party to any suit in the state courts
against a citizen of Alabama unless ordered by the convention or by the
general assembly. Federal jurisdiction in general was to be resumed by
state courts until the Confederate government should act in the matter.
No law of Alabama in force January 11, 1861, consistent with the
Constitution and not inconsistent with the ordinances of the convention,
was to be affected by secession; no official of the state was to be
affected by secession; no offence against the state, and no penalty, no
obligation, and no duty to or of state, no process or proceeding in court,
no right, title, privilege, or obligation under the state or United States
Constitution and laws, was to be affected by the ordinance of secession
unless inconsistent with it. No change made by the convention in the
constitution of Alabama should have the effect to divest of any right,
title, or legal trust existing at the time of making the change. All
changes were to have a prospective, not a retrospective, effect unless
expressly declared in the change itself.
The general assembly was to have no power to repeal, alter, or amend any
ordinance of the convention incorporated in the revised constitution.
Other ordinances were to be considered as ordinary legislation and might
be amended or repealed by the legislature.[59]
North Alabama in the Convention
All the counties of north Alabama sent coöperation delegates to the
convention, and these spoke continually of a peculiar state of feeling on
the part of their constituents which required conciliation by the
convention. The people of that section, in regard to their grievances,
thought as the people of central and south Alabama, but they were not so
ready to act in resistance. Moreover, it would seem that they desired all
the important measures framed by the convention to be referred to them for
approval or disapproval. The coöperationists made much of this state of
feeling for purposes of obstruction. There was, and had always been, a
slight lack of sympathy between the people of the two sections; but on the
present question they were very nearly agreed, though still opposing from
habit. Had the coöperationists been in the majority, secession would have
been hardly delayed. Of course, among the mountains and sand-hills of
north Alabama was a small element of the population not concerned in any
way with the questions before the people, and who would oppose any measure
supported by southern Alabama. Sheets of Winston was probably the only
representative of this class in the convention. The members of the
convention referred to the fact of the local nature of the
dissatisfaction. Yancey, angered at the obstructive tactics of the
coöperationists, who had no definite policy and nothing to gain by
obstruction, made a speech in which he said it was useless to disguise the
fact that in some parts of the state there was dissatisfaction in regard
to the action of the convention, and warned the members from north
Alabama, whom he probably considered responsible for the dissatisfaction,
that as soon as passed the ordinance of secession became the supreme law
of the land, and it was the duty of all citizens to yield obedience. Those
who refused, he said, were traitors and public enemies, and the sovereign
state would deal with them as such. Opposition after secession was
unlawful and to even speak of it was wrong, and he predicted that the name
"tory" would be revived and applied to such people. Jemison of Tuscaloosa,
a leading coöperationist, made an angry reply, and said that Yancey would
inaugurate a second Reign of Terror and hang people by families, by towns,
counties, and districts.
Davis (c.) of Madison declared that the people of north Alabama would
stand by the expressed will of the people of the state, and intimated that
the action of the convention did not represent the will of the people. If,
he added, resistance to revolution gave the name of "tories," it was
possible that the people of north Alabama might yet bear the designation;
that any invasion of their rights or any attempt to force them to
obedience would result in armed resistance; that the invader would be met
at the foot of the mountains, and in armed conflict the question of the
sovereignty of the people would be settled. Clark (c.) of Lawrence said
that north Alabama was more closely connected with Tennessee, and that
many of the citizens were talking of secession from Alabama and annexation
to Tennessee. He begged for some concession to north Alabama, but did not
seem to know exactly what he wanted. He intimated that there would be
civil war in north Alabama. Jones (c.) of Lauderdale said that his
people were not "submissionists" and would share every toil and danger in
support of the state to which was their supreme allegiance. Edwards (c.)
of Blount was not prepared to say whether his people would acquiesce or
not. He promised to do nothing to excite them to rebellion! Davis of
Madison, who a few days before was ready to rebel, now said that he, and
perhaps all north Alabama, would cheerfully stand by the state in the
coming conflict.
[Illustration: JEFFERSON DAVIS.]
A majority of the coöperationists voted against the ordinance of
secession, at the same time stating that they intended to support it when
it became law. The ordinance was lithographed, and the delegates were
given an opportunity to sign their names to the official copy.
Thirty-three of the delegates from north Alabama, two of whom had voted
for the ordinance, refused to sign, because, as they said, it might appear
as if they approved all that had been done by the secessionists. Their
opposition to the policy of the majority was based on the following
principles: (1) the fundamental principle that representative bodies
should submit their acts for approval to the people; (2) the interests of
all demanded that all the southern states be consulted in regard to a plan
for united action. The members who refused to sign repeatedly acknowledged
the binding force of the ordinance and promised a cheerful obedience, but,
at the same time, published far and wide an address to the people,
justifying their opposition and refusal to sign, causing the impression
that they considered the action of the convention illegal. There was no
reason whatever why these men should pursue the policy of obstruction to
the very last, yet it was done. Nine of the thirty-three finally signed
the ordinance, but twenty-four never signed it, though they promised to
support it.
* * * * *
The majority of the members and of the people contemplated secession as a
finality; reconstruction was not to be considered. A few of the
coöperationists, however, were in favor of secession as a means of
bringing the North to terms. Messrs. Pugh and Clay (members of Congress)
in a letter to the convention suggested that the border states considered
the secession of the cotton states as an indispensable basis for a
reconstruction of the Union. Smith of Tuscaloosa, the leading
coöperationist, stated his belief that the revolution would teach the
North her dependence upon the South, how much she owed that section, bring
her to a sense of her duty, and cause her to yield to the sensible demands
of the South. He looked forward with fondest hopes to the near future when
there would be a reconstruction of the Union with redress of grievances,
indemnity for the past, complete and unequivocal guarantees for the
future.
Incidents of the Session
The proceedings were dignified, solemn, and at times even sad. During the
whole session, good feeling prevailed to a remarkable degree among the
individual members, and toward the last the utmost harmony existed between
the parties.[60] For this the credit is due the secessionists. At times
the coöperationists were suspicious, and pursued a policy of obstruction
when nothing was to be gained; but they were given every privilege and
shown every courtesy. During the early part of the session an enthusiastic
crowd filled the halls and galleries and manifested approval of the course
of the secessionist leaders by frequent applause. In order to secure
perfect freedom of debate to the minority, it was ordered that no applause
be permitted; and this order failing to keep the spectators silent, the
galleries were cleared, and thereafter secret sessions were the rule.
Affecting and exciting scenes followed the passage of the ordinance of
secession. One by one the strong members of the minority arose and, for
the sake of unity at home, surrendered the opinions of a lifetime and
forgot the prejudices of years. This was done with no feeling of
humiliation. To the last, they were treated with distinguished
consideration by their opponents. There was really no difference in the
principles of the two parties; the only differences were on local,
personal, sectional, and social questions. On the common ground of
resistance to a common enemy they were united.
On January 11, 1861, after seven days' debate, it became known that the
vote on secession would be taken, and an eager multitude crowded Capitol
Hill to hear the announcement of the result. The senate chamber, opposite
the convention hall, was crowded with the waiting people, who were
addressed by distinguished orators on the topics of the day. As many women
as men were present, and, if possible, were more eager for secession.
Their minds had long ago been made up. "With them," says the grave
historian of the convention, "the love songs of yesterday had swelled into
the political hosannas of to-day."
The momentous vote was taken, the doors were flung open, the result
announced, and in a moment the tumultuous crowd filled the galleries,
lobbies, and aisles of the convention hall. The ladies of Montgomery had
made a large state flag, and when the doors were opened this flag was
unfurled in the hall so that its folds extended almost across the chamber.
Members jumped on desks, chairs, and tables to shake out the floating
folds and display the design. There was a perfect frenzy of enthusiasm.
Yancey, the secessionist leader and splendid orator, in behalf of the
ladies presented the flag to the convention. Smith, the leader of the
coöperationists, replied in a speech of acceptance, paying an affecting
tribute to the flag that they were leaving--"the Star-Spangled Banner,
sacred to memory, baptized in the nation's best blood, consecrated in song
and history, and the herald of liberty's grandest victories on land and on
sea." In memory of the illustrious men who brought fame to the flag, he
said, "Let him who has tears prepare to shed them now as we lower this
glorious ensign of our once vaunted victories." Alpheus Baker of Barbour
in glowing words expressed to the ladies the thanks of the convention.
Amidst wild enthusiasm in hall and street the convention adjourned. One
hundred and one cannon shots announced the result. The flag of the
Republic of Alabama floated from windows, steeples, and towers. Party
lines were forgotten, and until late in the night every man who would
speak was surrounded by eager listeners. The people were united in common
sentiment in the face of common danger.
One hour before the signal cannon shot announced that the fateful step had
been taken and that Alabama was no longer one of the United States, there
died, within sight of the capitol, Bishop Cobb of the Episcopal Church,
the one man of character and influence who in all Alabama had opposed
secession in any way, at any time, or for any reason.[61]
PART II
WAR TIMES IN ALABAMA
CHAPTER III
MILITARY AND POLITICAL EVENTS
SEC. I. MILITARY OPERATIONS
On January 4, 1861, the Alabama troops, ordered by Governor Andrew B.
Moore, seized the forts which commanded the entrance to the harbor at
Mobile, and also the United States arsenal at Mount Vernon, thirty miles
distant. A few days later the governor, in a communication addressed to
President Buchanan, explained the reason for this step. He was convinced,
he said, that the convention would withdraw the state from the Union, and
he deemed it his duty to take every precaution to render the secession
peaceable. Information had been received which led him to believe that the
United States government would attempt to maintain its authority in
Alabama by force, even to bloodshed. The President must surely see, the
governor wrote, that coercion could not be effectual until capacity for
resistance had been exhausted, and it would have been unwise to have
permitted the United States government to make preparations which would be
resisted to the uttermost by the people. The purpose in taking possession
of the forts and arsenal was to avoid, not to provoke, hostilities.
Amicable relations with the United States were ardently desired by
Alabama; and every patriotic man in the state was praying for peaceful
secession. He had ordered an inventory to be taken of public property in
the forts and arsenal, which were held subject to the control of the
convention.[62] A month later, Governor Moore, in a communication
addressed to the Virginia commissioners for mediation, stated that
Alabama, in seceding, had no hostile intentions against the United States;
that the sole object was to protect her rights, interests, and honor,
without disturbing peaceful relations. This would continue to be the
policy of the state unless the Federal government authorized hostile
acts. Yet any attempt at coercion would be resisted. In conclusion, he
stated that he had no power to appoint delegates to the proposed
convention, but promised to refer the matter to the legislature. However,
he did not believe that there was the least hope that concessions would be
made affording such guarantees as the seceding states could accept.[63]
The War in North Alabama
For a year Alabama soil was free from invasion, though the coast was
blockaded in the summer of 1861. In February, 1862, Fort Henry, on the
Tennessee River, fell, and on the same day Commodore Phelps with four
gunboats sailed up the river to Florence. Several steamboats with supplies
for Johnston's army were destroyed to prevent capture by the Federals.
Phelps destroyed a partly finished gunboat, burned the Confederate
supplies in Florence, and then returned to Fort Henry.[64] The fall of
Fort Donelson (February 16) and the retreat of Johnston to Corinth left
the Tennessee valley open to the Federals. A few days after the battle of
Shiloh, General O. M. Mitchell entered Huntsville (April 11, 1862) and
captured nearly all the rolling stock belonging to the railroads running
into Huntsville. Decatur, Athens, Tuscumbia, and the other towns of the
Tennessee valley were occupied within a few days. To oppose this invasion
the Confederates had small bodies of troops widely scattered across north
Alabama. The fighting was almost entirely in the nature of skirmishes and
was continual. Philip D. Roddy, later known as the "Defender of North
Alabama," first appears during this summer as commander of a small body of
irregular troops, which served as the nucleus of a regiment and later a
brigade. Hostilities in north Alabama at an early date assumed the worst
aspects of guerilla warfare. The Federals were never opposed by large
commands of Confederates, and were disposed to regard the detachments who
fought them as guerillas and to treat them accordingly. In spite of the
strenuous efforts of General Buell to have his subordinates wage war in
civilized manner,[65] they were guilty of infamous conduct. General
Mitchell was charged by the people with brutal conduct toward
non-combatants and with being interested in the stealing of cotton and
shipping it North. He was finally removed by Buell.[66]
One of Mitchell's subordinates--John Basil Turchin, the Russian colonel of
the Nineteenth Illinois regiment--was too brutal even for Mitchell, and
the latter tried to keep him within bounds. His worst offence was at
Athens, in Limestone County, in May, 1862. Athens was a wealthy place,
intensely southern in feeling, and on that account was most heartily
disliked by the Federals. Here, for two hours, Turchin retired to his tent
and gave over the town to the soldiers to be sacked after the old European
custom. Revolting outrages were committed. Robberies were common where
Turchin commanded. His Russian ideas of the rules of war were probably
responsible for his conduct. Buell characterized it as "a case of
undisputed atrocity." For this Athens affair Turchin was court-martialled
and sentenced to be dismissed from the service. The facts were notorious
and well known at Washington, but the day before Buell ordered his
discharge, Turchin was made a brigadier-general.[67]
General Mitchell himself reported (May, 1862) that "the most terrible
outrages--robberies, rapes, arson, and plundering--are being committed by
lawless brigands and vagabonds connected with the army." He asked for
authority to hang them and wrote, "I hear the most deplorable accounts of
excesses committed by soldiers."[68] About fifty of the citizens of
Athens, at the suggestion of Mitchell, filed claims for damages. Thereupon
Mitchell informed them that they were laboring under a very serious
misapprehension if they expected pay from the United States government
unless they had proper vouchers.[69] Buell condemned his action in this
matter also. Mitchell asked the War Department for permission to send
prominent Confederate sympathizers at Huntsville to northern prisons. He
said that General Clemens and Judge Lane advised such a measure. He
reported that he held under arrest a few active rebels "who refused to
condemn the guerilla warfare." The War Department seems to have been
annoyed by the request, but after Mitchell had repeated it, permission was
given to send them to the fort in Boston Harbor.[70]
Mitchell was charged at Washington with having failed in his duty of
repressing plundering and pillaging. He replied that he had no great
sympathy with the citizens of Athens who hated the Union soldiers so
intensely.[71]
As the war continued the character of the warfare grew steadily worse.
Ex-Governor Chapman's family were turned out of their home to make room
for a negro regiment. A four-year-old child of the family wandered back to
the house and was cursed and abused by the soldiers. The house was finally
burned and the property laid waste. Governor Chapman was imprisoned and at
last expelled from the country. Mrs. Robert Patton they threatened to
strip in search of money and actually began to do so in the presence of
her husband, but she saved herself by giving up the money.[72] Such
experiences were common.
The provost marshal at Huntsville--Colonel Harmer--selected a number of
men to answer certain political questions, who, if their answers were not
satisfactory, were to be expelled from the country. Among these were,
George W. Hustoun, Luke Pryor, and ---- Malone of Athens, Dr. Fearn of
Huntsville, and two ministers--Ross and Banister. General Stanley
condemned the policy, but General Granger wanted the preachers expelled
anyway, although Stanley said they had never taken part in politics.[73]
The harsh treatment of non-combatants and Confederate soldiers by Federal
soldiers and by the tories resulted in the retaliation of the former when
opportunity occurred. Toward the end of the war prisoners were seldom
taken by either side. When a man was caught, he was often strung up to a
limb of the nearest tree, his captors waiting a few minutes for their
halters, and then passing on. The Confederate irregular cavalry became a
terror even to the loyal southern people. Stealing, robbery, and murder
were common in the debatable land of north Alabama.[74]
Naturally the "tory" element of the population suffered much from the same
class of Confederate troops. The Union element, it was said, suffered more
from the operation of the impressment law. The Confederate and state
governments strictly repressed the tendency of Confederate troops to
pillage the "Union" communities in north Alabama.[75]
General Mitchell and his subordinates were accustomed to hold the people
of a community responsible for damages in their vicinity to bridges,
trestles, and trains caused by the Confederate forces. In August, 1862,
General J. D. Morgan, in command at Tuscumbia, reported that he "sent out
fifty wagons this afternoon to the plantations near where the track was
torn up yesterday, for cotton. I want it to pay damages."[76] When Turchin
had to abandon Athens, on the advance of Bragg into Tennessee, he set fire
to and burned much of the town, but his conduct was denounced by his
fellow-officers.[77] Near Gunterville (1862) a Federal force was fired
upon by scouts, and the Federals, in retaliation, shelled the town. This
was done a second time during the war, and finally the town was burned. In
Jackson County four citizens were arrested (1862) because the pickets at
Woodville, several miles away, had been fired upon.[78]
In a skirmish in north Alabama, General R. L. McCook was shot by Captain
Gurley of Russell's Fourth Alabama Cavalry. The Federals spread the report
among the soldiers that he had been murdered, and as the Federal commander
reported, "Many of the soldiers spread themselves over the country and
burned all the property of the rebels in the vicinity, and shot a rebel
lieutenant who was on furlough." Even the house of the family who had
ministered to General McCook in his last moments was burned to the ground.
The old men and boys for miles around were arrested. The officer who was
shot was at home on furlough and sick. General Dodge's command committed
many depredations in retaliation for the death of McCook. A year later
Captain Gurley was captured and sentenced to be hanged. The Confederate
authorities threatened retaliation, and he was then treated as a prisoner
of war. After the close of the war he was again arrested and kept in jail
and in irons for many months at Nashville and Huntsville. At last he was
liberated.[79]
Later in the war (1864), General M. L. Smith ordered the arrest of "five
of the best rebels" in the vicinity of a Confederate attack on one of his
companies, and again five were arrested near the place where a Union man
had been attacked.[80] These are examples of what often happened. It
became a rule to hold a community responsible for all attacks made by the
Confederate soldiers.
The people suffered fearfully. Many of them had to leave the country in
order to live. John E. Moore wrote to the Confederate Secretary of War
from Florence, in December, 1862, that the people of north Alabama "have
been ground into the dust by the tyrants and thieves."[81] The citizens of
Florence (January, 1863) petitioned the Secretary of War for protection.
They said that they had been greatly oppressed by the Federal army in
1862. Property had been destroyed most wantonly and vindictively, the
privacy of the homes invaded, citizens carried off and ill treated, and
slaves carried off and refused the liberty of returning when they desired
to do so. The harshness of the Federals had made many people submissive
for fear of worse things. No men, except the aged and infirm, were left in
the country; the population was composed chiefly of women and
children.[82] It was in response to this appeal that Roddy's command was
raised to a brigade. But the retreat of Bragg left north Alabama to the
Federals until the close of the war, except for a short period during
Hood's invasion of Tennessee.
The Streight Raid
April 19, 1863, Colonel A. D. Streight of the Federal army, with 2000
picked troops, disembarked at Eastport and started on a daring raid
through the mountain region of north Alabama. The object of the raid was
to cut the railroads from Chattanooga to Atlanta and to Knoxville, which
supplied Bragg and to destroy the Confederate stores at Rome. To cover
Streight's movements General Dodge was making demonstrations in the
Tennessee valley and Forrest was sent to meet him. Hearing by accident of
Streight's movements, Forrest left a small force under Roddy to hold Dodge
in check and set out after the raider. The chase began on April 29.
Streight had sixteen miles the start with a force reduced to 1500 men,
mounted on mules. As his mounts were worn out, he seized fresh horses on
the route. The chase led through the counties of Morgan, Blount, St.
Clair, De Kalb, and Cherokee--counties in which there was a strong tory
element, and the Federals were guided by two companies of Union cavalry
raised in north Alabama. Streight had asked for permission to dress some
of his men "after the promiscuous southern style," but, fortunately for
them, was not allowed to do so.[83]
On May 1 occurred the famous crossing of Black Creek, where Miss Emma
Sansom guided the Confederates across in the face of a heavy fire. Forrest
now had less than 600 men, the others having been left behind exhausted or
with broken-down horses. The best men and horses were kept in front, and
Streight was not allowed a moment's rest. At last, tired out, the Federals
halted on the morning of May 3. Soon the men were asleep on their arms,
and when Forrest appeared, some of them could not be awakened. Men were
asleep in line of battle, under fire. Forrest placed his small force so as
to magnify his numbers, and Streight was persuaded by his officers to
surrender--1466 men to less than 600. The running fight had lasted four
days, over a distance of 150 miles, through rough and broken country
filled with unfriendly natives. Forrest could not get fresh mounts, the
Federals could; the Federals had been preparing for the raid a month;
Forrest had a few hours to prepare for the pursuit, and his whole force
with Roddy's did not equal half of the entire Federal force of 9500.[84]
During the summer and fall there were many small fights between the
cavalry scouts of Roddy and Wheeler and the Federal foraging parties. In
October General S. D. Lee from Mississippi entered the northwestern part
of the state, and for two or three weeks fought the Federals and tore up
the Memphis and Charleston Railroad. The First Alabama Union Cavalry
started on a raid for Selma, but was routed by the Second Alabama Cavalry.
The Tennessee valley was the highway along which passed and repassed the
Federal armies during the remainder of the war.
During the months of January, February, March, and April, 1864, scouting,
skirmishing, and fighting in north Alabama by Forrest, Roddy, Wheeler,
Johnson, Patterson, and Mead were almost continuous; and Federal raids
were frequent. The Federals called all Confederate soldiers in north
Alabama "guerillas," and treated prisoners as such. The Tennessee valley
had been stripped of troops to send to Johnston's army. In May, 1864, the
Federal General Blair marched through northeast Alabama to Rome, Georgia,
with 10,500 men. Federal gunboats patrolled the river, landing companies
for short raids and shelling the towns. In August there were many raids
and skirmishes in the Tennessee valley. On September 23, Forrest with 4000
men, on a raid to Pulaski, persuaded the Federal commander at Athens that
he had 10,000 men, and the latter surrendered, though in a strong fort
with a thousand men.
Rousseau's Raid
July 10, 1864, General Rousseau started from Decatur, Morgan County, with
2300 men on a raid toward southeast Alabama to destroy the Montgomery and
West Point Railway below Opelika, and thus cut off the supplies coming
from the Black Belt for Johnston's army. General Clanton, who opposed him
with a small force, was defeated at the crossing of the Coosa on July 14;
the iron works in Calhoun County were burned, and the Confederate stores
at Talladega were destroyed. The railroad was reached near Loachapoka in
what is now Lee County, and miles of the track there and above Opelika
were destroyed, and the depots at Opelika, Auburn, Loachapoka, and
Notasulga, all with quantities of supplies, were burned. This was the
first time that central Alabama had suffered from invasion.[85]
In October General Hood marched _via_ Cedartown, Georgia, into Alabama to
Gadsden, thence to Somerville and Decatur, crossing the river near
Tuscumbia on his way to the fatal fields of Franklin and Nashville. "Most
of the fields they passed were covered with briers and weeds, the fences
burned or broken down. The chimneys in every direction stood like quiet
sentinels and marked the site of once prosperous and happy homes, long
since reduced to heaps of ashes. No cattle, hogs, horses, mules, or
domestic fowls were in sight. Only the birds seemed unconscious of the
ruin and desolation which reigned supreme. No wonder that Hood pointed to
the devastation wrought by the invader to nerve his heroes for one more
desperate struggle against immense odds for southern independence."[86] A
few weeks later the wreck of Hood's army was straggling back into north
Alabama, which now swarmed with Federals. Bushwhackers, guerillas, tories,
deserters, "mossbacks," harried the defenceless people of north Alabama
until the end of the war and even after. A few scattered bands of
Confederates made a weak resistance.
The War in South Alabama
To return to south Alabama. During the years 1861 and 1862 the defences of
Mobile were made almost impregnable. They were commanded in turn by
Generals Withers, Bragg, Forney, Buckner, and Maury. The port was
blockaded in 1861, but no attacks were made on the defences until August,
1864, when 15,000 men were landed to besiege Fort Gaines. Eighteen war
vessels under Farragut passed the forts into the bay and there fought the
fiercest naval battle of the war. Admiral Buchanan commanded the
Confederate fleet of four vessels--the _Morgan_, the _Selma_, the
_Gaines_, and the _Tennessee_.[87] The _Tecumseh_ was sunk by a torpedo
in the bay, and Farragut had left 17 vessels, 199 guns, and 700 men
against the Confederates' 22 guns and 450 men. The three smaller
Confederate vessels, after desperate fighting, were riddled with shot; one
was captured, one beached, and one withdrew to the shelter of the forts.
The _Tennessee_ was left, 1 against 17, 6 guns against 200. After four
hours' cannonade from nearly 200 guns, her smoke-stack and steering gear
shot away, her commander (Admiral Buchanan) wounded, one hour after her
last gun had been disabled, the _Tennessee_ surrendered. The Federals lost
52 killed, and 17 wounded, besides 120 lost on the _Tecumseh_. The
_Tennessee_ lost only 2 killed and 9 wounded, the _Selma_ 8 killed and 17
wounded, the _Gaines_ about the same.[88] The fleet now turned its
attention to the forts. Fort Gaines surrendered at once; Fort Morgan held
out. A siege train of 41 guns was placed in position and on August 22
these and the 200 guns of the fleet opened fire. The fort was unable to
return the fire of the fleet, and the sharpshooters of the enemy soon
prevented the use of guns against the shore batteries of the Federals. The
firing was furious; every shell seemed to take effect; fire broke out, and
the garrison threw 90,000 pounds of powder into cisterns to prevent
explosion; the defending force was decimated; the interior of the fort was
a mass of smouldering ruins; there was not a place five feet square not
struck by shells; many of the guns were dismounted. For twenty-four hours
the bombardment continued, the garrison not being able to return the fire
of the besiegers, yet the enemy reported that the garrison was not "moved
by any weak fears." On the morning of August 23, 1864, the fort was
surrendered.[89] Though the outer defences had fallen, the city could not
be taken. The inner defences were strengthened, and were manned with
"reserves,"--boys and old men, fourteen to sixteen, and forty-five to
sixty years of age.
In March, 1865, General Steele advanced from Pensacola to Pollard with
15,000 men, while General Canby with 32,000 moved up the east side of
Mobile Bay and invested Spanish Fort. He sent 12,000 men to Steele, who
began the siege of Blakely on April 2. Spanish Fort was defended by 3400
men, later reduced to 2321, against Canby's 20,000. The Confederate lines
were two miles long. After a twelve days' siege a part of the Confederate
works was captured, and during the next night (April 8), the greater part
of the garrison escaped in boats or by wading through the marshes. Blakely
was defended by 3500 men against Steele's 25,000. After a siege of eight
days the Federal works were pushed near the Confederate lines, and a
charge along the whole three miles of line captured the works with the
garrison (April 9). Three days later batteries Huger and Tracy, defending
the river entrance, were evacuated, and on April 12 the city
surrendered.[90] The state was then overrun from all sides.[91]
Wilson's Raid and the End of the War
During the winter of 1864-1865, General J. H. Wilson gathered a picked
force of 13,500 cavalry, at Gravelly Springs in northwestern Alabama, in
preparation for a raid through central Alabama, the purpose of which was
to destroy the Confederate stores, the factories, mines, and iron works in
that section, and also to create a diversion in favor of Canby at
Mobile.[92] On March 22 he left for the South. There was not a Confederate
soldier within 120 miles; the country was stripped of its defenders. The
Federal army under Wilson foraged for provisions in north Alabama when
they themselves reported people to be starving.[93] To confuse the
Confederates, Wilson moved his corps in three divisions along different
routes. On March 29, near Elyton, the divisions united, and General
Croxton was again detached and sent to burn the University and public
buildings at Tuscaloosa. Driving Roddy before him, Wilson, on March 31,
burned five iron works near Elyton. Forrest collected a motley force to
oppose Wilson. The latter sent a brigade which decoyed one of Forrest's
brigades away into the country toward Mississippi,[94] so that this force
was not present to assist in the defence when, on April 2, Wilson arrived
before Selma with 9000 men. This place, with works three miles long, was
defended by Forrest with 3000 men, half of whom were reserves who had
never been under fire. They made a gallant fight, but the Federals rushed
over the thinly defended works. Forrest and two or three hundred men
escaped; the remainder surrendered. When the Federals entered the city,
night had fallen, and the soldiers plundered without restraint until
morning. Forrest had ordered that all the government whiskey in the city
be destroyed, but after the barrels were rolled into the street the
Confederates had no time to knock in the heads before the city was
captured. The Federals were soon drunk. All the houses in the city were
entered and plundered. A newspaper correspondent who was with Wilson's
army said that Selma was the worst-sacked town of the war. One woman saved
her house from the plunderers by pulling out all the drawers, tearing up
the beds, throwing clothes all over the floor along with dishes and
overturned tables, chairs, and other things. When the soldiers came to the
house, they concluded that others had been there before them and departed.
The outrages, robberies, and murders committed by Wilson's men,
notwithstanding his stringent order against plundering,[95] are almost
incredible. The half cannot be told. The destruction was fearful. The city
was wholly given up to the soldiers, the houses sacked, the women robbed
of their watches, earrings, rings, and other jewellery.[96] The negroes
were pressed into the work of destruction, and when they refused to burn
and destroy, they were threatened with death by the soldiers. Every one
was robbed who had anything worth taking about his person. Even negro men
on the streets and negro women in the houses were searched and their
little money and trinkets taken.[97]
The next day the public buildings and storehouses with three-fourths of
the business part of the town and 150 residences were burned. Three
rolling mills, a large naval foundry, and the navy yard,--where the
_Tennessee_ had been built,--the best arsenal in the Confederacy, powder
works, magazines, army stores, 35,000 bales of cotton, a large number of
cars, and the railroad bridges were destroyed. Before leaving, Wilson sent
men about the town to kill all the horses and mules in Selma, and had 800
of his own worn-out horses shot. The carcasses were left lying in the
roads, streets, and dooryards where they were shot. In a few days the
stench was fearful, and the citizens had to send to all the country around
for teams to drag away the dead animals, which were strewn along the roads
for miles.[98]
Nearly every man of Wilson's command had a canteen filled with jewellery
gathered on the long raid through the richest section of the state. The
valuables of the rich Cane Brake and Black Belt country had been deposited
in Selma for safe-keeping, and from Selma the soldiers took everything
valuable and profitable. Pianos were made into feeding troughs for horses.
The officers were supplied with silver plate stolen while on the raid. In
Russell County a general officer stopped at a house for dinner, and had
the table set with a splendid service of silver plate taken from Selma.
His escort broke open the smoke-house and, taking hams, cut a small piece
from each of them and threw the remainder away. Everything that could be
was destroyed. Soft soap and syrup were poured together in the cellars.
They took everything they could carry and destroyed the rest.
On April 10 Wilson's command started for Montgomery. A negro regiment of
800 men[99] was organized at Selma and accompanied the army, subsisting
on the country. Before reaching Georgia there were several such regiments.
On April 12 Montgomery was surrendered by the mayor. The Confederates had
burned 97,000[100] bales of cotton to prevent its falling into the hands
of the enemy. The captors burned five steamboats, two rolling mills, a
small-arms factory, two magazines of stores, all the rolling stock of the
railways, and the nitre works, the fire spreading also to the business
part of the town.[101] Here, as at Selma, horses, mules, and valuables
were taken by the raiders.
The force was then divided into two columns, one destined for West Point
and the other for Columbus. The last fights on Alabama soil occurred near
West Point on April 16, and at Girard, opposite Columbus, on the same day.
At the latter place immense quantities of stores, that had been carried
across the river from Alabama, were destroyed.[102]
Croxton's force reached Tuscaloosa April 3, and burned the University
buildings, the nitre works, a foundry, a shoe factory, and the Sipsey
cotton mills. After burning these he moved eastward across the state,
destroying iron works, nitre factories, depots, and cotton factories.
Before he reached Georgia, Croxton had destroyed nearly all the iron works
and cotton factories that had been missed by Rousseau and Wilson.[103]
Destruction by the Armies
For three years north Alabama was traversed by the contending armies. Each
burned and destroyed from military necessity and from malice. General
Wilson said that after two years of warfare the valley of the Tennessee
was absolutely destitute.[104] From the spring of 1862 to the close of the
war the Federals marched to and fro in the valley. There were few
Confederate troops for its defence, and the Federals held each community
responsible for all attacks made within its vicinity. It became the custom
to destroy property as a punishment of the people. Much of the
destruction was unnecessary from a military point of view.[105] Athens and
smaller towns were sacked and burned, Guntersville was shelled and burned;
but the worst destruction was in the country, by raiding parties of
Federals and "tories," or "bushwhackers" dressed as Union soldiers.
Huntsville, Florence, Decatur, Athens, Guntersville, and Courtland, all
suffered depredation, robbery, murder, arson, and rapine.[106] The tories
destroyed the railways, telegraph lines, and bridges, and as long as the
Confederates were in north Alabama they had to guard all of these.[107]
Along the Tennessee River the gunboats landed parties to ravage the
country in retaliation for Confederate attacks. In the counties of
Lauderdale, Franklin, Morgan, Lawrence, Limestone, Madison, and Jackson
nearly all property was destroyed.[108]
In 1863, a member of Congress from north Alabama tried to get arms from
Bragg for the old men to defend the county against Federal raiders, but
failed, and wrote to Davis that all civilized usages were being
disregarded, women and children turned out and the houses burned, grain
and provisions destroyed, women insulted and outraged, their money,
jewellery, and clothing being stolen.
In December, 1863, General Sherman ordered that all the forage and
provisions in the country around Bridgeport and Bellefont "be collected
and stored, and no compensation be allowed rebel owners." In April, 1864,
General Clanton wrote to Governor Watts that the "Yankees spared neither
age, sex, nor condition." Tories and deserters from the hills made
frequent raids on the defenceless population.
General Dodge reported, May, 1863, that his army had destroyed or carried
off in one raid near Town Creek, "fifteen million bushels of corn, five
hundred thousand pounds of bacon, quantities of wheat, rye, oats, and
fodder, one thousand horses and mules, and an equal number of cattle,
sheep, and hogs, besides thousands that the army consumed in three weeks;
we also brought out fifteen hundred negroes, destroyed five tanyards and
six flouring mills, and we left the country in such a devastated condition
that no crop can be raised during the year;" and nothing was left that
would in the least aid the Confederates. On the night of his retreat Dodge
lit up the Tennessee valley from Town Creek to Tuscumbia with the flames
of burning dwellings, granaries, stables, and fences. In June Colonel
Cornyn reports that in a raid from Corinth to Florence he had destroyed
cotton factories, tanyards, all the corn-cribs in sight, searched every
house in Florence, burned several residences, and carried off 200 mules
and horses.[109] A few days later General Stanley raided from Tennessee to
Huntsville and carried off cattle and supplies, but did not lay waste the
country. General Buell did all that he could to restrain his subordinates,
but often to no avail. After Sherman took charge affairs grew steadily
worse. In a remarkable letter giving his views in the matter he says: "The
government of the United States has in north Alabama any and all rights
which they choose to enforce in war, to take their lives, their houses,
their lands, their everything, because they cannot deny that war exists
there, and war is simply power unrestrained by constitution or compact. If
they want eternal warfare, well and good. We will accept the issue and
dispossess them and put our friends in possession. To those who submit to
the rightful law and authority all gentleness and forbearance, but to the
petulant and persistent secessionists, why, death is mercy and the quicker
he or she is disposed of the better. Satan and the rebellious saint of
heaven were allowed a continuance of existence in hell merely to swell
their just punishment." He referred to the fact that in Europe, whence the
principles of war were derived, wars were between the armies, the people
remaining practically neutral, so that their property remained unmolested.
However, this present war was, he said, between peoples, and the invading
army was entitled to all it could get from the people. He cited as a like
instance the dispossessing of the people of north Ireland during the reign
of William and Mary.[110] After this no restraint on the plundering and
persecution of Confederate non-combatants was even attempted, and hundreds
of families from north Alabama "refugeed" to south Alabama.
General Sherman wrote to one of his generals, "You may send notice to
Florence that if Forrest invades Tennessee from that direction, the town
will be burned; and if it occurs, you will remove the inhabitants north of
the Ohio River and burn the town and Tuscumbia also."[111] All through
this section fences were gone, fields grew up in bushes, and weeds,
residences were destroyed, farm stock had disappeared. People who lived in
the Black Belt report that Wilson's raiders ate up all the cooked
provisions wherever they went, taking all the meat, meal, and flour to
their next camping-place, where they would often throw away wagon loads of
provisions. Frequently the meal and flour that could not be taken was
strewn along the road. The mills were burned, and some families for three
months after the close of the war lived on corn cracked in a mortar. All
the horses and mules were taken; and only a few oxen were left to work the
crops.
Governor Parsons said that Wilson's men were a week in destroying the
property around Selma. Three weeks after, as Parsons himself was a
witness, it was with difficulty that one could travel from Planterville to
Selma on account of the dead horses and mules. The night marches of the
enemy in the Black Belt were lighted by the flames of burning houses.
Until this raid only the counties of north Alabama had suffered.[112]
Wilson had destroyed during this raid 2 gunboats; 99,000 small arms and
much artillery; 10 iron works; 7 foundries; 8 machine shops; 5 rolling
mills; the University buildings; many county court-houses and public
buildings; 3 arsenals; a naval foundry and navy yard; 5 steamboats; a
powder magazine and mills; 35 locomotives and 565 cars; 3 large railroad
bridges and many smaller ones; 275,000 bales of cotton; much private
property along the line of march, many magazines of stores; and had
subsisted his army on the country.[113] Trowbridge, who passed through
Alabama in the fall of 1865, said that Wilson's route could be traced by
burnt gin-houses dotting the way.[114] Three other armies marched through
the state in 1865, burning and destroying.
The Federals took horses and mules, cattle and hogs, corn and meat, gold
and silver plate, jewellery, and other valuables. Aged citizens were
tortured by "bummers" to force them to tell of hidden treasure. Some were
swung up by the neck until nearly dead. Straggling bands of Federals
committed depredations over the country. Houses were searched, mattresses
were cut to pieces, trunks, bureaus, wardrobes, and chests were broken
open and their contents turned out. Much furniture was broken and ruined.
Families of women and children were left without a meal, and many homes
were burned. Cattle and stock were wantonly killed. What could not be
carried away was burned and destroyed.[115]
Though two-thirds of the state was untouched by the enemy two months
before the close of hostilities, yet when the surrender came. Alabama was
as thoroughly destroyed as Georgia or South Carolina in Sherman's track.
SEC. 2. MILITARY ORGANIZATION
Alabama Soldiers: Numbers and Character
The exact number of Confederate soldiers enlisted in Alabama cannot be
ascertained. The original records were lost or destroyed, and duplicates
were never completed. There were on the rolls infantry regiments numbered
from 1 to 65, but the 52d and 64th were never organized. Of the 14 cavalry
regiments, numbered from 1 to 12, two organizations were numbered 9. There
was one battalion of artillery, afterwards transferred to the regular
service, and 18 batteries.
In Alabama, as in the other southern states, local pride has placed the
number of troops furnished at a very high figure. Colonel W. H. Fowler,
superintendent of army records, who worked mainly in the Army of Northern
Virginia, estimated the total number of men from Alabama at about 120,000.
Governor Parsons, in his inaugural proclamation, evidently following
Fowler's statistics, placed the number at 122,000,[116] while Colonel M.
V. Moore placed the number at 60,000 to 65,000.[117] General Samuel
Cooper, adjutant and inspector-general of the Confederate States Army,
estimated that not more than 600,000 men in the Confederacy actually bore
arms.[118] This estimate would make the share of Alabama even less than
Colonel Moore estimated. The highest estimates have placed the number at
128,000 and 135,000, but the correct figures are evidently somewhere
between these extremes.[119]
The Superintendent of the Confederate Bureau of Conscription estimated
that according to the census of 1860 there were in Alabama, from 1861 to
1864, 106,000 men between the ages of eighteen and forty-five, and of
these, more than 8000 had been regularly exempted during the year 1864,
all former exemptions having been revoked by act of Congress, February 17,
1864.[120] Livermore's estimate,[121] based on the census of 1860, was:
There were in Alabama (1861) between the ages of eighteen and forty-five,
99,967 men, and in the entire Confederacy there were 265,000 between the
ages of thirteen and sixteen. Of the latter, a rough estimate would place
Alabama's proportion about one-tenth of the whole, that is, about 26,500.
Those men over forty-five who later became liable to military duty he
estimates at 20,000, that is, about 2000 in Alabama. Thus there were in
Alabama, in 1861, not allowing for deaths, 127,467 persons who would
become subject to military service unless exempted. Livermore places the
number of boys from ten to twelve years of age and of men from forty-seven
to fifty, in the Confederacy in 1861, at 300,000, or about 30,000 in
Alabama. These would become liable to service in the state militia before
1865.[122] In 1861 the governor stated that by October 7 there had been
27,000 enlistments in the various organizations. Several of these commands
were enrolled for short terms of three months, six months, or one year.
Before November, 1862, there had been 60,000 enlistments. Included in this
number were several thousand reënlistments and transfers. At the end of
1863, when enlistment and reorganization had practically ceased, there
had been 90,857 enlistments of all kinds from Alabama.[123] For two years
troops were organized in Alabama much faster than they could be supplied
with arms. For months some of the new regiments waited for equipment. Four
thousand men at Huntsville were in service several months before arms
could be procured, and several infantry regiments were drilled as
artillery for a year before muskets were to be had.[124]
Before the close of 1863, Alabama had placed in the Confederate service
about all the men that could be sent. The organization of new regiments by
original enlistment practically ceased with the fall of 1862. In 1863,
only three regiments were thus organized, and two of these were composed
of conscripts and men attracted by the special privileges offered.[125]
The other regiments, formed after the summer of 1862, were made by
consolidating smaller commands that were already in service. The few small
regiments of reserves called out in 1864 and 1865 and given regular
designations saw little or no service. Those few who were made liable to
service by the conscript law and who entered the army at all, as a rule
went as volunteers and avoided the conscript camps. The strength of the
Alabama regiments came from central and south Alabama, for the full
military strength of north Alabama could not be utilized on account of
invasion by the enemy. At first there were many small commands--companies
and battalions--which were raised in a short time and sent at once to the
front before a regimental organization could be effected. Later these were
united to form regiments. Nearly all the higher numbered infantry
regiments and more than half of the cavalry regiments were formed in this
way. The first regiments raised and the strongest in numbers were sent to
Virginia. To these went also the largest number of the recruits secured by
the recruiting officers sent out by the regiments. On an average, about
350 recruits or transfers were secured by each Alabama regiment in
Virginia, though some had almost none. There were numbers of persons who
obtained authority to raise new commands for service near their homes, and
in order to fill the ranks of their regiments and companies they would
offer special inducements of furloughs and home stations. The cavalry and
artillery branches of the service were popular and secured many men needed
in the infantry regiments.[126] Each commander of a separate company or
battalion desired to raise his force to a regiment, and it was to the
interest of the state to have as many organizations as possible in the
field as its quota. A better show was thus made on paper. Such conditions
prevented the recruitment of old regiments, especially those in the armies
that surrendered under Johnston and Taylor. Consequently the regiments in
the Western Army were, as a rule, much smaller than the ones in the Army
of Northern Virginia, to which recruits were sent instead of new
regiments.
In each infantry and cavalry regiment there were ten companies.[127] The
original strength of each company was from 64 to 100. Later the number was
fixed at 104 to the company for infantry, 72 for cavalry, and 70 in the
artillery. After the formation of new commands had practically ceased, the
number for each company of infantry was raised to 125 men, 150 in the
artillery, and 80 in the cavalry.[128] The original strength of each
infantry regiment was, therefore, from 640 to 1000, not including
officers; of cavalry, 600 to 720. A battery of artillery seems to have had
any number from 70 to 150, though usually the smaller number. The size of
the regiments varied greatly. Colonel Fowler reported that to February 1,
1865, 27,022 men had joined the 20 Alabama regiments in Virginia, an
average of 1351 men to the regiment. Brewer gives the total enrolment of
15 regiments in the Army of Northern Virginia as 21,694, an average of
1446 to the regiment.[129] Four of these regiments had an enrolment of
less than 1200;[130] so it is evident that the other 5, not given by
Brewer, must have averaged about 1265 to the regiment.[131] These numbers
include transfers, details, and reënlistments, the exact number of which
it is impossible to ascertain. Brewer lists the transfers and discharges
from 15 regiments at 4398, an average of 293 each, of which about
one-third seem to have been transfers.[132] There were also many
reënlistments from disbanded organizations.[133] Both Brewer and Fowler
count each enlistment as a different man and arrive at about the same
results.[134]
The enrolment of 8 Alabama regiments in Johnston's army, as given by
Brewer, amounted to 8300, an average to the regiment of 1037.[135] It was
the practice, in 1864 and 1865, to unite two or more weaker regiments into
one. No Alabama regiments in Virginia were so united, and of the 8 in the
Western Army, whose enrolment is given by Brewer, only 1 was afterward
united with another.[136] It would then seem that the enrolment of the
strongest regiments is known.[137] The total number of enlistments in the
Alabama commands in Virginia was, according to Fowler, about 30,000, and
these were in 20 infantry regiments, and a few smaller commands. In the
armies surrendered by Johnston and Taylor there were 38 Alabama infantry
regiments, and 13 of these had been consolidated on account of their small
numbers. Eight of them which remained separate and which must have been
stronger than the ones united had enrolled an average of 1037 (according
to Brewer). Thirty-eight regiments of this strength (which is probably too
large an estimate) would give a total enrolment of 39,406. This number,
added to Fowler's estimate of 27,022 in the Army of Northern Virginia,
will give 66,428 enlistments of all kinds, for the infantry arm of the
service. Add to this 3000 for the 3 regiments of reserves called out in
1864,[138] and the total is 69,428 enlistments in the infantry.
There were 14 cavalry regiments, 7 of which, and possibly more, were
formed by the consolidation of smaller commands already in service. The
cavalry regiments did not enter the service as early as the infantry, only
1 regiment being organized in 1861. The original strength of each
regiment, as has been said, was from 600 to 720. All these regiments
served in the commands surrendered by Johnston and Taylor, where recruits
were scarce, so 1000 to the regiment is a very large estimate of total
enrolment. However, this would give 14,000 in the cavalry regiments.
Of artillery, there were 19 batteries and 1 battalion of 6 batteries,
making 25 batteries in all, with an enrolment ranging from 70 to 150 in
each. A total enrolment of 3750, or 150 to each battery, would be a large
estimate.
Fowler reported about 3000 enlistments in the various smaller commands
from Alabama in the Army of Northern Virginia.[139] An additional 2000
would more than account for all similar scattering commands in the other
armies.[140]
The total enrolment may then be estimated:--
Army of Northern Virginia (Fowler report) 27,022
Army of Northern Virginia, scattering (Fowler report) 3,000
Armies of the West--infantry (estimate) 39,406
Armies of the West--cavalry 14,000
Scattering 2,500
Artillery 3,750
------
89,678
This total includes many transfers and reënlistments, which can be only
roughly estimated. In the Army of Northern Virginia 464 resigned, 245
were retired, 3639 were discharged, 1815 were transferred to other
commands, and 1666 deserted or were unaccounted for. Those who
resigned--as a rule to accept higher positions--reëntered the service.
Almost all of those who retired or were discharged had to enter the
reserves, and many of them again became liable to service. Numbers of
soldiers were accustomed to leave one command and go to another without
any formality of transfer. Deserters who were driven back to the army
nearly always chose to enter other regiments than their own. There were
numbers of transfers from the cavalry to the infantry, for each cavalryman
had to furnish his own horse, and, should it be killed or die and the
soldier be unable to secure another, he was sent to an infantry regiment.
There were also smaller infantry organizations, which were mounted and
merged into the cavalry regiments. Half of the enlistments in the
artillery came from the infantry. One regiment[141] at one time lost 100
men in this way, and it has been estimated that one-fifth of the Alabama
soldiers served in more than one command.[142] Counting each name on the
rolls as one man, as Brewer and Fowler do,[143] it is difficult to see how
more than 90,000 enlistments can be counted, and from this total must be
deducted several thousand for transfers and reënlistments. Miller's
estimate of a deduction of one-fifth for names counted twice would make
the total number of different men about 75,000, which is probably about
the correct number. Not only were the same names counted twice, and even
oftener in different commands, but sometimes in the same companies and
regiments they were counted more than once. It was to the interest of
local and state authorities to have each enlistment counted as a different
man, and this was invariably done.[144] Five of the early regiments were
reorganized and reënlisted, and thus 5000 at least were added to the total
enrolment without securing a single recruit. The three-year regiments
reënlisted in 1864,[145] and here again were extra thousands of
enlistments to be added to the former total. There were also 19 infantry
regiments[146] which were formed by the reorganization of former commands
that had already been counted, and upon reënlistment for the war they were
again counted. In this same way 7 regiments at least of cavalry were
formed.[147] this way it is possible to count up a total enlistment from
Alabama of about 120,000.[148] There is no method which will even
approximate correctness by which the total number of enlistments may be
reduced to enlistments for a certain term, as three years or four years.
The history of every enlistment must first be known.
There were three lieutenant-generals who entered the service in command of
Alabama troops--John B. Gordon, Joseph Wheeler,[149] James
Longstreet[149]; seven major-generals--H. D. Clayton, Jones M.
Withers,[149] E. M. Law, C. M. Wilcox, John H. Forney,[149] W. W. Allen,
R. E. Rodes[147]; and thirty-six brigadier generals--Tennent Lomax,[150]
P. D. Bowles,[149] S. A. M. Wood, E. A. O'Neal, William H. Forney, J. C.
C. Sanders,[149, 150] I. W. Garrott,[150] Archibald Gracie,[149, 150] B.
D. Fry, James Cantey, J. T. Holtzclaw, E. D. Tracy,[150] E. W. Pettus, Z.
C. Deas, G. D. Johnston, C. M. Shelly, Y. M. Moody, Wm. F. Perry, John T.
Morgan, M. H. Hannon, Alpheus Baker, J. H. Clanton, James Hagan, P. D.
Roddy, John Gregg,[150] L. P. Walker, D. Leadbetter,[149, 150] J. H.
Kelley,[149, 150] J. Gorgas, C. A. Battle, John W. Frazer, Alex. W.
Campbell, Thomas M. Jones, M. J. Bulger, John C. Reid, James Deshler.[150]
Other Alabamians exercised commands in the troops of other states, and
several were staff officers of general rank. The naval commanders were
Semmes, Randolph, and Glassell, and a few subordinate officers.[151]
During the early months of 1865 a movement was started to enroll negroes
as Confederate soldiers, and a number of officers, among whom was John T.
Morgan, received permission to raise negro troops. The conference of
governors at Augusta in 1864 recommended the arming of slaves, but
Governor Watts asked the Alabama legislature to disapprove such a
movement.[152] An enthusiastic meeting of citizens, held in Mobile,
February 19, 1865, declared that the war must be prosecuted "to victory or
death," and that 100,000 negroes should be placed in the field.[153] It
was too late, however, for success. Wilson, on his raid, picked up the
Confederate negro troops at Selma, and took them with him.[154] In 1862,
the "Creoles" of Mobile applied for permission to enlist in a body. They
were mulattoes, but were free by the treaties with France in 1803 and with
Spain in 1819, were property holders, often owning slaves, and were an
orderly, respectable class, true to the South and anxious to fight for the
Confederacy. The Secretary of War was not friendly to the proposal, but in
November, 1862, the legislature of Alabama authorized their enlistment for
the defence of Mobile. A year later, at the urgent request of General
Maury, they were received into the Confederate service as heavy
artillery.[155]
The Alabama troops in the Confederate service made a notably good record.
The flower of the Alabama army served with Lee in Virginia, but nearly as
good were the Alabama troops in the western armies. Brewer says they moved
"high and haughty in the face of death." The regiments of reserves raised
late in the war and stationed within the state were not very g
Showing first 200,000 characters. Full text: gutenberg.org/ebooks/41680