(June 27 and 28, 1867)
In June 1867, two Alabama newspapers, the Mobile Advertiser and Register and the Montgomery Daily Advertiser, jousted over whether Alabamians should comply with the Reconstruction Act. Opposing the bill on Constitutional grounds was John Forsyth, editor of the Advertiser and Register, the state’s leading conservative Democratic newspaper (he referred to it as the “S.S.S. bills,” for Sherman-Shellabarger Senate Bill). Responding to Forsyth, editor W. W. Screws of the Daily Advertiser argued that boycotting a state convention would empower the Radicals and their black supporters to disfranchise whites and “reconstruct the State by the vote of the negroes alone.”
JOHN FORSYTH: “THE ARGUMENT OF NUMBERS”
Mobile (Ala.) Advertiser and Register, June 27, 1867
The Montgomery Advertiser publishes a list of the Alabama papers that stand with itself in favor of the Congressional plan of reconstruction, pure and simple. The argument of numbers is the poorest of arguments. In seasons of passion, majorities are almost certain to be wrong. . . .
Those who go for the S.S.S. bills in their totality, simply submit to be radicalized by Radicalism. No amount of pretty talk, warm professions, or plausible excuses, serve to veneer the stubborn fact of abandonment of the Constitution of the Nation, and the hopes of liberty in the future to the pressure of Radical threats and Radical force.
If we know ourselves, we think only of the good of the country. But we do confess to a strong and mastering personal ambition to keep our own record clear and to do no act in these times of trial that will bring the blush of shame to our cheeks or to those who bear our name. We will not, therefore, ratify and endorse and pronounce good a system of legislation expressly framed to degrade the South and dethrone constitutional liberty in our whole country, and thereby give rule and power to the open enemies of free government. Others may bend the knee to expediency and abandon principle, submit to tyranny in the blind hope that humility will purchase liberty in the end, but as for us and our house we will serve only the constitution of our country, in our hearts and in our deeds.
W. W. SCREWS: “WHY OPPOSE A CONVENTION?”
Montgomery (Ala.) Daily Advertiser, June 28, 1867
A few men in this state oppose the holding of a Convention. Why, it is hard to tell. If they believe that negro suffrage can be prevented by it they are very credulous. Let’s see. There is to be an election soon as to whether or not the people want a Convention. Every negro that is registered will vote. At the same time there will be an election for delegates to the Convention who will assemble in this city in case the vote is in favor of a Convention. Every registered negro will vote. The constitution adopted by that Convention, will be submitted to all the voters, black and white. Suppose the majority of voters is against a Convention or elect members that will reject the terms offered. What next? The term of the present Congress lasts until December year and if the present offer is rejected it will disfranchise the great body of [unreadable] whites, and reconstruct the State by the vote of the negroes alone. Its temper has been sufficiently shown already to convince any one that it will not take a step backward.