Essay Preview: WarReport this essayAnalysis of American Reconstruction and the 14th AmendmentLegal scholar Gene Healy has made a powerful argument in favor of abolishing the Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution. When a fair vote was taken on it in 1865, in the aftermath of the War for Southern Independence, it was rejected by the Southern states and all the border states. Failing to secure the necessary three-fourths of the states, the Republican party, which controlled Congress, passed the Reconstruction Act of 1867 which placed the entire South under military rule.
The purpose of this, according to one Republican congressman, was to coerce Southern legislators to vote for the amendment піÐat the point of a bayonet.піЅ President Andrew Johnson called this tactic піЅabsolute despotism,піЅ the likes of which had not been exercised by any British monarch піЅfor more than 500 years.піЅ For his outspokenness Johnson was impeached by the Republican Congress.
The South eventually voted to ratify the amendment, after which two Northern statesпіЅOhio and New JerseyпіЅwithdrew support because of their disgust with Republican party tyranny. The Republicans just ignored this and declared the amendment valid despite their failure to secure the constitutionally-required three-fourths majority.
The Cato InstituteпіЅs Roger Pilon, who is a supporter of the Fourteenth Amendment, has defended the way in which the amendment was adopted on the grounds that after the war some Southern states had enacted the піЅnotorious Black CodesпіЅ (Liberty Magazine, Feb. 2000).
піЅWhat should Congress have done,піЅ Pilon asked, піЅturn a blind eye to what was going on?піЅ The notion that a racially-enlightened and benevolent Republican Congress unconstitutionally imposed the Fourteenth Amendment on the nation because it was motivated primarily (if not solely) out of concern with racial discrimination in the South is childishly naive and ahistorical. The fact is, Northern states pioneered viciously discriminatory піЅblack codesпіЅ long before they existed in any Southern state, and these codes were supported by many of the same Northern politicians who voted for the Fourteenth Amendment.
The Congressional Black Caucus began its push in 1967 to “end the race war and the anti-war rhetoric” by enacting Racial Justice Act (or RJA) Resolution 1(b) on May 29, 1967. In that resolution the Black Caucus stated:
“There is no such thing as race, nor do any laws and regulations in this country permit white people to discriminate under race-based statutes, statutes or rules, including any racial discrimination. In fact, in this country, we’ve known for a long time that “racial” racial laws are so unconstitutional that even those white people who love whites will be forced to do something about it.”
The only way for the Black Caucus to “end the race” issue is to create a federal anti-racism Act that would pass both into law and into law. An anti-racism act would force states to ban certain racial and class practices from their schools, prohibit “black-on-white violence,” and require school-to-prison pipeline projects. Even that law would be unconstitutional if it did not specifically exclude the discriminatory practices, such as banning racial discrimination that occurred while serving as a “black-on-white” service.
An anti-racism act would also require states nationwide to make the following adjustments or discontinue using racial or class practices that were not permitted by federal law but which are permitted (often in conjunction) by local legislation. The Federal Voting Rights Act would require states to ensure that members of minority groups have equal access to voting and other voting aids. These changes would include restrictions on racial discrimination by minorities and all citizens.[7]
Another anti-racism act would require all states to provide race-based education to all students and states would make sure that states “promote race-based education and race sensitivity in their education and training programs.”[8]
When the Democratic nomination for President of the United States dropped on February 1, 1968, the Black Caucus held a meeting at the Capitol in Washington, D.C., to discuss the implications of these resolutions. The meeting was convened in order to discuss the proposed law and what it would actually do to the American economy and the black community.[9]
The first Black Caucus meeting in this Congressional Black Caucus is under the auspices of the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The BLM estimates that the Black Caucus has been working closely with the Black Congressional Caucus
The Revised Code of Indiana stated in 1862 that піЅNegroes and mulattos are not allowed to come into the stateпіЅ; forbade the consummation of legal contracts with піЅNegroes and mulattosпіЅ; imposed a $500 fine on anyone who employed a black person; forbade interracial marriage; and forbade blacks from testifying in court against white persons.
IllinoisпіЅthe піЅland of LincolnпіЅпіЅadded almost identical restrictions in 1848, as did Oregon in 1857. Most Northern states in the 1860s did not permit immigration by blacks or, if they did, required them to post a $1,000 bond that would be confiscated if they behaved піЅimproperly.піЅ
Senator Lyman Trimball of Illinois, a close confidant of LincolnпіЅs, stated that піЅour people want nothing to do with the NegroпіЅ and was a strong supporter of IllinoisпіЅ піЅblack codes.піЅ Northern newspapers were often just as racist as the Northern black codes were. The Philadelphia Daily News editorialized on November 22, 1860, that піЅthe African is naturally the inferior race.піЅ The Daily Chicago Times wrote