Civil War and Reconstruction in AlabamaFleming, Walter L. (Walter Lynwood)
History
Civil War and Reconstruction in Alabama
Fleming, Walter L. (Walter Lynwood)
Alabama -- History -- Civil War, 1861-1865; Reconstruction (U.S. history, 1865-1877) -- Alabama
In regard to the character of the settlers it has been said that the
Virginians were the least practical and the Georgians the most so, while
the North Carolinians were a happy medium. The Georgians were noted for
their stubborn persistence, and they usually succeeded in whatever they
undertook. The Virginians liked a leisurely planter's life with abundant
social pleasures. The Tennesseeans and Kentuckians were hardly
distinguishable from the Virginians and Carolinians, to whom they were
closely related. The northern professional and business men exercised an
influence more than commensurate with their numbers, being, in a way,
picked men. Neither the Georgians nor the Virginians were assertive
office-seekers, but the Carolinians liked to hold office, and the politics
of the state were moulded by the South Carolinians and Georgians. All were
naturally inclined to favor a weak federal administration and a strong
state government with much liberty of the individual. The theories of
Patrick Henry, Jefferson, and Calhoun, not those of Washington and John
Marshall, formed the political creed of the Alabamians.
[Illustration: NATIVITY OF PUBLIC MEN
Each figure represents some person who became prominent before 1865, and
indicates his native state. The location of the figure on the map
indicates his place of residence. Note the segregation along the rivers
and the Black Belt.]
The wealthy people were found in the Tennessee valley, in the Black Belt
extending across the centre of the state, and in Mobile, the one large
town. They were (except a few of the Mobilians) all slaveholders. The
poorer white people went to the less fertile districts of north and
southeast Alabama, where land was cheap, preferring to work their own poor
farms rather than to work for some one else on better land. But nearly
every slave county had its colony of poorer whites, who were invariably
settled on the least fertile soils. Among these settlers there was a
certain dislike of slavery, because they believed that, were it not for
the negro, the whites might themselves live on the fertile lands. Yet they
were not in favor of emancipation in any form, unless the negro could be
gotten entirely out of the way--a free negro being to them an abomination.
If the negro must stay, then they preferred slavery to continue.
Over the greater part of Alabama there were no class distinctions before
1860; the state was too young. In the wilderness classes had fused and the
successful men were often those never heard of in the older states. A
candidate of "the plain people" was always elected, because all were
frontier people. This does not mean that in Huntsville, Montgomery,
Greensboro, and Mobile there were not the beginnings of an aristocracy
based on education, wealth, and family descent. But these were very small
spots on the map of Alabama, and there were no heartburnings over social
inequalities.[2]
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account