The Solution Being the Fourteenth Amendment.
I subscribe to Letters from an American as written by Prof. Heather to which she has hundreds of commenters. Of course, I answer some when if comes to economics, manufacturing, and supply chain. The latter two being the source of my income for some 40-something years. Rising through the ranks most certainly gave me the knowledge to access issues and provide solutions many of which were not agreed to till they were successful. Of course, I did not tell them, the direction I had taken.
This is an excellent commentary providing insight to how the 14th came about and why. Even now, it is not fully accepted by the courts and is skewed in meaning.
July 8, 2023, Letters from an American, Prof. Heather Cox Richardson
On July 9, 1868, Americans changed the U.S. Constitution for the fourteenth time, adapting our foundational document to construct a new nation without systematic Black enslavement.
In 1865 the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution had prohibited enslavement on the basis of race. It did not prevent the establishment of a system in which Black Americans continued to be unequal. Backed by President Andrew Johnson, who had taken over the presidency after an actor had murdered President Abraham Lincoln, white southern Democrats had done their best to push their Black neighbors back into subservience. So long as southern states had abolished enslavement, repudiated Confederate debts, and nullified the ordinances of secession, Johnson was happy to readmit them to full standing in the Union. Still led by the very men who had organized the Confederacy and made war on the United States.
Northern Republican lawmakers refused. There was no way they were going to rebuild southern society on the same blueprint as existed before the Civil War, especially since the upcoming 1870 census would count Black Americans as whole persons for the first time in the nation’s history, giving southern states more power in Congress and the Electoral College after the war than they had had before it. Having just fought a war to destroy the South’s ideology, they were not going to let it regrow in peacetime.
Congress rejected Johnson’s plan for Reconstruction.
But then congressmen had to come up with their own. After months of hearings and debate, they proposed amending the Constitution to settle the outstanding questions of the war. Chief among these was how to protect the rights of Black Americans in states where they could neither vote nor testify in court or sit on a jury to protect their own interests.
Congress’s solution was the Fourteenth Amendment.
It took on the infamous 1857 Dred Scott decision declaring Black men “were not a part of the US. They were not meant to be a part as ‘citizens’ in the Constitution. Therefore they can claim none of the rights and privileges which that instrument provides for and secures to citizens.”
The Fourteenth Amendment provides that “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
The amendment also addressed the Dred Scott decision in another profound way. In 1857, southerners and Democrats who were adamantly opposing federal power and controlled the Supreme Court. They backed states’ rights. So the Dred Scott decision did more than read Black Americans out of our history; it dramatically circumscribed Congress’s power.
The Dred Scott decision’s democracy was creating at the state level only those people who were chosen allowed to vote. In 1857 this meant white men, almost exclusively. If those people voted to do something widely unpopular such as adopting human enslavement; for example, they had the right to do so. Abraham Lincoln and others pointed out that such domination by states would eventually mean that an unpopular minority could take over the national government, forcing their ideas on everyone else, but defenders of states’ rights stood firm.
And so the Fourteenth Amendment gave the federal government the power to protect individuals even if their state legislatures had passed discriminatory laws.
“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws,” it said. And then it went on to say that “Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.”
The principles behind the Fourteenth Amendment were behind the 1870 creation of the Department of Justice, whose first job was to bring down the Ku Klux Klan terrorists in the South.
Those same principles took on profound national significance in the post–World War II era, when the Supreme Court began to use the equal protection clause and the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment aggressively to apply the protections in the Bill of Rights to the states. The civil rights decisions of the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s, including the Brown v. Board of Education decision outlawing segregation in public schools, come from this doctrine. Under it, the federal government took up the mantle of protecting the rights of individual Americans in the states from the whims of state legislatures.
Opponents of these new civil rights protections quickly began to object that such decisions were “legislating from the bench,” rather than permitting state legislatures to make their own laws. They began to call for “originalism.” An idea the Constitution interpretation should be ionly as the Framers intended when they wrote it. An argument that focused on the creation of law at the state level. Famously, in 1987, President Ronald Reagan nominated Robert Bork, an originalist who had called for the rollback of the Supreme Court’s civil rights decisions, for a seat on that court.
Reacting to that nomination, Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) in recognizing the importance of the Fourteenth Amendment to equality:
“Robert Bork’s America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would be sitting at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens’ doors in midnight raids, school children could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists could be censored at the whim of the Government, and the doors of the Federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens for whom the judiciary is—and is often the only—protector of the individual rights that are the heart of our democracy….”
14th Amendment, Debt Ceiling & Perpetual Bonds – Angry Bear.
It seems that the motivations of those that instituted the Confederacy are still with us and eventually took over the Abolitionist GOP and realligned it with the philosophy of the Virginia Founders who favored ‘states rights’ (specifically those of Southern states), and did all they could (which was quite a lot) to eliminate changes to US guv’mint that resulted from the War Between the States. They are still with us.
I heard today that GOP is planning a huge meeting next MLK Day to honor his legacy. So that’s good.
It’s just the Iowa GOP, however.
Iowa GOP schedules Jan. 15 for leadoff presidential caucuses. It’s on Martin Luther King Jr. Day
AP – July 8
In so doing, i.e. favoring states rights, the new GOP implicitly also reasserted a connection to all small (low population) states like NH, VT & Maine. Although VT is feisty enuf to retain a liberal/progressive POV, NH is very purple, and Maine is barely with the GOP as far as it’s Congressional slate is concerned.
One might say that Maine is hardly with the GOP, since the only New England person in Congress is Maine’s Senator Collins. No GOP Representatives in Congress at all. Only one Senator out of twelve.
It should be noted that most of those post-Civil War changes (starting with a premature end to Reconstruction) were instituted by the Southern Dem wing of the party, who were not ever big Lincoln fans or GOP fans either, in those days.
@Fred,
“I heard today that GOP is planning a huge meeting next MLK Day to honor his legacy. So that’s good.”
That’s news to me. I did read where the first GOP presidential primary, in Iowa, will be held on MLK Day next year. Don’t see how this honors his legacy.
AP: … Iowa Republican Party Chairman Jeff Kaufmann, during a call with reporters later, reported that the vote was unanimous and that he “never sensed that there was anyone even thinking about voting no” to the proposed date.
“As Republicans, we can, I, we see this as honoring the legacy of Martin Luther King in terms of having a caucus here,” Kaufmann said, noting also that committee members hadn’t considered the possibility of the contest falling on the federal holiday before arriving at the date. …
“committee members hadn’t considered the possibility of the contest falling on the federal holiday before arriving at the date.”
LOL! Just like when Reagan launched his 1980 general election campaign with a speech lauding “states’ rights” just outside Philadelphia, Mississippi. I’m sure he and his cmapaign “hadn’t considered” that this was the site of the notorious murder of three civil rights workers in 1964. Is the GOP stupid or does it just think we are?
Who knew that there’s a ‘City of Brotherly Love’ in Alabama?
or even Mississippi.
Iowa voter demographics – 2020
– Voting-eligible population: 2,348,787
– Breakdown by sex: 49.1% male, 50.9% female
– Breakdown by age: 20.9% 18-29 years old, 23.4% 30-44 years old, 32.3% 45-64 years old, 23.4% 65+ years old
– Breakdown by race: 92.9% White, 3.2% Black or African American, 1.5% Asian, 3.8% Hispanic or Latino, 0.0% Native American or Alaska Native, 0.0% Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, 1.4% two or more races …
@Fred,
So if I were a cynical person, I might conclude that the reason the Iowa GOP “didn’t consider” MLK Day when they scheduled the Iowa caucuses is because the Black electorate is so small and most of them would probably vote Democratic.
Nit picking? Matthew 7:5, my friend.
I will leave any/all Biblical references to you, my friend.
Dobbs
Matt 7.5 explained
“In this verse, Jesus argues that one must first remove the plank before going on to remove the speck. This verse warns us against hypocrisy, seeing the flaw (sin) in another while ignoring the obvious sin in our own lives.”
probably good advice even if it was in the Bible. one commits stupidity when they ignore the ideas of their “enemy.” sometimes the enemy is right, but in any case it’s always a good idea to know what they are thinking.
in my understanding Jesus’ idea of sin was more about self destructive thoughts and actions than it was about worrying about other people’s violation of “God’s Law.”
Why didn’t they consider?
Well, it’s fairly safe to assume that the issue didn’t even come up because there’s (almost?) zero non-white participation in the leadership of the GOP in Iowa.
And no, I don’t know that. I’m only guessing.
Still picking those nits, I see.
LOL! So is “nit picking” your euphemism for “inconvenient truth?”
The point to my post was that the GOP is working it’s Confederacy-inspired magic to preserve ‘states rights’ which was essentially all about race and preserving ‘white power’. That they were picking MLK day to further that is only incidental, but current. You could have easily ignored it.
My favorite Thom Jefferson factoid (as the founder of the Dem party, who had a central role as Founding Father) was that he owned a slave-operated nail factory that made him tons of money, and had a huge role in the construction of buildings in the early days of the Republic. What do you make of that?
@Fred,
“What do you make of that?”
Same thing I make of his sexual exploitation of Sally Hemings: Jefferson believed in freedom for white men, but not for women or people of color. In that respect, he was far from unique among the Founding Fathers. They could talk the talk, but not walk the walk. We’re still living with the terrible consequences today.
So I have noticed.
Joel
i don’t think so. My reading of history is that Jefferson asked Sally to come back to Virginia with him (from France, where she was legally free). She agreed on condition that her children would be free. When your knee jerk reaction to a rich man having sex with a non-rich woman is that he is exploiting her, you may not stop to think the woman might be thinking that she has made a rather good deal for herself.
As for Jefferson’s beliefs about slavery, they might have been a little more complex than you suppose.
What we are dealing with today may be less a consequence of the “racism” of the Founders as it is a consequence of human nature.
Iowa has 6 electoral votes, two of which because it has two Senators. Go figure.
The four House seats it has are indicative that its population is ‘relatively’ small, and probably for that reason it will stay in that set of states who are most interested in preserving ‘states rights’, and stay with the GOP until hell freezes over, unless its cities becoming much larger.
One can reasonably argue that the state most out front on states’ rights is California, specifically with respect to industrial/environmental issues. No other state really comes close.
What should be done is to break the US states into manageable pieces of equal size and population. Considerable resettlement will be necessary.
@Fred,
Right-wing extremists are already proposing that for Northern California, Oregon and Washington, to generate more right-wing states, each of which will have two Senators and at least three EC votes. Careful what you wish for.
I ain’t wishing this. I would not be in favor of more Red states.
not reasonably.
I would hope (or like to believe) that the intent of the 14th Amendment, at least the clause about the national debt, would be very useful in ending Debt Limits. Since that is not the main purpose of this amendment, it is convenient to ignore it. Particularly because its focus was in paying off the huge (Union) civil war debt. Timidity rules in such matters it seems, however.
Dobbbs
without really knowing anything about it, it seems to me the 14th about the debt is exactly directed at the South’s expected dishonoring of the Federal debt when they regained power in the U.S. Congress…which is exactly what they are doing today. I would not waste time worrying about labels and mindless assertions about the supposed racist motivations of the Framers. Sufficient unto today is the evil thereof. Of course the GOP is attemting to blackwash its image in preparation for the new minority majority and the remote possibility of the end of the Eclectoral College.
Incidentally the “state’s rights” of Jefferson…and Madison…was in response to the Alien and Sedition Acts, which had nothing to do with race but were an obvious violation of the Free Speech clause.
The Electoral College had nothing to do with race. The “small states” at that time were mostly not slave states, and at about the same time, the Northwest Ordinance abolished slavery in in what would become quite a few states.
Actually the Electoral College had a lot to do with race.
The populations of the southern colonies, several of them, had a preponderance of african-american residents. The southern states wanted them counted (sixth-tengths of a person each as I recall) for the purpose of determining how many representatives in the House. Not that they would actually have votes of course. Initially, electors were chosen by legislatures generally anyway.
If only the white population was counted, the southern states would have far fewer electoral votes.
and if the whole number of slaves was counted, the southern states would have far more electoral votes..which would have more closely matched the proportions of the Federal budget they were paying for.
the non-slave states were not fully on board with counting white people’s votes yet either. it wasn’t about race. it was about the money.
No comment.
Except to agree that the GNP in those days was about 2/3 from crops from the south. Maybe higher.
It’s well understood that voting was generally restricted to men in early America. Specifically excluding women, and certainly slaves. And also, in many locales, only property-owning men could vote, slaves also being property.
It would not have mattered if slaves were counted at 100%, or 60%.
There were enough at 60% to gain extra seats in the House. 100% would have gained far more, and that would not have been acceptable to Northern states.
The free vs slave states controversy continued through the first half of the 19th century. You recall Lincoln’s remarks about the US being ‘half-slave, half-free’. There was an effort to keep that ratio, The Missouri Compromise. It allowed slavery to persist in the US longer than in the rest of the world, specifically Europe.
‘the South’s expected dishonoring of the Federal debt when they regained power in the U.S. Congress’
Gosh, would they really have done that!
Honestly, I thought that this clause was just generally about repaying the Union war debt to any and all lenders. (It might be considered rude that they didn’t include Confederate war debt also.)
Dobbs
there you go again.
the loyal states had no interest in paying the secessions debts. those lending to the confederacy did so at their own risk. something that used to be understood about debt…before the South won the war between the states and declared that all debts must be paid, even those to fraudulent lenders and in contradiction to the laws of usury and bankruptcy. but neither did the UNION HAVE ANY INTEREST IN HAVING THEIR CREDIT DESTROYED (ALONG WITH THEIR ECONOMY) WHEN THE SOUTH REJOINED AND HAD THE POWER TO DEFAULT.
here i thought i was agreeing with you, but you were only joking.
You sound like Reagan with that “there you go again.” Is this a Presidential debate?
no, but if Reagan can make a joke, so can I. even if people don’t get it.
Not I.
What part(s) of the 14th Amendment do you consider a joke?
There were a lot of holders of US (Union) civil war debt in Germany and Holland apparently.
US bond sales successful in the German states & the Netherlands
It is well known that the South thought the Civil War would not last very long because of the importance of cotton in world trade. Europe would put pressure on the US to end it. That really did not happen.
Britain apparently used the cotton-supply disruption to boost its production in Egypt and India, and actually gained a lot from this.
France was interested in the disruptive effects of the war apparently and was not anxious to see it end.
The South sold some war bonds in Europe but was generally unsuccessful.
“Seeing an opportunity to expand the French Empire in the New World, Napoleon III invaded Mexico in 1862. Ferdinand Maximilian Joseph, archduke of Austria, and his wife, Carlota, were installed as emperor and empress of Mexico in 1864.”
They could do this because the Union & the Confederacy were tied up with the Civil War.
What fun would RE Lee & US Grant have had if they’d had the opportunity to go to war with France in Mexico in the that period.
‘Grant and Robert E. Lee fought side by side in the Mexican War before leading opposing armies in the U.S. Civil War. The two old friends discussed their shared experiences in the Mexican War just before signing their famous peace treaty at Appomattox Courthouse in 1865.’
Since the Consitution was ratified in 1788 and the Alien & Sedition Acts were not passed until 1798, I don’t see how the latter has to do with the former.
“Passed in preparation for an anticipated war with France, the Alien and Sedition Acts tightened restrictions on foreign-born Americans and limited speech critical of the government.”
You might suppose the A&S Acts were passed in response to Shay’s Rebellion (1786) and The Whiskey Rebellion (1791-94), but apparently you’d be wrong.
Dobbs
it’s not the fourteenth that was a joke, it is your arguments that are a joke. not wishing to be mean to you here, but … why is it “hard to see what the Acts, pssed in 1798 had to do with the Constitution passed in 1788”? ???? really?
“It would not have mattered if slaves were counted at 100%, or 60%.
There were enough at 60% to gain extra seats in the House. 100% would have gained far more, and that would not have been acceptable to Northern states. “
So…it doesn’t matter that it would not have been acceptable ? ????
One could argue that since slaves were never going to be voters, they shouldn’t be counted at all when determining population to be represented in Congress. I assume the Federalists starting off arguing that POV, but that would not get the Constitution ratified.
one could argue…if one cared nothing at all about facts.
incidentally when Lee met Grant at Appomatox, Grant mentioned remembering him from Mexico. Grant replied that he did not remember Grant.
‘Grant (at Appomatox) was self-conscious about his appearance. Without his own dress uniform at hand, he was obliged to wear his field attire: a private’s uniform with the three stars of his rank sewn on—and mud-spattered to boot. Grant feared that Lee might take his attire as a studied insult. Lee seems not to have noticed it (although the contrast is sometimes invoked to symbolize an encounter between vanquished southern chivalry and grimy northern modernity).
Grant’s concern to preserve his opponent’s dignity was further underscored by his reluctance to get immediately to the matter at hand. Instead he remarked that he had once met Lee during the Mexican War: “I have always remembered your appearance, and I think I should have recognized you anywhere.” Lee responded that he, too, recalled meeting Grant on that occasion, though he confessed that while he had often tried to remember how Grant looked, “I have never been able to recall a single feature.” Grant continued to make small talk about the Mexican War until Lee felt obliged to draw his attention to the matter at hand.
This preliminary exchange set the tone for the entire meeting, with Lee the embodiment of dignified rectitude and Grant trying hard to avoid any sign that might humiliate his adversary. …’
Grant & Lee at Appomatox
Lee was of the southern aristocracy.
As for Grant,
‘He resigned from the army in 1854 but returned to civilian life impoverished. He joined the Union Army shortly after the American Civil War broke out in 1861 and rose to prominence after winning early Union victories in the western theater. …’
‘Grant was working as a clerk in his family’s leather business in Galena, Illinois when the first shots of the American Civil War were fired.’
Both were, of course, West Point graduates.
“one man one vote” was not a popular idea at the time. it is interesting to me that the “free” states were arguing that slaves were zero part of a man, while the slave states wanted them to be counted the same as (white) men. yet the Left calls the Founders racists becaused they compromised at 3/5.
but even that is a gross failure of logic. a slave was not considered 3/5 of a man. The number of slaves was counted for puposes of taxation and representation as 2/5 of the same number of free men. there is a difference, unless you want to feel sorry for yourself (by proxy) a hundred and fifty years after emancipation.
oh, yes, at the height of the trans-atlantic trade in black slaves, blacks were being sold into slavery in Africa by blacks, and white Americans were being sold into slavery by moslem slave traders. the Black Muslims were misinformed. MLK had the right idea (supported by Johnson) about Civil Rights. Black militants (and White militants) did not.
i hate to sound like an apologist for white racism, but i don’t think ignorance and reciprocal hate mongering really helps anyone.
Let’s not forget all those slaves who resided in Rome.
‘Scholars estimate about 10% (but possibly up to 20%) of the Roman empire’s population were enslaved. This would mean, for an estimated Roman empire population of 50 million (in the first century AD) between five and ten million were enslaved.’
Deciding that slavery is abhorent was a fairly recent change in human behavior.
Dobbs:
“What should be done…”
“I ain’t wishing this…”
can you see here why your arguments are hard to follow?
So we’re having this heated argument about how Grant & Lee might have really had a time fighting together against France in Mexico if they hadn’t gotten tangled up against each other in the Civil War, which is entirely hypothetical, And silly to argue about. I’m done.
Except to note that if there hadn’t been a CIvil War in the US, France would not have invaded Mexico.
“What should be done…”
“I ain’t wishing this…”
If your switching over to arguing about the number of Red States and what to do about this, there have always been small states (population-wise) and rural states. Not urban. The tend to dislike strong central government, except when they need disaster relief.
The Constitution favors their continuing existence. So be it.
They will never see eye-to-eye with the large Blue states.
And they have allies in the large Red states. This causes turmoil that we are going to continue to struggle with, it seems.
Maybe convene a new Constitutional Convention to sort things out.
(That ain’t going to happen, until the country descends into more total anarchy. Maybe you can see that happening soon.)
Seems like ALL states like strong central guv’mints when it comes to needing disaster relief, most often.