Ratification of
the Thirteenth Amendment in December 1865 not only meant the
abolition of slavery, but also nullification of the
Constitution’s three-fifth clause (Article I, Section 2).
Previously, each state’s representation in the U.S. House and
its federal taxation
were determined by the number of its residents, including only
three-fifths of its slaves. Thereafter, the ex-slaves, since
they were then free people, would all be counted when
calculating each state’s representation in the U.S. House and
its federal taxation.
One result would be a greatly increased number of Southerners in
Congress. That prospect alarmed many Northerners, especially
when it arose at the same time that the former Confederate
states had passed discriminatory
Black Codes. Therefore, Republicans proposed constitutional
amendments to rectify the situation.
One possible solution was to
base representation on the number of eligible voters, rather
than on population. In that way, the South would not benefit
from the abolition of slavery with enhanced political power, and
each state would have an incentive to grant voting rights to
black men. A constitutional amendment to determine federal
representation by the number of a state’s eligible voters had
first been proposed by Senator Charles Sumner of Massachusetts
in February 1865, two months before the Civil War ended, while
Congress was debating the proposed Thirteenth Amendment. On
December 4, 1865, he
reintroduced the
apportionment amendment, along with several measures related to
Reconstruction.
In the January 13, 1866 issue of
Harper’s Weekly (published January 3), editor George William
Curtis
reviewed problems in the postwar South
springing from ex-Confederates dominating the political
process. He argued for further requirements imposed on the
Southern states to ensure the protection of civil rights and
liberties, including an amendment to base representation on
voters instead of population. (In the editorial, the
“industrial system” and “industrial workers” refers to slavery
and ex-slaves.) In the February 24, 1866 issue, Curtis
explained why it was necessary to amend the
constitution regarding representation in Congress.
In December 1865 and January 1866, five
resolutions were introduced into the House for constitutional
amendments regarding apportionment of representation, with each
referred to the Joint Committee on Reconstruction. The
resolution submitted by Republican Congressman James Blaine of
Maine provided the basis for a constitutional amendment approved
13-1 by the committee on January 20:
Representatives and direct taxes
shall be apportioned among the several States which may be
included within this Union, according to their respective
numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State,
excluding Indians not taxed; provided, that, whenever the
elective franchise shall be denied or abridged in any State
on account of race or color, all persons therein of such
race or color shall be excluded from the basis of
representation.
Democratic Congressman A. J. Rogers of New
Jersey cast the only negative vote on the committee, and
Democratic Senator Reverdy Johnson was absent. The wording
included “persons” instead of “citizens” because that was the
traditional basis for apportionment and so that Northern states
would not lose representation, thereby making its congressmen
more inclined to vote for the amendment. On January 22,
Senator William Fessenden, as committee chairman,
introduced the resolution into the Senate, and Congressman Thaddeus
Stevens introduced it into the House.
A week later, Republican Congressman Henry
Raymond, publisher of The New York Times,
spoke out
against the proposed amendment. He did not want to
meddle with the Constitution, and argued that the Southern
states reconstructed under President Johnson’s policy should
have their representatives seated in Congress. Raymond’s
remarks represented the views of Northerners who agreed with
President Johnson that the federal government had only limited
authority over the states and that Reconstruction should be as
quick and easy for the South as possible.
Also opposing the proposed amendment, but
from a very different perspective, was Harper’s Weekly
editor George William Curtis. Writing in the February 10, 1866
issue (published January 31), Curtis spoke for many when he
characterized the measure as “a bribe of increased
political power offered to the late Slave States to induce them
to give political equality to their colored population.” He
reasoned that the amendment’s indirect language implied that
states did have the power to withhold voting rights based on
race, and that it did not prevent states from using a property
qualification to exclude voters. Furthermore, he asserted that
racist sentiment (“the feeling of caste”) in the former
Confederate states was so strong that they would prefer slightly
fewer congressmen over enfranchising blacks; in other words, the
amendment’s “bribe” would not work.
On January 30, 1866, the resolution was
returned to the Joint Committee on Reconstruction, which struck
out “and direct taxes.” The next day, Congressman Stevens
reintroduced it to the House, where it
received the necessary two-thirds majority. In the February 17, 1866
issue of Harper’s Weekly, editor Curtis
conceded
that the amendment would be valuable if “its passage
will educate the public mind to further essential measures…”
However, he explained that the proposed amendment would not lead
to the enfranchisement of black men because Southern Democrats
realized that the ex-slaves would vote Republican; therefore,
enfranchising blacks to increase congressional representation
would not be in the interest of the region’s dominant Democratic
Party. Curtis pointed out how the amendment would affect a
Northern state like New York, which also denied voting rights to
black men.
On February 5, 1866, during the Senate
debate on the proposed apportionment amendment, Senator Sumner
offered a strongly worded substitute intended to
prohibit the “denial of rights, civil or political, on account
of race or color,” and affirm equality under the law and voting
rights for blacks. He criticized the current amendment for
compromising on the issue of human rights, and warned that not
enfranchising blacks would led to a race war as occurred in
Santo Domingo.
Two days later, Senator Fessenden
responded to the objections of Sumner and others to the
proposed apportionment amendment. Fessenden argued that it was
necessary to alter the Constitution so that it reflected a
nation in which slavery no longer existed, in contrast to the
previous era when the document was ratified. He believed that
the ex-slaves were not ready for voting rights, and that the
necessary three-quarters of states would not at that time ratify
an amendment, such as Sumner’s, that enfranchised blacks.
Fessenden also observed that the language of Sumner’s substitute
would not exclude women from voting. The chairman concluded
that the amendment drafted by his Reconstruction Committee was
the most practicable one possible. On March 9, the Senate
voted 25-23 in favor of the committee’s apportionment
amendment, which was ten votes short of the necessary two-thirds
majority for passage. |
1) December 16, 1865, p. 787, c. 3
“Domestic Intelligence”
column
2) January 13, 1866, p. 18, c. 2
editorial, “The Situation”
3) February 24, 1866, p. 114, c. 1
editorial, “Amending the
Constitution”
4)
February 3, 1866, p. 67, c. 4
“Domestic Intelligence”
column
5)
February 10, 1866, p. 83, c. 4
“Domestic Intelligence”
column
6) February 10, 1866, p. 82, c. 1-2
editorial, “The Proposed
Constitutional Amendment”
7)
February 17, 1866, p. 99, c. 3-4
“Domestic Intelligence”
column
8) February 17, 1866, p. 98, c. 1-2
editorial
“The Constitutional
Amendment”
9)
February 17, 1866, p. 99, c. 4
“Domestic Intelligence”
column
10)
February 24, 1866, p. 115, c. 3-4
“Domestic Intelligence”
column
11)
March 24, 1866, p. 179, c. 4
“Domestic Intelligence”
column
|