14 



ALABAMA. 



fn which certain acts adopted during the war 

 mi-lit bo ratified without infringing upon the 

 Constitution of the United States. Other com- 

 mittees were appointed relative to the State 

 debt, &c. 



On the 19th the Convention passed an ordi- 

 nance providing for an election on the first 

 Monday of November, of a Governor, members 

 of the Legislature, and all county officers ex- 

 cept Judges of Probate, and for an election of 

 municipal officers in the cities of Mobile and 

 Montgomery on subsequent days. _ It also au- 

 thorized and requested the Provisional Gov- 

 ernor to issue writs of election for members of 

 Congress, and further provided that the Gen- 

 eral Assembly so elected should meet at the 

 capital on the third Monday of November. An 

 interesting debate arose on this ordinance rela- 

 tive to the power of the Convention to fix the 

 time of electing members of Congress. The 

 Constitution of the United States requires the 

 Senators to be elected by the Legislature of a 

 State. The day of election for members of the 

 House is also to be fixed by the Legislature and 

 not by a Convention. Three opinions pre- 

 vailed in the Convention ; one, that the Con- 

 vention was a legislative body within the mean- 

 ing of the Constitution, and authorized to act 

 as a Legislature in this instance ; another, that 

 only the Legislature, i. e., the General Assem- 

 bly, could appoint the time, and a third opin- 

 ion that the office of Eepresentative being 

 vacant, the Governor, under the code of Ala- 

 bama, should order a special election. 



The question was one of importance, and 

 was strongly debated, because it was apparent 

 that there was hardly sufficient time to obtain 

 a Legislature to fix the time and get the repre- 

 sentatives elected and in Washington on the day 

 of the meeting in Congress, the first Monday in 

 December. 



It was finally disposed of by authorizing and 

 requesting the Governor to issue writs as above 

 stated. 



In relation to the institution of slavery, a 

 majority of the committee to whom the sub- 

 ject was referred, reported the following ordi- 

 nance: 



Se it ordained by the people of the State of Ala- 

 bama, in Convention assembled, T"hat as the institu- 

 tion of slavery has been destroyed in the State of 

 Alabama, hereafter there shall be neither slavery nor 

 involuntary servitude in this State, otherwise than 

 for the punishment of crime, whereof the party shall 

 be duly convicted. 



Ana be it further ordained, That the Constitution 

 be amended by striking out all provisions in relation 

 to slaves and slavery. 



And be it further ordained, That it shall be the 

 dutv of the Legislature, at its next session, to pass 

 such laws as will protect the freedmen of this State 

 in the full enjoyment of all their rights of person and 

 property, and guard them and the State against any 

 enls that my arise from their sudden emancipation. 



To this ordinance a substitute was reported 

 by the minority of the committee, consisting 

 of an ordinance in favor of supporting the Presi- 

 dent's proclamation and the laws of Congress 



abolishing slavery until they were declared void 

 by the Supreme Court of the United States 

 The debate which ensued is thus summarily re 

 ported : 



Mr. Coleman, of Choctaw County, contended that 

 on our action depended the right of the property of 

 the people. The proclamation of the President and 

 the act of Congress had destroyed slavery, but to 

 make it cc mplete required our ratification, and, be- 

 fore doing so, the validity and constitutionality of 

 the proclamation and act of Congress should be 

 tested before the Supreme Court of the United States. 

 He recognized the right of the United States to pass 

 laws for the punishment of crime, but as a State 

 could not commit treason the commission of that 

 offence being confined to individuals, who were alona 

 responsible and they could not be deprived of their 

 property except on trial and conviction, those who 

 had not been guilty of treason, could not be deprived 

 of their property, although in slaves. Congress had 

 no right to seize the property of an offender, after 

 death, when it should revert to his heirs. He be- 

 lieved that the acts of some men in their haste to get 

 back into the Union, would cause us to lose, the re- 

 spect of the conservative men of the North. To ad- 

 mit the right of the Federal head by proclamation to 

 nullify the Constitution of a State, was to concede 

 the loss of a republic and the sovereignty of the 

 States. The present c>. urse proposed by the majority 

 report was one of expediency, and he was not pre- 

 pared to sacrifice rights, honor, and property to it, 

 although there was a great anxiety to get members 

 elected to Congress. He denied that the President's 

 Proclamation demanded of the State the abolition of 

 slavery as a test of loyalty, although the bayonet had 

 done its work ; that a "State could not forfeit its 

 rights, but citizens might. This was the loyal State 

 of Alabama, and must be so regarded, yet were it not 

 through force no member would vote to abolish 

 slavery. We had no guarantee that the sacrifice 

 would be accepted or that our members of Congress 

 would be admitted; nothing would satisfy the "Rad- 

 icals of the North. He contended that on this great 

 principle of State rights the North was as deeply in- 

 terested as the South, and that the precedent of 

 yielding as proposed by the majority report was too 

 dangerous. We should accept the freeing of the 

 slaves by the act of the Federal Executive and the 

 bayonet, and it was not the free and voluntary act of 

 the people of Alabama. He believed that when the 

 country returned to its reason, those who had lost 

 their property and who had not participated in the 

 rebellion, would be compensated, but the ordinance 

 proposed put an estoppel on all reclamations. 



Judge Foster, of Calhoun County, replied as follows : 

 The war had settled two questions forever, one that of 

 secession, the other of slavery. They had been set- 

 tled by a power whose decision was binding and final, 

 and from which there was no appeal the power of 

 the sword. Disputes between individuals could be 

 settled by events, but they have no power to adjust 

 differences between States and nations. They must 

 be adjusted by compromise and negotiation or sub- 

 mitted to the arbitrament of the sword. The de- 

 cisions of the Supreme Court were not respected or 

 obeyed even by political parties. In McEndrick's 

 case the court decided the United States Bank to be 

 constitutional, yet the United States Bank was de- 

 stroyed mainly on the ground of its unconstitutiou- 

 ality. The decision had no power to preserve the 

 Constitution. So in the Drea Scott case, the deci- 

 sion gave the South all they claimed on the slavery 

 question. It had no practical effect, only to exasper- 

 ate the Republican party. The State of Georgia, 

 at an earlier period, set at defiance the mandate of 

 the Supreme Court. 



The substitute offered by Mr. White proposed to 

 await the action of the Supreme Court. It was im. 

 material what that action was, so far as it secured us 





