CHAPTER I POLITICAL, SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC DEMOCRACY REDEEMED (1874) Economics and politics are often bound together in the relationship of cause and effect. So it was in the case of the Populist movement which swept over large sections of the United States in the early 'nineties. Populism was essentially economic in origin. It was fundamentally an agrarian movement which resulted from accumulated woes, real and imaginary. Populism in Alabama was after all perhaps more of a political than a social or industrial uprising "against the groups of men who controlled the Democratic machines," and hence who dominated the entire political life of the state.2 This story begins primarily with 1874, the last year of what may be called the first period of "reconstruction" for the political revolution in Alabama known as "reconstruction" covered a period of thirty-six years, 1865 to 1901. The first extended from the surrender at Appomattox, April 9, 1865, to the November election of 1874 when, with "white supremacy or death" as the shibboleth, the Democrats won. The second period3 was from 1874 to 1901. From 1868 to 1875, under the socalled carpetbag-scalawag constitution, the government of Alabama was turned upside down with the most illiterate race indirectly in control of the state's destiny. Strangers, who had never resided in the stae till after the war, occupied practically all government positions-legislative, executive and judicial-from the U. S. Senate and House of Representatives, down through the state, counties and beats. In no position from top to bottom was there any guarantee against ignorance, corruption and graft. Already the 1 F. L. McVey, The Populist Movement, p. 137; Captain A. T. Goodwyn, Personal Correspondence, Sept. 4, 1924. 2 W. G. Brown, The Lower South in American History, p. 215. 3 John W. DuBose, "Alabama Politics," Article No. 27, in Birmingham Age Herald, May 12, 1913. 4 W. G. Brown, Alabama History, p. 268. state debt was ranging into millions, and amid the scourge of yellow fever, political misrule, economic, financial and social distress, the future held naught but gloom to the well wishers of the state, and many unwilling to face conditions left for other regions.6 The Democratic and Conservative party of the state decided on one momentous effort at winning the election of 1874. The nadir of extravagance and corruption seemed to have been reached, and national affairs as well state burdens tended to crystallize the sentiment for a strong battle. Alabama was a pawn. Control of the state was desired by each of the political parties, but it may be said that the contest of 1874 was really not between two political parties, but between the Democratic and Conservative party on the one hand and on the other a "mob of negroes" organized and led by a group of Republicans alien to the soil.8 The year 1874 was a red letter date in Alabama history. Almost every important office in the state was to be filled at the fall election of that year. One of the county papers predicted10 that aspirants for political favor would be as numerous as "free negroes around a mulberry patch." A number of issues were before the people, but the chief one centered in the race question. If the negroes were defeated it would mean the ousting of the Radical party from control for negroes constituted a majority of that party.11 Politics must be righted before business could be improved. Another issue always before the people and the press was the question of the state debt. That is, how the more than $30,000,000 claims against the state should be settled. "Repudiation, or no Repudiation" became the cry. Most of the papers, with wisdom, urged that as few issues as possible be propounded and that the idea of Repudiation should be 5 Brown, pp. 278-9. Due largely to fraudulent railroad bonds, general extravagance and peculation, the state's debt had jumped from about $7,000,000 in 1868 to $32,000,000 in 1874. See detailed account of "Railroad Legislation and Frauds" in Fleming, Civil War and Reconstruction in Alabama, pp. 587-605. 6 H. A. Herbert, Why the Solid South, pp. 64, 67; W. L. Fleming, Civil War and Reconstruction in Alabama, p. 579, and references cited. 7 Fleming, Civil War, p. 761. 8 DuBose, Article No. 17, in Age-Herald, April 6, 1913. 9 DuBose, Article No. 6, in Age-Herald, Feb. 7, 1913. 10 Conecuh-Escambia Star, Feb. 20, 1874. 11 Montgomery Advertiser, March 3, 1874; Ibid., Jan. 31, 1874. rejected, the term "Compromise" being preferable.12 But there could be no hope of compromise without a Democratic victory. Already money lenders were shunning the state, regarding it as unsafe to entrust their money to a state controlled by illiterate voters and profiteering office holders.18 Who would be the standard bearer? Who could be depended upon to lead the state from its benighted condition? A Moses was needed. Success in the campaign would require the best man and the best organization. This meant that the thousands of potential voters in the hill counties must be aroused and brought to the polls. Many of these, through sheer indifference, had not voted since the war. The Democratic nominee must be able to harmonize all interests, which meant that more than usual consideration must be given to the locality from which the nominee came. It was a fight between 'black' and 'white' counties, i.e., between black-belt, aristocratic,14 Bourbon counties and the hill counties, filled chiefly with whites, and all thoughtful men realized that the black belt as the dominant political section of the state must now grant some concessions to the white sections not so bothered with the negro. The press of one section after another fell in line with the idea of naming George Smith Houston, "the Bald Eagle of the Mountains," as the one man able to meet the emergency and rally all sections to the Democratic and Conservative standard, and lead the ship of state from the rocks upon which it had so long been stranded.15 Others might be personal favorites for governor, but he was the expedient, available man to redeem the state.18 12 Advertiser, Feb. 13 and March 18, 1874; Southern Argus, March 24, 1874. 18 Southern Argus, March 31, 1874. The executive committee of the Democratic party in its meeting in Montgomery, February 26, 1874, set July 29 for the state convention, agreed upon the apportionment of delegates to each county, and urged the county committees to organize and get ready for the convention. Robert Tyler, Chairman of the State Executive Committee, said the state was in a lamentable plight under the rule or misrule of the Radical party, harrassed and degraded at home, disrespected and distrusted abroad. (Advertiser, Feb. 27, 1824; Herbert, Solid South, p. 62.) 14 Advertiser, Feb. 13, 1874. 15 Advertiser, Feb. 11 and March 17, 1874; Greensboro Beacon, March 13, 1874. 16 Fleming, Civil War, p. 782. Houston was a native of Tennessee, who had moved to Athens, Alabama, in his early days where he practiced law, and afterward |