Civil War Amendments

<h1>Text Preview</h1> <p> <P>In the spring of 1865, the Civil War came to an end leaving hundreds of thousands dead and a devastating path of destruction across the South. Congress intended to help emancipated blacks and set right the injustices of slavery with the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments, also known as the <b>Civil War Amendments</b>.</P> </p> <p> <P>The <b>Thirteenth Amendment</b> freed all slaves, abolished slavery and involuntary servitude, and formally incorporated the Emancipation Proclamation into the Constitution. The Supreme Court case of <i><b>Scott v. Sandford</b></i><b> (1857)</b> made the Thirteenth Amendment a necessity. Just prior to the Civil War, Chief Justice Roger Taney had found that Dred Scott was legally still a slave and that blacks could not enjoy the right of citizenship. Congress created the Thirteenth Amendment to grant freedom and civil rights to the newly freed slaves.</P> </p> <p> <P>During Civil War Reconstruction, new southern legislatures began passing oppressive <b>Black Codes</b>. The South intended to preserve slavery as nearly as possible and guarantee a stable labor supply. While life under the Black Codes was an improvement over slavery, the codes identified blacks as a separate class with fewer liberties and more restrictions than white citizens. The Codes varied from state to state, but some universal policies applied. Existing black marriages were recognized, blacks could testify in court cases involving other blacks, and blacks could own certain types of property.</P> </p> <p> <P>In contrast, blacks could not serve on a jury and were not allowed to vote. They were barred from renting and leasing land and in many states could not carry firearms without a license. The Codes also had strict labor provisions. Blacks were required to enter into annual labor contracts and could be punished, required to forfeit back pay, or forced to work by paid "Negro catchers" if they violated the contract. Black vagrants, drunkards, and beggars were given stiff fines, and if they could not pay them, they were sentenced to work on a chain gang.</P> </p> <p> <P>In an attempt to overcome the repressive Codes, Congress created the <b>Civil Rights Bill of 1866</b>. This bill granted American citizenship to blacks and denied the states the power to restrict their rights to hold property, testify in court, and make contracts for their labor. Congress justified the legislation as implementing freedom under the Thirteenth Amendment. Although President Johnson vetoed the bill, Congress overrode his veto, and the bill was passed.<br></P> <P>Congress wanted to ensure the principles of the Civil Rights Bill by adding a new amendment to the Constitution. In June 1866, Congress sent the proposed <b>Fourteenth Amendment</b> to the states for ratification. The first sentence of the amendment defines citizenship as anyone born in the United States. With the ratification of this amendment, millions of people were collectively naturalized. The second sentence directly addresses state governments. It forbids any state from diminishing the "privileges or immunities" of citizenship, which is the section that struck down the Black Codes. </P> </p> <p> <P>It also prohibits states from depriving any person of life, liberty, or property without "due process of law" and forbids states to deny any person "the equal protection of the laws." The author of the amendment, Representative John Bingham of Ohio, intended that through the privileges or immunities clause in the first section of the amendment states would be obliged to bestow the national liberties included in the Bill or Rights to all citizens. While Bingham's intent was that the Bill of Rights would be incorporated for the new Black citizens of the South, the language of the amendment was interpreted by many to transfer legislative power over civil rights from the states to the federal government. </P> </p> <p> <P>The Supreme Court, however, refused in the <i><b>Slaughterhouse Cases</b></i><b> (1873)</b> to incorporate the Fourteenth Amendment into state law. In these cases, the state of Louisiana granted a monopoly to a New Orleans slaughterhouse for the protection of public health. Other slaughterhouse operators claimed that they had been deprived of their property, black workers, without due process, which was in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court drew a distinction between United States citizenship and state citizenship, and it was held that the amendment did not intend to deprive the states of legal jurisdiction over the civil rights of its citizens and their property. The Court declared that the restraint placed by the state on the slaughterhouse operators did not deprive them of their property without due process. In this case, the states preserved their authority.</P> </p> <p> <P>Not until the case of <i><b>Chicago, Burlington, and Quincy Railroad v. Chicago</b></i><b> (1897)</b> did the Court incorporate any of the Bill of Rights. In this case, the Chicago, Burlington, and Quincy Railroad sued the City of Chicago for forcing the company to sell its property to the city for a very low price. The railroad claimed that this violated the <b>Fifth Amendment</b>, which states that private property shall not "be taken for public use, without just compensation." The case was defeated in the state courts, but the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case. The railroad hoped that because of the <b>due process clause</b> in the Fourteenth Amendment that their Fifth Amendment rights would be upheld. The Court declared that the compensation originally offered to the railroad was sufficient. However, more importantly, it stated that the Fifth Amendment is applicable to the states through the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.</P> </p> <p> <P>As shown in the <i>Chicago, Burlington, and Quincy Railroad v. Chicago </i>case, the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment can wield significant power. Due process means that the government must be fair in all of its actions. This "fairness" can be substantive as opposed to procedural, enabling the Court to decide which liberty or property interests of the people are fundamental and therefore must be incorporated by the states.</P> </p> <p> <P>In <i><b>Lochner v. New York</b></i><b> (1905)</b>, the Court explored the boundaries of the due process clause. Joseph Lochner, the owner of a small bakery, was fined 50 dollars for violating a New York statute that prohibited bakers from working more than 60 hours a week or 10 hours a day. The fine was upheld at all levels of state courts. Lochner appealed to the Supreme Court on the grounds that this law violated his Fourteenth Amendment rights by depriving him of property without due process of law. He also argued that the law encroached upon the right to "liberty of contract." The Court agreed with Lochner and invalidated the New York law. The Court viewed the statute as a labor law and said that states could not restrict ordinary workers' hours. Critics of this decision argued that the Court took an activist position and interpreted the Constitution too loosely.<br></P> <P><i><b>Roe v. Wade</b></i><b> (1973)</b> demonstrated the Court's use of substantive due process in protecting liberties, including the right to privacy. In this extremely controversial case concerning abortion, the Court based its decision to allow abortions on the Fourteenth Amendment's due process right to privacy clause. <i>Roe v. Wade</i> opened a huge national debate that is still raging today. </P> </p> <p> <P>The <b>equal protection clause</b> of the Fourteenth Amendment forbids states from discriminating against its citizens. However, the Supreme Court ignored this clause in the case of <i><b>Plessy v. Ferguson</b></i><b> (1896)</b>. Homer Plessy, a 30-year old shoemaker, purchased first-class passage on the East Louisiana Railway. Although Plessy was only one-eighth black, under Louisiana law he was considered black, and therefore required to sit in the "colored" car. Instead, Plessy sat in the "white" car, and when he refused to move, he was arrested. Plessy argued that <b>Jim Crow laws</b>, or segregation laws, were a "badge of inferiority" on black citizens. </P> </p> <p> <P>The Court's majority opinion stated that separate railroad facilities for blacks and whites were constitutional as long as they were "equal." The Court ruled that making a legal distinction between races did not violate the Thirteenth Amendment. In addition, the Court did not feel that the separate but equal doctrine violated the Fourteenth Amendment, since it did not deny rights to black citizens. Laws requiring the separation of races, the Court declared, do not necessarily imply the inferiority of either race. <br></P> <P>The <b>separate but equal doctrine </b>was quickly extended to many public venues including restaurants, theaters, restrooms, and public schools. Although the legality of segregation was based on the separate but equal doctrine, the actual facilities provided to blacks were rarely of the same quality as those provided for whites.</P> </p> <p> <P><i>Plessy v. Ferguson</i> essentially allowed racial segregation, which continued until Howard University Dean Charles Houston set out to overturn that decision. With the help of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), Houston began an attack on <i>Plessy</i> focusing, ironically, on law schools. He enlisted the aid of Thurgood Marshall, a former student, to carry forth the battle on the <i>Plessy</i> case. </P> </p> <p> <P>Houston and the nation watched as Marshall relentlessly chipped away at the separate but equal doctrine as he argued the case of <i><b>Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka</b></i><b> (1954)</b>.<i> Brown</i> was a combination of four other school segregation cases from the South that involved more serious problems, including inferior segregated schools and a lack of school transportation for blacks. Kansas resident Linda Brown was attached to the case on the insistence of southern justices who felt it was necessary to divert the pressure of the case from the South. Topeka was viewed as a northern city, thus it was used as the title for the combination of cases. </P> </p> <p> <P>The Brown family alleged that Topeka's segregated school system deprived her of the equal protection required by the Fourteenth Amendment. After two sessions of oral arguments, the Court decided unanimously to overturn <i>Plessy v. Ferguson</i>. The Court declared that "separate educational facilities" were "inherently unequal" because the intangible inequalities of separation deprived black students of equal protection under the law. One year later, after further discussion among the justices, they ruled that the integration of schools must go forward "with all deliberate speed."</P> </p> <p> <P>Congress wrote the<b> Fifteenth Amendment</b> to enfranchise the newly freed black citizens in the Southern Reconstruction Districts. The amendment, which was ratified in 1870, prohibited the states from denying anyone the right to vote "on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude." Congress hoped that blacks would vote, take an active part in the government, and force change on the South, but the authors of the amendment never saw the outcome they intended. One main reason the amendment was not as successful as Congress had hoped was because southern whites began to enforce measures aimed at disfranchising black voters. These actions included such regulations as poll taxes, literacy tests, the grandfather clause, and violent intimidation tactics. These measures effectively eliminated black votes in the South until the passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.</P> </p> <p> <P>The <b>Civil Rights Act of 1875</b> was the last congressional Reconstruction measure. It prohibited racial discrimination in jury selection, transportation, restaurants, and "inns, public conveyances on land or water, theaters, and other places of public amusement." It did not guarantee equality in schools, churches, and cemeteries. In 1883, the Supreme Court declared the act unconstitutional; the Court asserted that Congress did not have the power to regulate the conduct and transactions of individuals. It would be nearly 90 years before another civil rights act was attempted.</P> </p> <p id="TextCopyright">Copyright 2006 The Regents of the University of California and Monterey Institute for Technology and Education</p>