_________________________________________
As of my last post, the Mississippi taxpayer had defeated
not only the “progressive” state constitution resulting from the “Black and
Tan” Convention but also the Republican ticket, which would have seized control
of the civil government. In the wake of their stunning defeat, the Radicals
counterattacked by sending a “committee of sixteen” to Washington to compel
Congress to vacate the Democratic victory and declare the Republican agenda
approved. Alcorn was a member of this “committee of sixteen”.
I skimmed over the convention that created the detested
progressive constitution because James L. Alcorn did not participate in it. In
retrospect, I made a mistake. The actions of the majority of delegates
comprising the Mississippi Constitutional Convention of 1868 speak volumes
about the dubious quality of men determined to gain control of Mississippi and
in so doing clarify not only the gamble Alcorn took in aligning himself with
them but also how egregious was Alcorn’s betrayal of Mississippi’s taxpayer. Before
the “committee of sixteen”, there was the “committee of five”. This “committee
of five” derives directly from the Constitutional Convention of 1868. Over the
next several posts, I will discuss in some detail this convention’s antics and
abuses in conjunction with framing Mississippi’s “new” constitution.
To quickly rehash: The
reconstruction/constitutional convention demanded under Congress’s
Reconstruction Acts of 1867 was approved by a majority of registered voters in
a November 1867 referendum. In the Reconstruction Acts, Congress stipulated
that a “majority” of the registered voters had to agree to the convention.
Failure of the measure would leave Mississippi under martial law. White Democrats
strove to defeat the measure by ensuring a majority of registered voters not
take part. The risk in boycotting the election lay in the winners’
determining representation at the convention. The Democrats lost their initiative
by 151 votes, which assured a new constitution would be drafted primarily by
Republican Radicals. (See my 9 March 2015 post below).
The convention convened 9 January 1868 by authority of
General Ord, who was, per his request, in receipt of orders to the command of
the Department of California. Nevertheless, it was Ord who apportioned the
convention’s 100 seats among the delegates to give the “reconstructionists” a
large majority. Thirty-two of the state’s sixty one counties had Negro
majorities. That’s a majority of 52 percent. However, delegates representing
the Republican Party received 70 percent of the seats. I offer as evidence: At
the time the apportionment was made, the state had 106,000 registered voters,
which computes to one delegate for every 1100 voters. General Ord apportioned
two delegates to Tippah County with 901 voters; Panola County two delegates for
1233 voters; Holmes County two delegates for 877 voters; Washington County
three delegates for 2231 voters. These counties had Negro majorities.
Tishomingo County (primarily white) had only two delegates for 3273 voters.
This is the first political body in Mississippi in which the
Negro participated. There were 17 black delegates (Representative James Beck
from Kentucky, a token Democrat on the Congressional Reconstruction Committee
and a crusader for the Southern states, later stated there were 25 Negroes at
the convention), eight of whom were educated ministers, the most prominent
being J. Aaron Moore of Meridian, Lauderdale County; C. W. Fitzhugh representing Wilkinson County; and T. W. Stringer, a
Northerner who had come south with the Freedman’s Bureau and represented Warren County. The other black
delegates were uneducated. None had held public office.
The remaining 83 delegates were, of course, white. Roughly
20 of these delegates composed the “carpetbag” element of whom nearly all had
served in the Union army during the war. Twenty-nine native Republicans
composed the “scalawag” element, and there were four Northern-born Republicans
who had lived in the South before the war, two of whom had served in the
Confederate army. That left thirty Democrats.
Among the more prominent ex-Union soldiers were General
Beroth B. Eggleston (Ohio); Colonel A. T. Morgan (Second Wisconsin Volunteers);
General H. W. Barry (Commanded a Negro regiment raised in Kentucky); General
George C. McKee (an attorney from Centralia, Illinois); Major W. H. Gibbs (15th
Illinois Infantry); Judge W. B. Cunningham (Pennsylvania); Captain E. J. Castello
(Seventh Missouri Infantry); and Thad P. Sears. For regular readers of my blog,
you will recognize the most prominent names of white Republican delegates from the
Republican ticket for the summer 1868 election (see my 31 March post below).
These men would remain prominent in state politics until the election of 1875
sent them scrambling back to their Northern dens.
An individual’s never having held public office might not be
considered the end of the world, but individuals partaking in a matter as
important as drafting a state constitution should bring some civil
experience/historical and legal knowledge to the table, and one must consider
(and the agenda followed by the convention would validate) the illiterate lacked
such qualifications. In regards to the ex-Union soldiers, they were not, for
the most part, career army. These men had been part of militia units formed in
their locales to support the war effort. They had lives before the war—some
were lawyers, and we know Cunningham had been a judge. Those men would have
been familiar with law, which certainly would qualify them to broach the
creation of written constitutions—preferably back wherever it was they came
from. And as regards the framing of constitutions, this aside should interest
some:
In anticipation of Mississippi’s
drafting a new “progressive” constitution, thereby making the state “fit” for re-incorporation
in the Union, the Executive Committee of the Union Republican Party (think of
them as “establishment” Republicans) presented the convention with a copy of
the New York Constitutional Manual,
containing the constitutions of the 37 states of the Union then “constituted.”
In 31 of those states, the word “white” appeared as a qualification as an
elector, and of the remaining six, three had educational and property
qualifications for the franchise. So let’s do a little math here. Thirty-seven states in the Union—that includes the thirteen (I’m counting Kentucky and Missouri here) that briefly made it out and were, in 1868, perceived by the North as determined to deny the Negro his vote. Shoot let’s even throw in Maryland, which didn’t make it out, but truly is a Southern state, and say the number is 14 recalcitrant “disloyal” states incapable of percieving what this nation stands for. From that, subtract the three totally democratic states with no voting restrictions at all and that leaves 20 self-righteous “loyalists” constitutions disfranchising the Negro, the poor, and the uneducated compared to 14 of the bad guys.
Upon review of the manual, the Mississippi convention resolved to set an example for the other 34 states restricting the franchise. Well, folks, as you will see, this group of dogs wrote the proverbial book on disfranchisment, but of course, what they were referring to here was the liberal enfranchising of the Negro, whose vote would keep them in power. So I ask, if they really wanted “enlightened” constitutions in a brave, new Union, why didn’t they haul their butts back “to wherever it was they came from” and amend their own states’ constitutions? Let me take a stab at that—how about those slots for malfeasance were already taken and the Negro vote wasn’t significant enough in those places to dislodge the incumbents. In other words, they didn’t have a prayer of grasping power back home, but with a corrupt Congress hell bent on centralization, backed by a military drunk on victory, they could have their way with Mississippi.
Upon review of the manual, the Mississippi convention resolved to set an example for the other 34 states restricting the franchise. Well, folks, as you will see, this group of dogs wrote the proverbial book on disfranchisment, but of course, what they were referring to here was the liberal enfranchising of the Negro, whose vote would keep them in power. So I ask, if they really wanted “enlightened” constitutions in a brave, new Union, why didn’t they haul their butts back “to wherever it was they came from” and amend their own states’ constitutions? Let me take a stab at that—how about those slots for malfeasance were already taken and the Negro vote wasn’t significant enough in those places to dislodge the incumbents. In other words, they didn’t have a prayer of grasping power back home, but with a corrupt Congress hell bent on centralization, backed by a military drunk on victory, they could have their way with Mississippi.
In addition to the dearth of qualifications residing in the
group, the majority of delegates did not own property in Mississippi and did
not pay taxes, and for those of you not already aware—and the present state of
the United States is all the evidence one really needs—upcoming posts will show
why the fate of any city, state, or nation should not be placed in the hands of
people determined to live off a system they do not pay in to.
Finally, the vast
majority of delegates were ignorant of history—and my focus here is federalism,
once the soul of our Republic. The latter alone would disqualify not only the
illiterate black delegates, but the majority of white Republicans making up
that “august” body, who were less ignorant of the federal system than they were
opposed to it—if they considered it at all beyond their quest for power and
remuneration.
Subsequent actions indicate this group of delegates considered
itself the ruling legislature of Mississippi then constituted, despite General
Gillem’s repeated cautioning them that they were not. Remember, Mississippi was
technically under martial law, though civil government did continue to function
under General Ord’s heavy hand and later under General Gillem. This
misconstrued self-perception of it’s authority under the Reconstruction Acts
probably explains, in part, the convention’s abuse of its charter. Over the
next 115 days, these delegates far exceeded the bounds of legislative frugality
and good taste—even by that of the legislatures back in the dark lands from
which they hailed. The price of their ignorance and excess was paid by an
unrepresented taxpayer, already struggling to survive, much less recover, in a
land laid waste by some of the very men now demanding tribute.
Lots more coming on the “Black and Tan” Convention, thanks
for reading.
_________________________________________________________
For earlier posts on Alcorn, (best read in sequence from
oldest to most recent), start with 17
February 2014, 24 March, 16 April, 17 July, 24 July, 18 September, 9 October,
18 October, 5 November, 22 November, 15 December, 29 December 2014, 13 January,
24 January, 9 February, 24 February, 9 March, and 31 March 2015, all
below.