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
cases had been appealed to it from its own lower courts. The United States
were not to be allowed to be a party to any suit in the state courts
against a citizen of Alabama unless ordered by the convention or by the
general assembly. Federal jurisdiction in general was to be resumed by
state courts until the Confederate government should act in the matter.
No law of Alabama in force January 11, 1861, consistent with the
Constitution and not inconsistent with the ordinances of the convention,
was to be affected by secession; no official of the state was to be
affected by secession; no offence against the state, and no penalty, no
obligation, and no duty to or of state, no process or proceeding in court,
no right, title, privilege, or obligation under the state or United States
Constitution and laws, was to be affected by the ordinance of secession
unless inconsistent with it. No change made by the convention in the
constitution of Alabama should have the effect to divest of any right,
title, or legal trust existing at the time of making the change. All
changes were to have a prospective, not a retrospective, effect unless
expressly declared in the change itself.
The general assembly was to have no power to repeal, alter, or amend any
ordinance of the convention incorporated in the revised constitution.
Other ordinances were to be considered as ordinary legislation and might
be amended or repealed by the legislature.[59]
North Alabama in the Convention
All the counties of north Alabama sent coöperation delegates to the
convention, and these spoke continually of a peculiar state of feeling on
the part of their constituents which required conciliation by the
convention. The people of that section, in regard to their grievances,
thought as the people of central and south Alabama, but they were not so
ready to act in resistance. Moreover, it would seem that they desired all
the important measures framed by the convention to be referred to them for
approval or disapproval. The coöperationists made much of this state of
feeling for purposes of obstruction. There was, and had always been, a
slight lack of sympathy between the people of the two sections; but on the
present question they were very nearly agreed, though still opposing from
habit. Had the coöperationists been in the majority, secession would have
been hardly delayed. Of course, among the mountains and sand-hills of
north Alabama was a small element of the population not concerned in any
way with the questions before the people, and who would oppose any measure
supported by southern Alabama. Sheets of Winston was probably the only
representative of this class in the convention. The members of the
convention referred to the fact of the local nature of the
dissatisfaction. Yancey, angered at the obstructive tactics of the
coöperationists, who had no definite policy and nothing to gain by
obstruction, made a speech in which he said it was useless to disguise the
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.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account