General Forney stated that in Calhoun the small mountain farmers, non-slaveholding, poorer whites, were intensely afraid of social equality and hated the negroes, who called them "poor white trash." The feeling was cordially returned by the negroes.[1988]

From Tallapoosa County and from eastern Alabama generally, where the Black Cavalry and its successors flourished, there was a general exodus of negroes who had lived on the richer lands of the larger farms and plantations. The white renters and small farmers were afraid, after slavery was abolished and the negroes were free, that the latter would drag all others down to negro level. The planters preferred negro labor.

Therefore the poorer whites united to drive out the negro. This was called Ku Kluxism. The whites wanted higher pay.[1989] Wage-earners felt that they could not compete with the negro, who could work for lower wages.

General Crawford, who commanded the United States troops in Alabama, stated that the planter bore no antagonism toward the negro at all, but he wanted his labor; that at present he saw the uselessness of interfering with the negro's politics and was indifferent about whether the negro voted or not; he looked forward to the time when the black voters would fall away from their alien leaders and would vote according to the advice of their old masters; on the other hand, the poorer whites, many of them from the hill country, were hostile to the negroes; they disliked to see them at work building the new railroads, and on all the rich lands, and possessed of political privileges. If rid of the negro, they could be more prosperous and divide the political spoils now shared by the adventurers who controlled the black vote. In north Alabama the negro was more generally kept away from the polls.[1990] This feeling on the part of the poor whites was not new, but had survived from slavery days, and its manifestations were now called Ku Kluxism. The negro was no longer under the protection of a master, and the former master was no longer able to protect the negro. However, there was a general movement among the ex-slaves, under the pressure, to return to their old masters.

Attempts to suppress the Ku Klux Movement

In March and April, 1868, the operations of the Ku Klux Klan came to the notice of General Meade, who was then in command of the Third Military District. By his direction General Shepherd issued an order from Montgomery, requiring sheriffs, mayors, police, constables, magistrates, marshals, etc., under penalty of being held responsible, to suppress the "iniquitous" organization and apprehend its members. The expenses of _posses_ were to be charged against the county. If the code of Alabama was silent on the subject of the offence, the prisoners were to be turned over to the military authorities for trial by military commission. The state officers were reminded that the code of Alabama derived its vitality from the commanding general of the Third Military District, and in case of a conflict between the code and military orders, the latter were paramount.

The posting of placards and the printing in newspapers of orders, warnings, and notices of Ku Klux Klans was forbidden. In no case would ignorance be considered as an excuse. Citizens who were not officers would not be held guiltless in case of outrage in their community.[1991] This was a revival of the method of holding a community responsible for the misdeeds of individuals.

Troops were shifted about over northern and central Alabama in an endeavor to suppress Ku Klux. Several arrests were made, but there were no trials.

There was much parade and night riding, but as yet little violence. The soldiers could do nothing.

When the carpet-bag government was installed, the military forces of the United States remained to support it. Every one called upon the military commands for aid--governor, sheriffs, judges, members of Congress, justices of the peace, and prominent politicians. No request from official sources was ever refused, and they were frequent. From October 31, 1868, to October 31, 1869, there were fifteen different shiftings of bodies of troops for the purpose of checking the Ku Klux movement. This does not include the movements made in individual cases, but only changes of headquarters. These were princ.i.p.ally in northern and western Alabama--at Huntsville, Livingston, Guntersville, Lebanon, Edwardsville, Alpine, Summerfield, Decatur, Marysville, Vienna, and Tuscaloosa.[1992]

After a few months' experience of the carpet-bag government, the bands of Ku Klux were excited to renewed activity. The legislature which met in September, 1868, memorialized the President to send an armed force to Alabama to execute the laws, and to preserve order, etc., during the approaching presidential election. Governor Smith with two members of the Senate and three of the lower house were appointed to bear the application to the President.[1993] In December an act was pa.s.sed authorizing any justice of the peace to issue warrants running in any part of the state, and authorizing any sheriff or constable to go into any county to execute such process.[1994] This enabled a sheriff of proper politics to enter counties where the officials were not of the proper faith, and arrest prisoners.

One of the members of the general a.s.sembly, M. T. Crossland, was killed by the Klan, it was alleged. The legislature offered a reward of $5000 for his slayers, and authorized the appointment of a committee to investigate the recent alleged outrages and to report by bill.[1995] The committee,[1996] after pretence of an examination of about a dozen witnesses, all Radicals, some by affidavit only, reported that there was in many portions of Alabama a secret organization, purely political, known as Ku Klux Klan, and that Union men and Republicans were the sole objects of its abuse, none of the opposite politics being interfered with. It worked by means of threatening letters, warnings, and beatings; by intimidation and threats negroes were driven from the polls; negro schoolhouses were burned; teachers were threatened, ostracized, and driven from employment; officers of the law were obstructed in the discharge of their duty and driven away. In some parts of the state, the report declared, it was impossible for the civil authorities to maintain order.

The governor was authorized and advised to declare martial law in the counties of Madison, Lauderdale, Butler, Tuscaloosa, and Pickens.[1997]

The committee reported a bill, which was pa.s.sed, with a preamble of twenty-two lines reciting the terrible condition of the state. To appear away from home in mask or disguise was made a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of $100 and imprisonment from six months to one year. For a disguised person to commit an a.s.sault was made a felony, and punishment was fixed at a fine of $1000, and imprisonment from five to twenty years.

Any one might kill a person in disguise. The penalty for destruction of property by disguised persons--burning a schoolhouse or church--was imprisonment from ten to twenty years. A warrant might be issued by any magistrate directed to any lawful officer of the state to arrest disguised offenders, and in case of refusal or neglect to perform his duty, the official was to forfeit his office and be fined $500.[1998]

Two days later it was enacted that in case a person were killed by an outlaw, or by a mob, or by disguised persons, or for political opinion, the widow or next of kin should be ent.i.tled to recover of the county in which the killing occurred the sum of $5000. The claimants should bring action in the circuit court, and in case judgment were rendered in favor of the claimants, the county commissioners should a.s.sess an additional tax sufficient to pay damages and costs. Failure of any official to perform his duty in such cases was punishable by a fine of $100 or imprisonment for twelve months for every thirty days of neglect or failure. In case of whipping the amount of damages collectible from the county was $1000. But if the offenders were arrested and punished, there could be no claim for damages. And if the offenders were arrested during the pendency of the suit for damages, the presiding judge might suspend proceedings in the damage suit until the result of the trial of the offenders was known. It was made the duty of the solicitor to prosecute the claim for the relatives, and his fee was fixed at 10 per cent of the amount recovered; and if the relatives failed to sue within twelve months, the solicitor was to prosecute in the name of the state, and the damages were to go to the asylums for the insane, deaf, dumb, and blind.[1999]

A number of arrests were made under these acts, but only one or two convictions were secured. It resulted that most of the arrests were of ignorant and penniless negroes, who were unable to pay any fine whatever.

Governor Lindsay defended several such cases. The laws were so severe that the officials were unwilling to prosecute under them, but always prosecuted under the ordinary laws.

After 1868 there was no further anti-Ku-Klux legislation by the state government, but in 1869-1870 some of the southern states, Alabama among them, began to show signs of going Democratic. Virginia, Georgia, Mississippi, and Texas had been forced to ratify the Fifteenth Amendment in order to secure the requisite number for its adoption.[2000] President Grant then sent in a message announcing the ratification as "the most important event that has occurred since the nation came into life."[2001]

Congress responded to the hint in the message by pa.s.sing the first of the Enforcement Acts, which had been hanging fire for nearly two years. The excuse for its pa.s.sage was that the Ku Klux organizations would prevent the blacks from voting in the fall elections of 1870.[2002] The act, as approved on May 31, 1870, declared that all citizens were ent.i.tled to vote in all elections without regard to color or race and provided that officials should be held personally responsible that all citizens should have equal opportunity to perform all tests or prerequisites to registration or voting; election officials were held responsible for fair elections; any person who hindered another in voting might be fined $500, to go to the party aggrieved, and persons in disguise might be fined $5000 or imprisoned for ten years, or both, and should be disfranchised besides.

Federal courts were to have exclusive jurisdiction over cases arising under this law, and Federal officials were to see to its execution; the penalty for obstructing an official or a.s.sisting an escape might be $500 fine and six months' imprisonment; the President was given authority to use the army and navy to enforce the law; the district attorneys of the United States were to proceed by _quo warranto_ against disfranchised persons who were holding office, and such persons might be fined $1000 and imprisonment for one year,--such cases were to have precedence on the docket; the same penalties were visited upon those who under color of any law deprived a citizen of any right under this law; the Civil Rights Bill of 1866, April 9, was reenacted;[2003] fraud, bribery, intimidation, or undue influence or violation of any election law at Congressional elections might be punished by a fine of $500 and imprisonment for three years; registrations--congressional, state, county, school, or town--came under the same regulation, and officials of all degrees who failed in their duty were liable to the same penalties; a defeated candidate might contest the election in the Federal courts when there were cases of the negro having been hindered from voting.[2004]

This act marked the arrival of the most ruthless period of Reconstruction.

Endowing the negro with full political rights had not sufficed to overcome the white political people. Disappointed in that, an attempt was now to be made so to regulate southern elections as to put the ma.s.s of the white population permanently under the control of the negroes and their white leaders, and to secure the permanent control of those states to the Republican party. Tennessee had already escaped from the Radical rule, and stringent measures were necessary to prevent like action in the other states. Notwithstanding the Enforcement Act, Alabama, in the election of 1870, went partially Democratic, which was to the Radical leaders _prima facie_ evidence of the grossest frauds in elections. Other states were in a similarly bad condition.

The supplementary Enforcement Act of February 28, 1871, provided for the appointment of two supervisors to each precinct by the Federal circuit judge upon the application of two persons; the Federal courts were to be in session during elections for business arising under this act; the supervisors were to have full authority around the polls, and were to certify and send in the returns, and report irregularities, which were to be investigated by the chief supervisor, who was to keep all records; the supervisors were to be a.s.sisted in each precinct by two special deputy marshals appointed by the United States marshal for that district. These deputies and also the supervisors had full power to arrest any person and to summon a _posse_ if necessary. Offenders were haled at once before the Federal court. Any election offence was punishable by a fine of $3000 and imprisonment of two years, with costs. To refuse to give information in an investigation subjected the person to a fine of $100 and thirty days'

imprisonment and costs. State courts were forbidden to try cases coming under the act, and proceedings after warning, by state officials, resulted in imprisonment and fine amounting to one year and $500 to $1000, plus costs.[2005]

It was feared that these acts might prove insufficient to carry the southern states for the Republican party in 1872. Grant was becoming more and more radical as the Republican nominating convention and the elections drew nearer. Under the influence of the Radical leaders, he sent, on March 23, 1871, a message[2006] to Congress, declaring that in some of the states a condition of affairs existed rendering life and property insecure, and the carrying of mails and collection of revenue dangerous; the state governments were unable to control these evils; and it was doubtful if the President had the authority to interfere. He therefore asked for legislation to secure life, property, and the enforcement of law.[2007]

Congress came to the rescue with the Ku Klux Act of April 20, 1871, "in which Congress simply threw to the winds the const.i.tutional distribution of powers between the states and the United States government in respect to civil liberty, crime, and punishment, and a.s.sumed to legislate freely and without limitation for the preservation of civil and political rights within the state."[2008]

It gave the President authority to declare the southern states in rebellion and to suspend the writ of _habeas corpus_--after a proclamation against insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combinations, and conspiracies. Such a state of affairs was declared a rebellion, and the President was authorized to use the army and navy to suppress it. Heavy penalties were denounced ($500 to $5000 fine, and six months' to six years' imprisonment) against persons who conspired to overthrow or destroy the United States government or to levy war against the United States; or who hindered the execution of the laws of the United States, seized its property, prevented any one from accepting or holding office or discharging official duties, drove away or injured, in person or property, any official or any witness in court, went in disguise on highway or on the premises of others, and hindered voting or office-holding. Any person injured in person, property, or privilege had the right to sue the conspirators for damages under the Civil Rights Bill. In Federal courts the jurors had to take oath that they were not in any way connected with such conspiracies, and the judges were empowered to exclude suspected persons from the jury. Persons not connected with such conspiracies, yet having knowledge of such things, were liable to the injured party for all damages.[2009]

On May 3, 1871, Grant issued a proclamation calling attention to the fact that the law was one of "extraordinary public importance" and, while of general application, was directed at the southern states, and stating that when necessary he would not hesitate to exhaust the powers vested by the act in the executive. The failure of local communities to protect all citizens would make it necessary for the national government to interfere.[2010]

Ku Klux Investigation

In order to justify the pa.s.sage of the Enforcement Acts and to obtain material for campaign use the next year, Congress appointed a committee, which was organized on the day the Ku Klux Act was approved, to investigate the condition of affairs in the southern states.[2011] From June to August, 1871, the committee took testimony in Washington. In the fall subcommittees visited the various southern states selected for the inquisition. About one-fourth of the Alabama testimony was taken in Washington, the rest was taken by the subcommittee in Alabama.

The members of the subcommittee that took testimony in Alabama were Senators Pratt and Rice, and Messrs. Blair, Beck, and Buckley of the House. Blair and Beck, the Democratic members, were never present together. So the subcommittee consisted of three Republicans and one Democrat. C. W. Buckley was a Radical Representative from Alabama, a former Bureau reverend, who worked hard to convict the white people of the state of general wickedness. The subcommittee held sessions in Huntsville, October 6-14; Montgomery, October 17-20; Demopolis, October 23-28; Livingston, October 30 to November 3; and in Columbus, Mississippi, for west Alabama, November 11. All these places were in black counties.

Sessions were held only at easily accessible places, and where scalawag, carpet-bag, and negro witnesses could easily be secured. Testimony was also taken by the committee in Washington from June to August, 1871.

It is generally believed that the examination of witnesses by the Ku Klux committees of Congress was a very one-sided affair, and that the testimony is practically without value for the historian, on account of the immense proportion of hearsay reports and manufactured tales embraced in it. Of course there is much that is worthless because untrue, and much that may be true but cannot be regarded because of the character of the witnesses, whose statements are unsupported. But, nevertheless, the 2008 pages of testimony taken in Alabama furnish a mine of information concerning the social, religious, educational, political, legal, administrative, agricultural, and financial conditions in Alabama from 1865 to 1871. The report itself, of 632 pages, contains much that is not in the testimony, especially as regards railroad and cotton frauds, taxation, and the public debt, and much of this information can be secured nowhere else.

The minority members of the subcommittee which took testimony in Alabama, General Frank P. Blair and later Mr. Beck of New York, caused to be summoned before the committee at Washington, and before the subcommittee in Alabama, the most prominent men of the state--men who, on account of their positions, were intimately acquainted with the condition of affairs.

They took care that the examination covered everything that had occurred since the war. The Republican members often protested against the evidence that Blair proposed to introduce, and ruled it out. He took exceptions, and sometimes the committee at Washington admitted it; sometimes he smuggled it in by means of cross-questioning, or else he incorporated it into the minority report. On the other hand, the Republican members of the subcommittee seem to have felt that the object of the investigation was only to get campaign material for the use of the Radical party in the coming elections. They summoned a poor cla.s.s of witnesses, a large proportion of whom were ignorant negroes who could only tell what they had heard or had feared. The more respectable of the Radicals were not summoned, unless by the Democrats. In several instances the Democrats caused to be summoned the prominent scalawags and carpet-baggers, who usually gave testimony damaging to the Radical cause.

An examination of the testimony shows that sixty-four Democrats and Conservatives were called before the committee and subcommittee. Of these, fifty-seven were southern men, five were northern men residing in the state, and two were negroes. The Democrats testified at great length, often twenty to fifty pages. Blair and Beck tried to bring out everything concerning the character of carpet-bag rule.[2012]

Thirty-four scalawags, fifteen carpet-baggers, and forty-one negro Radicals came before the committee and subcommittee. Some of these were summoned by Blair or Beck, and a number of them disappointed the Republican members of the committee by giving Democratic testimony.[2013]

The Radicals could only repeat, with variations, the story of the Eutaw riot, the Patona affair, the Huntsville parade, etc. Of the prominent carpet-baggers and scalawags whose testimony was anti-Democratic, most were men of clouded character.[2014] The testimony of the higher Federal officials was mostly in favor of the Democratic contention.[2015] The negro testimony, however worthless it may appear at first sight, becomes clear to any one who, knowing the negro mind, remembers the influences then operating upon it. From this cla.s.s of testimony one gets valuable hints and suggestions. The character of the white scalawag and carpet-bag testimony is more complex, but if one has the history of the witness, the testimony usually becomes intelligible. In many instances the testimony gives a short history of the witness.

The material collected by the Ku Klux Committee, and other committees that investigated affairs in the South after the war, can be used with profit only by one who will go to the biographical books and learn the social and political history of each person who testified. When the personal history of an important witness is known, many obscure things become plain. Unless this is known, one cannot safely accept or reject any specific testimony.

To one who works in Alabama Reconstruction, Brewer's "Alabama," Garrett's "Reminiscences," the "Memorial Record," old newspaper files, and the memories of old citizens are indispensable.

There is in the first volume of the Alabama Testimony a delightfully partisan index of seventy-five pages. In it the summary of Democratic testimony shows up almost as Radical as the most partisan on the other side. It is meant only to bring out the violence in the testimony.

According to it, one would think all those killed or mistreated were Radicals. The same man frequently figures in three situations, as "shot,"

"outraged," and "killed." General Clanton's testimony of thirty pages gets a summary of four inches, which tells nothing; that of Wager, a Bureau agent, gets as much for twelve pages, which tells something; and that of Minnis, a scalawag, twice as much. There is very little to be found in the testimony that relates directly to the Ku Klux Klan and similar organizations. Had the sessions of the subcommittee been held in the white counties of north and southwest Alabama, where the Klans had flourished, probably they might have found out something about the organization. But the minority members were determined to expose the actual condition of affairs in the state from 1865 to 1871. No matter how much the Radicals might discover concerning unlawful organizations, the Democrats stood ready with an immense deal of facts concerning Radical misgovernment to show cause why such organizations should arise. Consequently the three volumes of testimony relating to Alabama are by no means pro-Radical, except in the att.i.tude of the majority of the examiners.[2016]

Below is given a table of alleged Ku Klux outrages, compiled from the testimony taken. The Ku Klux report cla.s.sifies all violence under the four heads: killing, shooting, outrage, whipping. The same case frequently figures in two or more cla.s.ses. Practically every case of violence, whether political or not, is brought into the testimony. The period covered is from 1865 to 1871. Radical outrages as well as Democratic are listed in the report as Ku Klux outrages. In a number of cases Radical outrages are made to appear as Democratic. Many of the cases are simply hearsay. It is not likely that many instances of outrage escaped notice, for every case of actual outrage was proven by many witnesses. Every violent death of man, woman, or child, white or black, Democratic or Radical, occurring between 1865 and 1871, appears in the list as a Ku Klux outrage. Evidently careful search had been made, and certain witnesses had informed themselves about every actual deed of violence. There were then sixty-four counties in the state, and in only twenty-nine of them were there alleged instances of Ku Klux outrage.

TABLE OF ALLEGED OUTRAGES COMPILED FROM THE KU KLUX TESTIMONY

========================================================== COUNTY

KILLINGS

OUTRAGES

SHOOTINGS

WHIPPINGS

TOTAL --------------

--------

--------

---------

---------

----- Autauga

--

1

--

--

1 Blount (k)

2

3

--

6

11 Calhoun

6

1

1

1

9 Chambers (k)

1

--

1

--

2 Cherokee (k)

--

2

--

1

3 Choctaw (x)

11

1

3

--

15 Coosa

--

--

1

12

13 Colbert (k)

1

1

--

1

3 Dallas (x)

1

1

--

--

2 Fayette (k)

1

--

--

3

4 Greene (x)

11

4

1

3

19 Hale (x)

1

3

2

1

7 Jackson

4

2

2

2

10 Lauderdale

--

--

--

1

1 Lawrence (k)

2

--

--

--

2 Limestone (k)

7

1

--

1

9 Macon (x)

1

4

1

1

7 Madison (x)

6

19

5

19

49 Marshall (k)

1

--

1

1

3 Marengo (x)

1

6

--

4

11 Montgomery (x)

--

1

--

--

1 Morgan (k)

4

2

1

3

10 Perry (x)

2

--

2

2

6 Pickens (x)

--

--

--

9

9 Sumter (x)

21

4

9

4

38 St. Clair

1

1

1

--

3 Tallapoosa (k)

--

--

--

1

1 Tuscaloosa (k)

8

--

--

--

8 Walker (k)

--

--

--

1

1

+----- Total

258 ==========================================================

(x) = black counties, and (k) = white counties, where Ku Klux Klan operated.

The Ku Klux Committee reported a bill[2017] providing for the execution of the Ku Klux Act until the close of the next session of Congress. It pa.s.sed the Senate May 21, 1872, and failed in the House on June 6.[2018] The act of February 28, 1871, was amended by extending the Federal supervision of elections from towns to all election districts on application of ten persons. Other unimportant amendments were made.[2019]

The pa.s.sage of these laws had no effect on the Ku Klux Klan proper, which had died out in 1869-1870. Nor did they have any effect in decreasing violence. It is quite likely that there was more violence toward the negro in 1871 and 1872 than in 1869-1870. But the laws did affect the elections.

The entire machinery of elections was again under Radical control, and in 1872 the state again sank back into Radicalism. But it was the last Republican majority the state ever cast. The execution of these laws did much to hasten the union of the whites against negro rule.

Few cases were tried under the Enforcement Acts, though District Attorney Minnis and United States Marshal Healy were very active.[2020] Busteed, in 1871, testified that at Huntsville he had tried several persons for an outrage upon a negro, and that there were still untried two indictments under the Act of 1870. He stated that his jurors and witnesses were never interfered with. One of his grand juries, in 1871, encouraged by the att.i.tude of Congress, reported that while there was no organized conspiracy throughout the middle district, there was such a thing in Macon, Coosa, and Tallapoosa. Two of the jurors--Benjamin F. n.o.ble and Ex-Governor William H. Smith--objected to the report, and Busteed, the Federal judge, condemned it as unwarranted by the facts.[2021]

Nearly all of the carpet-bag and scalawag witnesses who testified on the Radical side before the Ku Klux Committee complained that the courts would not punish Ku Klux when they were arrested, and that juries would not indict them.[2022]

In 1872 a gang of men in eastern Alabama, the home of the Black Cavalry and the spurious Ku Klux Klan, burned a negro meeting-house where political meetings were held. They were arrested and tried under the Ku Klux Act. Four of them, R. G. Young, S. D. Young, R. S. Gray, and Neil Hawkins, were fined $5000 each and sentenced to ten years' imprisonment in the penitentiary at Albany, New York. Ringold Young was fined $2000 and sent to prison for seven years. ---- Blanks and ---- Howard were each fined $100 and imprisoned for five years. The prisoners were taken from state officers by force, and during the trial there was much parade by a guard of United States troops. There was complaint that the evidence was insufficient, and the punishment disproportionate to the offence even if proven.[2023]

In the elections of 1872 and 1874 there were numerous arrests of Democrats by the deputy marshals, who often made their arrests before election day and paraded the prisoners about the country for the information of the voters. I have been unable to find record of any convictions.[2024]

Later Organizations

While the Ku Klux Klan was disbanded by order in 1869, it is not likely that the order of the White Camelia disbanded except when there was no longer any necessity for it. In one county it might disband; in another it might survive several years longer. It is said that its operations were by order suspended in counties when conditions improved.

The White Brotherhood was a later organization, but had only a limited extension over south Alabama. The most widely spread of the later organizations was the White League, which in some form seems to have spread over the entire state from 1872 to 1874. The close connection between southwestern Alabama and Louisiana accounts for the introduction of both the White Camelia and the White League. In 1875 Arthur Bingham, the ex-carpet-bag-treasurer of the state, stated that he had secured a copy of the const.i.tution of the White League and had published it in the _State Journal_. Its members were sworn not to regard obligations taken in courts, and to clear one another by all means.[2025]