Civil War History - Secession and PoliticsWas it Slavery, or was it States Rights? Perhaps it was the election of Lincoln? What were the real reasons for Southern Secession and what were the political issues in this time of war? Find your answers here in the Secession and Politics Disussion.
Given the way the two were proposed, submitted and "ratified," there are some that make a convincing argument that one or the other is illegitimate (usually the 14th).
Is this another case of the Republicans ignoring the Constitution when it got in their way? Or are they both legally and lawfully legitimate amendments?
2/3 of the both houses of Congress have to propose an Amendment and to adopt, it must be ratified by 3/4 of the legislators of the states... quite legal I think.
So who would view the 13th Amendment as illegal, illegitimate or even immoral? If the Civil War had not happened it never would have passed, I doubt it would have seen the floor of the Senate. Almost all of the CS states abstained from the vote; it was proposed 1 Feb 1865 & proclaimed 18 Dec of the same year. To those who quote that the Constitution says nothing about Secession being illegal... the argument cuts both ways. In short those in Rebellion had no voice... should they have?
The 14th was submitted on the 16th of June 1866 and proclaimed on the 28th of July 1868. More than two years before it was proclaimed. Frankly, this amendment was ignored by the former CS and has been so well into the present.
I'm sorry I see nothing offensive in any of the sections of the 14th Amendment
Just to keep things interesting lets mention the 15th Amendment as well. The 15th Amendment was proposed 27 Feb, 1869 and proclaimed 30 March 1870. A year between proposal and proclomation. Another amendment that the former CS consistantly opposed or outright ignored. The 15th Amendment was also commonly known as the KKK Amendment... I wonder why?
The 14th & 15th Amendment are commonly thought of by many as the first Civil Rights Amendments. And I have seen signs demanding the repeal of the 13th, 14th & 15th Amendments as illegitimate by members of a KKK parade. Hardly adding an air of legitimacy to the idea that they were not legitimate.
I don't think any modern reputable Constitutional scholar would belabor the point of any of these three amendments.
__________________ Few take the trouble to understand or to view the American scene with perspective. And we Americans love to find ourselves guilty of something. However, it is never I who am guilty, but those other Americans, the past or present government or the other political party. Americans almost never find other countries guilty. It is always ourselves or our fancied influence in other countries. Louis L'amour
Interesting question. As the rules called for in the constitution for an amendment were followed, why should they not be legitimate? That's what the law says, the law was followed, ergo, bingo.
Ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
But what about the rather flagrant and fundamental Constitutional violations? How does one get around those?
For example, the adoption of the joint resolution for the 14th was not submitted or adopted by a Constitutional Congress, as required by the Constitution.
Also, the joint resolution was not submitted to the President for his approval, as required by the Constitution.
And after those illegalities, it was never ratified by three-fourths of all the States, as required by the Constitution.
And it's quite interesting that 28 senators were illegally excluded from the lawmaking body, in order to get the resolution ram-rodded through.
And they even kicked out a New Jersey lawmaker to grease the ram-rod too.
But why would the Republicans let mere Constitutional legalities stand in the way of what they wanted?
Here's some commentary from some of the States protesting the tyranny. But alas, those protests were ignored just like the Constitution was. Old habits die hard, I suppose...
State of New Jersey, Resolution of March 27, 1868:
"The said proposed amendment not having yet received the assent the three-fourths of the states, which is necessary to make it valid, the natural and constitutional right of this state to withdraw its assent is undeniable ".
"That it being necessary by the constitution that every amendment to the same should be proposed by two-thirds of both houses of congress, the authors of said proposition, for the purpose of securing the assent of the requisite majority, determined to, and did, exclude from the said two houses eighty representatives from eleven states of the union, upon the pretence that there were no such states in the Union: but, finding that two-thirds of the remainder of the said houses could not be brought to assent to the said proposition, they deliberately formed and carried out the design of mutilating the integrity of the United States senate, and without any pretext or justification, other than the possession of the power, without the right, and in palpable violation of the constitution, ejected a member of their own body, representing this state, and thus practically denied to New Jersey its equal suffrage in the senate, and thereby nominally secured the vote of two-thirds of the said houses." (New Jersey Acts, March 27, 1868)
The Alabama Legislature protested against being deprived of representation in the Senate of the U. S. Congress. ( Alabama House Journal 1868, pp. 210-213)
Texas, Resolution of October 15, 1866:
"The amendment to the Constitution proposed by this joint resolution as article XIV is presented to the Legislature of Texas for its action thereon, under Article V of that Constitution. This article V, providing the mode of making amendments to that instrument, contemplates the participation by all the States through their representatives in Congress, in proposing amendments. As representatives from nearly one-third of the States were excluded from the Congress proposing the amendments, the constitutional requirement was not complied with; it was violated in letter and in spirit; and the proposing of these amendments to States which were excluded from all participation in their initiation in Congress, is a nullity." (Texas House Journal, 1866, p. 577)
Arkansas, Resolution dated December 17, 1866:
"The Constitution authorized two-thirds of both houses of Congress to propose amendments; and, as eleven States mere excluded from deliberation and decision upon the one now submitted, the conclusion is inevitable that it is not proposed by legal authority, but in palpable violation of the Constitution." (Arkansas House Journal, 1866, p. 287)
Georgia, Resolution of November 9, 1866:
"Since the reorganization of the State government, Georgia has elected Senators and Representatives. So has every other State. They have been arbitrarily refused admission to their seats, not on the ground that the qualifications of the members elected did not conform to the fourth paragraph, second section, first article of the Constitution, but because their right of representation was denied by a portion of the States having equal but not greater rights than themselves. They have in fact been forcibly excluded; and, inasmuch as all legislative power granted by the States to the Congress is defined, and this power of exclusion is not among the powers expressly or by implication, the assemblage, at the capitol, of representatives from a portion of the States, to the exclusion of the representatives of another portion, cannot be a constitutional Congress, when the representation of each State forms an integral part of the whole.
This amendment is tendered to Georgia for ratification, under that power in the Constitution which authorizes two-thirds of the Congress to propose amendments. We have endeavored to establish that Georgia had a right, in the first place, as a part of the Congress, to act upon the question, 'Shall these amendments be proposed?' Every other excluded State had the same right.
The first constitutional privilege has been arbitrarily denied.
Had these amendments been submitted to a constitutional Congress, they never would have been proposed to the States. Two-thirds of the whole Congress never would have proposed to eleven States voluntarily to reduce their political power in the Union, and at the same time, disfranchise the larger portion of the intellect, integrity and patriotism of eleven co-equal States." (Georgia House Journal, November 9, 1866, pp. 66-67)
Florida, Resolution of December 5, 1866:
"Let this alteration be made in the organic system and some new and more startling demands may or may not be required by the predominant party previous to allotting the ten States now unlawfully and unconstitutionally deprived of their right of representation to enter the Halls of the National Legislature. Their right to representation is guaranteed by the Constitution of this country and there is no act, not even that of rebellion, can deprive them of its exercise."
(Florida House Journal, 1866, p. 76)
South Carolina,November 27, 1866:
"Eleven of the Southern States, including South Carolina, are deprived of their representation in Congress. Although their Senators and Representatives have been duly elected and have presented themselves for the purpose of taking their seats, their credentials have, in most instances, been laid upon the table without being read, or have been referred to a committee, who have failed to make any report on the subject. In short, Congress has refused to exercise its Constitutional functions, and decide either upon the election, the return, or the qualification of these selected by the States and people to represent us. Some of the Senators and Representatives from the Southern States were prepared to take the test oath, but even these have been persistently ignored, and kept out of the seats to which they were entitled under the Constitution and laws.
Hence this amendment has not been proposed by 'two-thirds of both Houses' of a legally constituted Congress, and is not, Constitutionally or legitimately, before a single Legislature for ratification." (South Carolina House Journal, 1868, pp. 33 and 34)
North Carolina, December 6, 1866:
"The Federal Constitution declares, in substance, that Congress shall consist of a House of Representatives, composed of members apportioned among the respective States in the ratio of their population, and of a Senate, composed of two members from each State. And in the Article which concerns Amendments, it is expressly provided that 'no State, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.' The contemplated Amendment was not proposed to the States by a Congress thus constituted. At the time of its adoption, the eleven seceding States were deprived of representation both in the Senate and House, although they all, except the State of Texas, had Senators and Representatives duly elected and claiming their privileges under the Constitution. In consequence of this, these States had no voice on the important question of proposing the Amendment. Had they been allowed to give their votes, the proposition would doubtless have failed to command the required two-thirds majority.
If the votes of these States are necessary to a valid ratification of the Amendment, they were equally necessary on the question of proposing it to the States; for it would be difficult, in the opinion of the Committee, to show by what process in logic, men of intelligence could arrive at a different conclusion." (North Carolina Senate Journal, 1866-67, pp. 92 and 93)
I cannot comprehend how the 14th could possibly be legitimate.
But I would like to see an explanation from someone who believes it was legit.
My second explanation as to my belief that both Amendments are legitimate. PLease reread my first post.
I will say it again: In short those in Rebellion had no voice... should men who have done their best to kill citizens not in rebelion have a voice? Take a look again at who voted yea/nay... better than 3/4 of the states not in open rebellion did so. It would appear that there is an argument out there that Senators who were instrumental in the creation of the CS and others wanted a say in US Constitutional policy. I find that ludicrous by any stretch of the imagination. Apparently some believe I am wrong; which seems the height of hypocricy to me, men who insisted they wanted nothing to do w/ the US immedietly wanted a part in the decision making when they had lost the War. I wonder what bothered those who are quoted more? That it was proposed or that it was passed? The states mentioned protested the Amendments by pretty much ignoring them. I guess if they didn't like an Amendment they chose to ignore it... pretty much the same reaction they had to an election.
Again, I have never heard of a reputable Constitutional Scholar contending that these two Amendments were illigetimate. In a quick Internet search I found several arguments against both of these amendments... the authors and the websites hosting them have questionable motives at best. An Agenda that includes resegregation and even outright extermination. Not exactly what I would call reputable or legitimate. To be honest I was shocked to see a petition to repeal the 14th Amendment on what I initially believed was an SCV site. To my relief upon further investigation it was not an official SCV site.
__________________ Few take the trouble to understand or to view the American scene with perspective. And we Americans love to find ourselves guilty of something. However, it is never I who am guilty, but those other Americans, the past or present government or the other political party. Americans almost never find other countries guilty. It is always ourselves or our fancied influence in other countries. Louis L'amour
You have many valid points... many of which we are now going over in my U.S. history class. Those Radicals were rather radical and played by their own rules. To Hell with slavery, Political control under the guise of aiding Freedman I surmise.
I will say it again: In short those in Rebellion had no voice... should men who have done their best to kill citizens not in rebelion have a voice? Take a look again at who voted yea/nay... better than 3/4 of the states not in open rebellion did so.
Shane, this is a curious "explanation."
Take a look again at who voted yea/nay... better than 3/4 of the states not in open rebellion did so.
I did not realize that the "open rebellion" lasted into 1867?
I wonder why President Johnson declared, on April 2, 1866, that,
"the insurrection which heretofore existed in the States of Georgia, South Carolina, Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, Alabama, Louisiana, Arkansas, Mississippi and Florida is at an end, and is henceforth to be so regarded."
And even before that, the same, rebellious, wicked Southern States had
been so graciously and generously allowed by the God-men of the North to ratify the 13th, by December 8, 1865. (It appears that of the 27 states ratifying the 13th Amendment, 10 of them were former states "in rebellion" from the South, i.e., Louisiana, Tennessee, Arkansas, South Carolina, Alabama, North Carolina, Georgia, Mississippi, Florida, and Texas.)
Now, let me get this straight. States which were conquered and surrendered on the battlefield in early 1865, and functioned as full and equal partners in the Union to ratify the 13th amendment in late 1865, were officially declared to be NOT in rebellion by presidential decree in 1866 -- could then be non-States later on in 1867, because they were somehow back in rebellion again?
This is so confusing.
Especially since Lincoln and the Republicans had argued so vehemently that the states "in rebellion" were really always part of the Union, and never left it.
Evidently, the Black Republicans thought the Southerners had a voice, as long as that voice said what the Northerners wanted it to say.
Any rational explanation, vaguely founded in the law, of how this can possibly be?
From the looks of the silent response to my call for a "rational explanation, vaguely founded in law," of how the US government could pull off both the 13th and 14th, it appears we are all in agreement that one or the other of those amendments can not possibly be legitimate?
Either you are the youngest and most exceptionally, gifted member of CWT, or you are the Father or Grandfather of one very cute boy!
I still hold the opinion that the Republican party trashed the Constitution during the Lincoln adminstration, and neither can I find a "rational explanation, vaguely founded in law," as to how the U.S. government spun together the legality of the 13th and 14th Amendments. In fact my original queries with respect to the 9th and 10th Amendments pale in comparison to my confusion with the 13th and 14th Amendments.
In truth Hal, I am mystified as to how the 14th Amendment was ratified in accordance with Article V.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
