254

NEBRASKA AND MISSOURI.

of February, the bill was passed over the President's veto by a large majority in both Houses.1

The admission of Nebraska was strikingly like that of Missouri, forty-six years before. In their original constitutions both territories had discriminated against the colored race. The Free Soil party of 1820, taking a firm stand against the extension of slavery, had insisted that the clause in the Missouri constitution of 1820 discriminating between free persons of color, should be declared null and void by a solemn act of the legislature, and that this act should be a fundamental condition of the admission of the State into the Union. The condition was complied with and the State admitted by a proclamation of President Monroe.2 Another Free Soil party, the Republican, dedicated to the abolition of slavery and the extension of civil rights and the suffrage to the negro race, now dictated a condition of admission to Nebraska, the substance of which was the obliteration of all discrimination among electors on account of race of color. The Nebraska legislature, by a solemn public act, complied with the condition, and on the first of March, the State was admitted by proclamation of the President. On the second of March, the principle of the Nebraska act was

1 In the Senate, 31 to 9. (Journal, p. 228.) In the House, 120 to 44. (Journal, p. 354.)

2 Proclamation of August 10, 1821. Richardson's Messages and Papers of the Presidents, II, 95. For an account of the admission of Missouri, see the Constitutional History of the American People, 1776-1850, Vol. I, Chap. x.

3 The Nebraska Legislature convened on the 20th of February for the express purpose of complying with the condition. The President's proclamation is given in Richardson, Vol. XI, p. 516. It was generally believed at the time that the admission of the State was accelerated by the desire of the Republican party to have an additional Republican State in the Union, thereby strengthening the reconstruction policy of the party, and espe

further complied with in an act regulating the territory of Montana in which thenceforth there should be no discrimination made in the elective franchise on account of race or color.1

While these radical changes in our political organization were taking the form of national laws, Congress was also engaged in discussing an amendment to the Constitution which should make them permanent. The problems of reconstruction were bewildering both in principle and in variety. It was soon realized that, to solve them rationally and systematically, some uniform policy must be followed. This conclusion was both necessary and wise, and resulted in the appointment of a Joint Committee of Reconstruction, consisting of six members of the Senate and nine of the House.2

Amendments to the Constitution involving the issues of reconstruction were proposed in both Houses, some before, some after the appointment of this committee. These

cially in the adoption and ratification of the fourteenth an endment. In this respect Nebraska bore to that policy and amendment much the same relation that West Virginia and Nevada, admitted under similar political tactics and purposes, bore to the policy of abolition and the thirteenth amendment.

1 Statutes at Large, XIV, 426.

2 The joint resolution for the appointment of such a committee passed the House December 4, 1865, by a vote of 133 to 36, and the Senate, December 12, by a vote of 33 to 11. The Senate resolution was agreed to by the House on the 13th. The confreres from the House were Thaddeus Stevens of Pennsylvania, Elihu B. Washburne of Illinois, Justin S. Morrill of Vermont, Henry Grider of Kentucky, John A. Bingham of Ohio, Roscoe Conkling of New York, George S. Boutwell of Massachusetts, Henry T. Blow of Missouri and Andrew J. Rogers of New Jersey. Those from the Senate were William Pitt Fessenden of Maine, James W. Grimes of Iowa, Ira Harris of New York, Jacob M. Howard of Michigan, Reverdy Johnson of Maryland and George H. Williams of Oregon. Congressional Globe, First Session, Thirty-Ninth Congress, 1865-1866, pp. 24-57. Senate Journal, p. 59.

256

THADDEUS STEVENS.

issues were the extension of the franchise to the freedmen; the repudiation of the rebel debt; a change in the basis of representation, and the ineligibility of adherents of the Confederacy to hold office. All the proposed amendments affecting these issues, separately or in combination, were ultimately postponed, or abandoned, and the amendment reported by the Joint Committee, which combined the essentials of all that had received support, finally, took the form of a joint resolution and became the Fourteenth Amendment sent out to the States for ratification.

It was the thirtieth of April when Thaddeus Stevens, chairman of the Joint Committee in the House, presented its resolution. It consisted of four propositions; the first was a limitation on the States, enjoining them from making, or enforcing, any law abridging the privileges, or immunities, of citizens of the United States; or depriving any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law; or denying to any, within their jurisdiction, the equal protection of the law. The second changed the basis of the apportionment of representation, by including all persons, excepting Indians not taxed. If a State denied the elective franchise to any male citizen, otherwise qualified, or in any way abridged it, except for participation in rebellion, or for other crimes, its basis of representation should be proportionately reduced. The third excluded from the right to vote for members of Congress or for Presidential electors,-until the fourth day of July, 1870,-all persons who voluntarily had adhered to the late insurrection, giving it aid and comfort. The fourth repudiated the Confederate debt and all claims for the loss of slaves.1

1 This was H. R. No. 127, Globe, p, 2286, and reads as follows: Section 1. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United

That the first proposition, forbidding the States to abridge the privileges of citizens of the United States was necessary, said Bingham, was demonstrated by the history of the last four years. There was needed, in the Constitution, a positive declaration of the power in the whole people of the United States to protect, by national law, the privileges and immunities of all the citizens of the republic and the inborn rights of every person within its jurisdiction, whenever these should be abridged or denied by the unconstitutional acts of any State.

The amendment took from no State any right that had ever pertained to it. None ever had the right, under the forms of law, or otherwise, to deny to any freedman the

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.

Section 2. Representatives 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. But whenever in any State the elective franchise shall be denied to any portion of its male citizens not less than 21 years of age, or in any way abridge, except for participation in rebellion or other crime, the basis of representation in such State shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens not less than 21 years of age.

Section 3. Until the 4th day of July, in the year 1870, all persons who voluntarily adhered to the late insurrection, giving it aid and comfort, shall be excluded from the right to vote for representatives in Congress and for electors for President and Vice-President of the United States.

Section 4. Neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation already incurred, or which may hereafter be incurred, in aid of insurrection or of war against the United States, or any claim for compensation for loss of involuntary service or labor.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

equal protection of the laws, or to abridge the privileges or immunities of any citizen of the United States, although many had assumed and exercised the power, and that without remedy. The amendment did not give to Congress power to regulate the suffrage in the States. The second proposition in the amendment was evidence that the suffrage was not the subject of Congressional law. The amendment would afford a direct remedy "for a case supposed by Madison, where treason might change a State government from republican to despotic and thereby deny suffrage to the people." Many instances of State injustice and oppression had occurred by which the privileges of citizens of the United States, guaranteed by the Constitution, had been flagrantly violated and the national government had been unable to afford any remedy at law. The right of the citizens of each State to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States included, among others, the right to bear true allegiance to the national government and to be protected in life, liberty and property. "Next to the allegiance which we owe to God, our Creator, is the allegiance which we owe to our common country."

There had been a time, in our history, when the State of South Carolina, by solemn ordinance, had ordained, as a part of its fundamental law, that its citizens should abjure their allegiance to every other government or authority.1 Out of the spirit of this ordinance had grown nullification and secession. Patriotic men had "looked in vain for any grant of power under the Constitution, by which to give protection to the citizens of the United

1 See Reports and Ordinances of the Convention of the People of South Carolina, adopted at its session in March, 1833. Columbia, 1833.