“Study ofL. F. Whitten,Pastor M. E. Church, South.Jasper, Ala., Aug. 1, 1892.“My dear Brother Manning:“As soon as I have the time, I hasten to tender to you my sincere sympathies for the barbarous and uncivilized treatment you received at Florence a few days since. The correspondent of theAge-Herald, who lives at Florence, saw ‘an amusing sight last night to see the boasted disciple of Kolbism, J. C. Manning, run from a volley of rotten eggs thrown by fifty enraged men.’ He could have seen in this ‘amusing sight,’ the return of the Spanish Inquisition and diabolic intolerance of barbarism, had he been able to look ahead. This was outrageous and inhuman treatment for which I assure you I am full of regrets. I am ashamed that it has happened in Alabama or the South. This spirit shown you, and the abuse heaped upon you, if not denounced and punished speedily, will culminate in the hottest persecution of an honest minority; which will prohibit free speech and destroy the right to oppose the majority, although that majority be led by the devil himself.If that spirit is not rebuked in our state and the righteous indignation of our people does not stamp it out swiftly, then the darkest days of the Rebellion will be bright as compared to those to follow. This spirit will invade the pulpit and go into the sanctum of the editor, and sermons will have to be pleasant, pacific and agreeable, and editors must agree with those in authority, or else the minister will be driven out of town, and the editor will be rotten-egged or swung up by the thumbs! If that comes to pass, then give me a monarchical government. I should greatly prefer to appeal to Cæsar, than to an enraged mob of ‘fifty or more citizens’ (?) fired up with red liquor, and thirsting for the blood of the man who differs from them,—a set of brainless, heartless sapheads. I heard a gentleman who saw it, denounce it as the most villainous thing he ever saw in a land of freedom. He does not belong to your party,—neither do I,—but he was for you. You keep on, if you die at your post. Mobs to-day, mausoleums to-morrow. The party that resorts to such tactics may ride the top of the wave to-day, but the good time is coming when that rotten and rum-soaked method will be buried out of sight under an avalanche of ballots of brave men, who scorn the rotten-egg method of answering brainy arguments, which ‘Bourbons’ have not sense enough to meet in any other way. For my part, I do not believe in intolerance. The day has passed to allow it. God holds the reins of government. Life, liberty and free speech are our own inalienable rights. To destroy these, as the mobs would do, is to muzzle the press, kill the stump-speaker, and hang the preacher who does not court popular applause, and who defies public sentiment that is wrong.“Cordially yours for the Right,L. F. Whitten.”“P. S. I said I do not belong to your party. I am a political Prohibitionist, and pray for the day to dawn when the sober and sensible and honest manhood of our country may get together and rule it.“L. F. W.”
“Study ofL. F. Whitten,Pastor M. E. Church, South.Jasper, Ala., Aug. 1, 1892.
“My dear Brother Manning:
“As soon as I have the time, I hasten to tender to you my sincere sympathies for the barbarous and uncivilized treatment you received at Florence a few days since. The correspondent of theAge-Herald, who lives at Florence, saw ‘an amusing sight last night to see the boasted disciple of Kolbism, J. C. Manning, run from a volley of rotten eggs thrown by fifty enraged men.’ He could have seen in this ‘amusing sight,’ the return of the Spanish Inquisition and diabolic intolerance of barbarism, had he been able to look ahead. This was outrageous and inhuman treatment for which I assure you I am full of regrets. I am ashamed that it has happened in Alabama or the South. This spirit shown you, and the abuse heaped upon you, if not denounced and punished speedily, will culminate in the hottest persecution of an honest minority; which will prohibit free speech and destroy the right to oppose the majority, although that majority be led by the devil himself.If that spirit is not rebuked in our state and the righteous indignation of our people does not stamp it out swiftly, then the darkest days of the Rebellion will be bright as compared to those to follow. This spirit will invade the pulpit and go into the sanctum of the editor, and sermons will have to be pleasant, pacific and agreeable, and editors must agree with those in authority, or else the minister will be driven out of town, and the editor will be rotten-egged or swung up by the thumbs! If that comes to pass, then give me a monarchical government. I should greatly prefer to appeal to Cæsar, than to an enraged mob of ‘fifty or more citizens’ (?) fired up with red liquor, and thirsting for the blood of the man who differs from them,—a set of brainless, heartless sapheads. I heard a gentleman who saw it, denounce it as the most villainous thing he ever saw in a land of freedom. He does not belong to your party,—neither do I,—but he was for you. You keep on, if you die at your post. Mobs to-day, mausoleums to-morrow. The party that resorts to such tactics may ride the top of the wave to-day, but the good time is coming when that rotten and rum-soaked method will be buried out of sight under an avalanche of ballots of brave men, who scorn the rotten-egg method of answering brainy arguments, which ‘Bourbons’ have not sense enough to meet in any other way. For my part, I do not believe in intolerance. The day has passed to allow it. God holds the reins of government. Life, liberty and free speech are our own inalienable rights. To destroy these, as the mobs would do, is to muzzle the press, kill the stump-speaker, and hang the preacher who does not court popular applause, and who defies public sentiment that is wrong.
“Cordially yours for the Right,L. F. Whitten.”
“P. S. I said I do not belong to your party. I am a political Prohibitionist, and pray for the day to dawn when the sober and sensible and honest manhood of our country may get together and rule it.
“L. F. W.”
Other instances of this frenzied partisan madness soon abounded. But the most wicked resort of Democratic party passion, be it said to its eternal shame, was made upon Col. J. M. Whitehead, editor ofThe Living Truth, Georgiana, Ala. Not content with destroying peace, planning and attempting midnight assassinations, hooting and howling at public meetings, these haters of civil liberty and “dying hard” Democrats come forth intheir extreme infernalism, and hurl eggs at a gray-haired, one-legged, ex-Confederate soldier and citizen of irreproachable manhood. In response to a request for a statement on this subject, the writer received the following reply from Colonel Whitehead:
“Greenville, Ala., April 3, 1893.“J. C. Manning:“Dear Sir,—You ask me to write to you some of my experiences during the campaign last year with our friends, the organized Democracy. Knowing their methods so well, their ‘wild and woolly’ ways did not surprise me. I had some experiences with them in 1884, when I was an independent candidate for Congress in this district, against Herbert. At Ross Hill, Covington county, I was set upon by their tools, who had been organized before to kill me. It was a miracle that the plan failed. As it was, I had an arm broken, a shoulder dislocated and was left for dead on the ground. I had just closed a speech in which I had exposed the unfaithfulness of their Congressman (the nominee), which I had been doing for the past two weeks and he had heard of it. He is now the Secretary of the Navy! I had challenged him to a joint discussion and he had declined. He was a Confederate soldier and so was I. I had lost a leg and he had lost the use of an arm, but nothing of this kind could stand in the way of his ambition. I never had any doubt but that he and his henchmen instigated this cowardly assault upon me. Last year, most of my speeches were made in the ‘white counties’ where our friends are largely in the majority. I went to Union Springs, in Bullock county,—a ‘black county’—to engage the Hon. W. C. Oates in a joint debate. He declined and I made no attempt to speak. As I was leaving on the train from the depot that night, I was honored with a shower of eggs coming through the car window at which I was sitting. They passed within a few inches of my nose and breaking on the other side of the car, fell on the good clothes of an enthusiastic Democrat. Of course he was mad, while I was in the best possible humor. I did the laughing and he did the swearing. It took place as the train moved off, so that there was no chance to investigate who the parties were. They were under the cover of darkness, and doubtless will there remain.”“Most respectfully,J. M. Whitehead.”
“Greenville, Ala., April 3, 1893.
“J. C. Manning:
“Dear Sir,—You ask me to write to you some of my experiences during the campaign last year with our friends, the organized Democracy. Knowing their methods so well, their ‘wild and woolly’ ways did not surprise me. I had some experiences with them in 1884, when I was an independent candidate for Congress in this district, against Herbert. At Ross Hill, Covington county, I was set upon by their tools, who had been organized before to kill me. It was a miracle that the plan failed. As it was, I had an arm broken, a shoulder dislocated and was left for dead on the ground. I had just closed a speech in which I had exposed the unfaithfulness of their Congressman (the nominee), which I had been doing for the past two weeks and he had heard of it. He is now the Secretary of the Navy! I had challenged him to a joint discussion and he had declined. He was a Confederate soldier and so was I. I had lost a leg and he had lost the use of an arm, but nothing of this kind could stand in the way of his ambition. I never had any doubt but that he and his henchmen instigated this cowardly assault upon me. Last year, most of my speeches were made in the ‘white counties’ where our friends are largely in the majority. I went to Union Springs, in Bullock county,—a ‘black county’—to engage the Hon. W. C. Oates in a joint debate. He declined and I made no attempt to speak. As I was leaving on the train from the depot that night, I was honored with a shower of eggs coming through the car window at which I was sitting. They passed within a few inches of my nose and breaking on the other side of the car, fell on the good clothes of an enthusiastic Democrat. Of course he was mad, while I was in the best possible humor. I did the laughing and he did the swearing. It took place as the train moved off, so that there was no chance to investigate who the parties were. They were under the cover of darkness, and doubtless will there remain.”
“Most respectfully,J. M. Whitehead.”
“They are under the cover of darkness, and doubtless will there remain.” What manner of Democracy (?) is this, which forms aprominent part of the nation’s administration—even entering the make-up of the cabinet of the President! It is no surprise that an opposition cause to such a party as this Democracy (?) would dare to undergo the most trying difficulties in its struggle to maintain freedom of speech and to sustain human liberty; it is no wonder that the Southern champions of reform dare to preserve law, protect home and have honest government.
“Bourbon” campaign intolerance, ballot-box stuffing and other similar crimes against human liberty have become a common practice in the political contests in Alabama. It is said frequently by the opposition in this state that one’s skill in fraudulent election manipulation wins promotion in the councils of the Democratic party. It is also not untrue that voters who have been accomplices in perpetrating election frauds have been rewarded with official positions “on account of efficient services rendered the party.”
The election law in Alabama was framed for facilitating fraud as an alleged necessity for protection from negro supremacy. But, once having secured the “machine,” the “bosses” have taken advantage of this “original purpose,” and have carried the practice of stealing ballots so far as to feloniously take white men’s votes in order to preserve the “machine” intact. This practice has been carried out to such an outrageous extent that an overwhelming majority of “white” ballots have frequently been reversed by the “machine bosses” in order to continue the evolution of the office-holding hierarchy. The original ballot-box stuffing law has been recently displaced by another equally as iniquitous. This new law was enacted at the last session of the Legislature and is known as the “Sayre Election Bill.” As fair and able criticism that has been made of this bill appeared in theAlliance Herald, Montgomery, Ala., edited by Frank Baltzell, one of the ablest and most forcible writers in the South. TheAlliance Heraldsays of this measure:
“The law should be captioned, ‘A Bill to be entitled an Act to Perpetuate the Frauds which have heretofore been practiced in Alabama.’ It is very ingenious in its draft, very adroit in its omissions and very mischievous in its operations. The principal idea in the bill is that it absolutely puts thecontrol of elections in this state into the control of the inspectors of elections, by making everything about voting so hedged about by secrecy that it is impossible to ever get the evidence of any fraud that may be committed, and by making them the absolute directors and controllers of those who may not be able to read and write. The principal omission of the bill is that it does not provide for the appointment of inspectors from each party or faction, or rather fails to make provision for the enforcement of the existing section in the code which provides for it, effective and certain to be enforced. All the frauds in the elections are due to that defect. The probate judge, clerk and sheriff do not pretend to enforce the law fairly. Appeal to the courts to secure enforcement is a farce, as appeal from the decision of the court delays the application of the remedy, if the supreme court should order it, until after the election shall be past. Each party or faction should be guaranteed, under a heavy penalty upon these officers, fair and just representation in the management, by having at least one inspector and one clerk—those, too, whose names shall be suggested; for to appoint one ignorant, careless or indifferent inspector, to watch two inspectors and two clerks, is folly. The average ballot-box stuffer can count out every time, when that is done. One man is needed to watch the one who reads the ballot, and another to watch the clerks. Without these two, the ‘slick’ artist can count out every time. This omission in the bill makes it safer than the present law, for a voter can now keep a list, and those of his party can give their names and voluntarily tell him for whom they voted, and thereby afford evidence available in a contest. This bill purposely does away with this right by putting all the power in the hands of the inspectors and keeping everybody fifty feet away from any evidence whatever. The law is almost wholly devoted to how voting shall be done. Nobody is concerned about that. Everybody wants to know how the counting will be done, or how the stuffing will be prevented. That power is kept securely in the hands of the inspectors, and the inspectors’ appointment is equally as firmly kept in the hands of the judge of probate, clerk and sheriff. That may seem a very adroit way of perpetuating fraud, but it is neither smart, shrewd nor fair.“The law provides for booths or stalls—one for each fifty voters as shown by the preceding election. One voter at a time gets a ticket from an inspector, goes into the booth and is allowed five minutes to prepare his ticket. If he cannot read or use his hands to make a cross mark opposite each name of the candidate for whom he desires to vote, the inspector appoints one of the partisans of his party—not the voter’s—to fix the ticket. He will fix it, too. Nobody can see or hear what transpires between thevoter and this appointed manipulator. No penalty is provided for deceiving or wrongly marking the ticket. All the frauds about that feature are protected. When it is marked, the voter casts it. Why not number it, so that it can be identified in case of contest or dispute? That would prevent fraud, and is not wanted. No one is allowed within fifty feet of the voting place nor the booths. There is great particularity about the way the ticket shall be prepared, and none shall be voted unless they shall have the initials of the inspector who hands them out, on the ticket. Any other ticket, if voted, shall not be counted. There is another chance for fraud. Suppose the inspector refuses to mark his initials on the tickets, there is no penalty and each one can refuse and defeat the election.“The law requires the registration of voters to be completed the first twelve days in June, before the August and November elections. Before registering for each election, the voter must present his poll-tax receipt. When he registers he gets a registration certificate. When he votes he must present this registration certificate and leave it with the inspector. The way is not plain how it will get back to him, when he delivers it in August and desires to vote in November, but it is supposed that he will have a slim or good chance at that, as he shall be in accord or opposition to the officer who ought to return it. If the registrar fails to act after he shall be appointed, there is no way for the voters of the beat to register that year; the probate judge and registrar can manage that little trick so as to disfranchise all the opposition beats with heavy majorities. The probate judge can appoint another, but there is no penalty for not serving nor for the appointment of an incompetent registrar. That feature is well fixed. The bill provides penalties for everything to protect secrecy, but nothing to protect the honesty of the count. It seems to proceed on the assumption that the principal thing about an election is secrecy, and that the honest expression of the will of the voters is not to be protected. The inspectors will fix that for the party to which they belong and the probate judge will see that no other party or faction has any chance or prospect. As a remedy for the troubles now complained of in the state, the bill is wholly at variance from everything needed. It simply puts in the power of the probate judge, clerk and sheriff of a county the power to control every election.”
“The law should be captioned, ‘A Bill to be entitled an Act to Perpetuate the Frauds which have heretofore been practiced in Alabama.’ It is very ingenious in its draft, very adroit in its omissions and very mischievous in its operations. The principal idea in the bill is that it absolutely puts thecontrol of elections in this state into the control of the inspectors of elections, by making everything about voting so hedged about by secrecy that it is impossible to ever get the evidence of any fraud that may be committed, and by making them the absolute directors and controllers of those who may not be able to read and write. The principal omission of the bill is that it does not provide for the appointment of inspectors from each party or faction, or rather fails to make provision for the enforcement of the existing section in the code which provides for it, effective and certain to be enforced. All the frauds in the elections are due to that defect. The probate judge, clerk and sheriff do not pretend to enforce the law fairly. Appeal to the courts to secure enforcement is a farce, as appeal from the decision of the court delays the application of the remedy, if the supreme court should order it, until after the election shall be past. Each party or faction should be guaranteed, under a heavy penalty upon these officers, fair and just representation in the management, by having at least one inspector and one clerk—those, too, whose names shall be suggested; for to appoint one ignorant, careless or indifferent inspector, to watch two inspectors and two clerks, is folly. The average ballot-box stuffer can count out every time, when that is done. One man is needed to watch the one who reads the ballot, and another to watch the clerks. Without these two, the ‘slick’ artist can count out every time. This omission in the bill makes it safer than the present law, for a voter can now keep a list, and those of his party can give their names and voluntarily tell him for whom they voted, and thereby afford evidence available in a contest. This bill purposely does away with this right by putting all the power in the hands of the inspectors and keeping everybody fifty feet away from any evidence whatever. The law is almost wholly devoted to how voting shall be done. Nobody is concerned about that. Everybody wants to know how the counting will be done, or how the stuffing will be prevented. That power is kept securely in the hands of the inspectors, and the inspectors’ appointment is equally as firmly kept in the hands of the judge of probate, clerk and sheriff. That may seem a very adroit way of perpetuating fraud, but it is neither smart, shrewd nor fair.
“The law provides for booths or stalls—one for each fifty voters as shown by the preceding election. One voter at a time gets a ticket from an inspector, goes into the booth and is allowed five minutes to prepare his ticket. If he cannot read or use his hands to make a cross mark opposite each name of the candidate for whom he desires to vote, the inspector appoints one of the partisans of his party—not the voter’s—to fix the ticket. He will fix it, too. Nobody can see or hear what transpires between thevoter and this appointed manipulator. No penalty is provided for deceiving or wrongly marking the ticket. All the frauds about that feature are protected. When it is marked, the voter casts it. Why not number it, so that it can be identified in case of contest or dispute? That would prevent fraud, and is not wanted. No one is allowed within fifty feet of the voting place nor the booths. There is great particularity about the way the ticket shall be prepared, and none shall be voted unless they shall have the initials of the inspector who hands them out, on the ticket. Any other ticket, if voted, shall not be counted. There is another chance for fraud. Suppose the inspector refuses to mark his initials on the tickets, there is no penalty and each one can refuse and defeat the election.
“The law requires the registration of voters to be completed the first twelve days in June, before the August and November elections. Before registering for each election, the voter must present his poll-tax receipt. When he registers he gets a registration certificate. When he votes he must present this registration certificate and leave it with the inspector. The way is not plain how it will get back to him, when he delivers it in August and desires to vote in November, but it is supposed that he will have a slim or good chance at that, as he shall be in accord or opposition to the officer who ought to return it. If the registrar fails to act after he shall be appointed, there is no way for the voters of the beat to register that year; the probate judge and registrar can manage that little trick so as to disfranchise all the opposition beats with heavy majorities. The probate judge can appoint another, but there is no penalty for not serving nor for the appointment of an incompetent registrar. That feature is well fixed. The bill provides penalties for everything to protect secrecy, but nothing to protect the honesty of the count. It seems to proceed on the assumption that the principal thing about an election is secrecy, and that the honest expression of the will of the voters is not to be protected. The inspectors will fix that for the party to which they belong and the probate judge will see that no other party or faction has any chance or prospect. As a remedy for the troubles now complained of in the state, the bill is wholly at variance from everything needed. It simply puts in the power of the probate judge, clerk and sheriff of a county the power to control every election.”
The foregoing review of the “Sayre Election Law,” is no more than a just exposure of a legislative document devised and enacted for the subversion of the will of the people. In other language, this law is nothing more nor nothing less than a legalized plot to commit treason against a republican form of government.
With the registration of voters and the management of elections in their own hands, the “machine bosses” of the “black belt” never fail to return any majority “that is needed.” As an instance of this corruption, let us refer to the vote of last August, and of last November, in some of the polling places in the “black belt” counties. In the city of Montgomery, when in fact less than 1,000 votes were cast in August, 3,561 votes were returned. Some weeks after the state election, one of the managers of election in Beat 5 in Montgomery county, stated to Captain Kolb that there were about 200 votes actually cast in this beat in the August election and that the Kolb ticket received over one hundred and fifty of them, and Jones the balance, but the returns gave Jones over four hundred majority! This statement was made to Captain Kolb unsolicited, and by a man who said he had voted for Jones, but was suffering from a punctured conscience on account of the wrong he had done the people of Alabama and himself, by assisting in ballot-box stuffing. Hundreds of similar cases that occurred in the August election may be given, where the ballot-boxes were not only stuffed, but the count reversed.
During the session of the Legislature, at the time of the election of district court solicitors for the present term, a gentleman who happened to be in Montgomery at the time, found the following letter on the floor in the office of the Merchants’ Hotel:
“Hatch., Nov. 8, 1892.“Mr. J. V. Smith, Seale, Ala.:“We are going to be ‘snowed under’ here to-day. Our only hope is to be able to throw out the box. Write me by thisP. M.mail the most complete plan to do it. Would too many ballots in the box do it? or which is best?”“Yours, L. 3—3.—”
“Hatch., Nov. 8, 1892.
“Mr. J. V. Smith, Seale, Ala.:
“We are going to be ‘snowed under’ here to-day. Our only hope is to be able to throw out the box. Write me by thisP. M.mail the most complete plan to do it. Would too many ballots in the box do it? or which is best?”
“Yours, L. 3—3.—”
The envelope which contained this interesting letter, wasaddressed“J. V. Smith, Esq., Seale, Ala.,” and bears the postmark—“Hatchechubbee, Ala., Nov. 8, 1892.” This letter revealed “election methods.” Upon investigation, it was learned that Hatchechubbee is a small box of not over 300 votes and that it took twodaysto do the counting, and then, in spite of being “snowedunder,” the Democratic ticket claimed 79 majority! It is only ten miles from Seale to Hatchechubbee. At Oswichee, a beat in the same county of Russell,—in which is Hatchechubbee,—there were 74 more votes in the box than were voters’ names on the poll list. Just such “double-dealing” as this, no doubt, won Cleveland’s majority in this county. It is useless to add that “J. V. Smith” is an office-holder. He was elected solicitor for the present term in the Third Congressional District. As to “L. 3—3.—” it will be noticed that the letterCis third in the alphabet, which makes “L. 3.—3.—” when the letterCis used in place of “3.—3.” read “L. C. C.” This “L. C. C., Hatchechubbee, Ala.,” is quite partisan in his feelings and is very much disturbed in his sleep with nightmares of “negro supremacy!”
“Doctoring” registration lists is an effective way of preventing boxes from being thrown out on account of not having enough names on the poll list. In some of the “black belt” counties these lists are very sacred, as they contain the names of many dead negroes and good coon-dogs. An ex-sheriff of Marion county stated to the writer that, in the discharge of the duties of that office several years ago, it became necessary for him to save his own life by killing a negro criminal, who had attacked him. The ex-sheriff said that the occurrence often came to his mind, which was full of regrets because of the affair. “However,” said he, “I am now feeling easy over the affair, as upon examining the registration lists at the court-house a few days ago, I found the name of this same negro registered, and learned that he was voted for Jones.”
Many are the ways by which the Democratic party has overcome any opposition in Alabama. “Doctoring” registration lists, stuffing ballot-boxes, reversing the count, throwing out election returns, etc., has been quite a pastime for the “machine bosses.” And soon they will begin to realize “the cost of their game.”
Suppose the opposition party, which now has control of thirty-nine counties out of the sixty-six in the state, should resort to theshameful election tactics of the Democratic party! Who could picture the termination of such a result? Referring to such a revolutionary improbability, theAlliance Heraldsays:
“When the thirty-nine ‘white’ counties shall commence to count, if they should regard that as the last resort, the figures in a state election would be as startling as amusing. Think of Dallas rolling up 10,000 majority one way, and Etowah rolling up 12,000 for the opposing ticket. Then let Montgomery roll up her 7,000 and see how they would compare with Coosa’s 7,000 or Cleburne’s 5,000. Then let Wilcox come serenely forward with her usual 6,000 and DeKalb call her hand with 7,000. Lowndes, too, could bob up serenely with her 6,000 and Dale could ‘see her’ with as blossoming a rose of innocence in a game she does not understand and show up 6,000. The ‘white’ counties have been holding aloof, until the tricksters worked them in November, but they have found out a thing or two, and if counting must be done they will startle the natives with the unblushing character of what could be done. The ‘black belt’ had best not force this competition. When Dallas kills 5000 ‘white’ votes in a ‘white’ county, by fraudulently counting that number of negro votes in order to succeed, should the whites play for even, it will not be difficult to divine what will be the result. TheHeralddoes not advocate this sort of tactics nor does anyone in the ‘white’ counties, but there is a great deal of silent thinking about it. No one wants to do it; but if self-preservation shall demand it to thwart the aggressions of the ‘black belt,’ just watch and see how the innocent and guileless man can ‘swear to conduct this election for the best interests of the white people’ and down the ‘black belt.’”
“When the thirty-nine ‘white’ counties shall commence to count, if they should regard that as the last resort, the figures in a state election would be as startling as amusing. Think of Dallas rolling up 10,000 majority one way, and Etowah rolling up 12,000 for the opposing ticket. Then let Montgomery roll up her 7,000 and see how they would compare with Coosa’s 7,000 or Cleburne’s 5,000. Then let Wilcox come serenely forward with her usual 6,000 and DeKalb call her hand with 7,000. Lowndes, too, could bob up serenely with her 6,000 and Dale could ‘see her’ with as blossoming a rose of innocence in a game she does not understand and show up 6,000. The ‘white’ counties have been holding aloof, until the tricksters worked them in November, but they have found out a thing or two, and if counting must be done they will startle the natives with the unblushing character of what could be done. The ‘black belt’ had best not force this competition. When Dallas kills 5000 ‘white’ votes in a ‘white’ county, by fraudulently counting that number of negro votes in order to succeed, should the whites play for even, it will not be difficult to divine what will be the result. TheHeralddoes not advocate this sort of tactics nor does anyone in the ‘white’ counties, but there is a great deal of silent thinking about it. No one wants to do it; but if self-preservation shall demand it to thwart the aggressions of the ‘black belt,’ just watch and see how the innocent and guileless man can ‘swear to conduct this election for the best interests of the white people’ and down the ‘black belt.’”
But the writer thinks “self-preservation” will not demand such a course. This is not a time for such practices. The common people know it. They are determined to press forward their revolt against the party that gave birth to such revolutionary ideas. The common people of Alabama will not submit longer to such outrages. They are demanding, and, in the name of God and humanity,will havea free and fair expression of their political will on the rostrum and at the polls.
The people of Alabama will no longer vote the Democratic ticket simply because the “antediluvian” leaders say so. They will no longer be intimidated by party threats, or blindly driven by party lash, but they are going to have a good reason for so doing, hereafter, before casting their votes for the party which has been in power in Alabama for eighteen years, during the whole of which time the people have grown poorer and poorer and no measures have been adopted or suggested for their relief. The great masses of the people cannot again be forced to neglect more pressing interests to take issue on tariff reform only. While these people favor tariff reform they demand other more vital things as well, and they have formulated these demands into a party platform; and the brave and patriotic people who have the courage to maintain their convictions, will no longer be frightened from the issues they indorse, by threats of disrupting an existing political party,—especially when there no longer remains any necessity for keeping that party together.
For what purpose are political parties organized and why do they continue their existence? The reading and thinking masses understand that there is but one answer: Political parties are formed to educate the people upon a proposed policy and to be instrumental in having such policy enacted into law as soon as the majority of voters favor and cast their votes for it. When the policy which brings a party into existence has become accepted as a proper theory of government and ceases to have any opposition, then the necessity of the political party itself ceases, for it has nothing else to accomplish. It is proper and usual, however, for such a party to continue its existence until some other living issues arise which demand the consideration of the voter. When this is done, one ofthepolitical parties which has accomplished its mission, should, by appropriateplatform, present the issues of the voters of the country; or some new party having that object in view, should be formed.
The Republican party was formed for the purpose of eradicating chattel slavery in America, opposed secession, and incidentally favored a high protective tariff to enable the United States Government to carry on the Civil War. The Democratic party in the South favored slavery and secession, and thus the issues were made. The Republican party established the objects of its organization and it is conceded that it was right, both in its opposition to slavery and secession, and hence the issues then dividing the old parties are now dead issues, leaving the only issue the incidental one of protection. The fundamental principles promulgated by Jefferson upon which the Democratic party was organized, have been instilled into the hearts of practically all Americans and no organized political party is necessary to maintain them. The issues formerly dividing the Democratic and Republican parties (excepting the tariff) are no longer in politics; and the political “bosses” of neither party can show why those who once opposed slavery and secession should remain as a separate political organization, and those who once favored it should remain as one also, while there are living issues concerning the welfare of the masses of the common people, about which no concern is manifested by either of the old parties.
Had the Democratic party adopted the living issues and burning demands of the common people in its platform, and honestly advocated their speedy enactment into law, then it would be the party of the people. The rank and file of that party in the South and West does not express any marked disapproval of the principal demands for reform that are embodied in the platform of the People’s party, yet, nine-tenths of the voters of the Democratic party are controlled adversely to their political belief by one-tenth—the Wall Street or Eastern portion. And, as S. S. King, Esq., a noted reform author, has said, “Whistling against the wind in theeffort to drown the fury of the tempest, has always been as effectual as the effort of Western and Southern Democracy to reform in the face of Wall Street dictation.” Unfortunately for the Democratic party, it has been controlled by this un-Democratic Eastern end of itself until the importunings of the common people of the West and South have been ignored. The thunder of the “Tammany tiger” having drowned the appeals of the Western and Southern producers, they have been forced to present their demands by independent political action, and the People’s party was necessarily the result; and if these people have the courage and manhood to stand firm to their convictions, and to resist the “party lash” which the “machine bosses” will of course continue to vigorously apply, there can be no question as to its success in Alabama.
First and foremost, however, before the strength of any new issues can even be tested in this state, the “machine bosses” who have reigned supreme in Alabama for the last nineteen years must be dethroned. In the name of Democracy they have perverted every principle which the word represents, and by “bulldozing” and fraud, have constantly thwarted the will of the people at the ballot-box. They have inaugurated methods as corrupt and revolutionary as their despotic minds could conceive, that their dominancy of the common people, might be perpetuated with ease; they have shaken the very foundation of the sacred covenant of liberty, broken the peace, blighted the prosperity and threatened the homes of the people; they have also hastened the time when all good, liberty-loving and truly democratic citizens of this state must unite in re-establishing the fact that they are the equals of the “machine bosses,” and that a majority should rule. When this is established in fact as well as in theory, then, and not until then, will the demands of the people, which are favored by a majority of the people, be enacted into law. Whether favoring or opposing the demands of the common people, all honest citizensshould unite in an effort to secure to those favoring them, the right to have the issues that come before the people fairly tested by a free ballot and a fair count of the votes polled. Anything else is slavery, which will not be submitted to by the common people of Alabama. In the language of the greatest Alabamian of to-day, Capt. R. F. Kolb, the grandest Commoner of them all, whose every impulse is actuated by a desire to do service to his downtrodden fellow men:
“The common people of Alabama believe that democracy means that the people shall rule. They now feel that a few political ‘bosses’ are undertaking to overthrow a republican form of government in this state. I warn the ‘machine bosses’ to stop and reflect. Don’t trifle with these people longer. Let justice be done and sweet Peace will again spread her white wings over our beloved state.”
Transcriber’s Note:
Punctuation has been corrected without note.
Corrected text is marked by a gray underscore. Hover the cursor over the text, and the nature of the correction will appear.