Andrew Johnson: Veto of the Civil Rights Act

Explanation and Analysis of the Document

Johnson’s struggle with the Radical Republicans continued when the Senate passed a civil rights bill designed to protect the rights of African Americans. The key provision of the Civil Rights Act of 1866—more formally, “An Act to protect all Persons in the United States in their Civil Rights, and furnish the Means of their vindication”—was to state that “all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pain, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exactions of every kind, and to no other.” The effect of the bill was to grant full citizenship to newly freed slaves; it was written with a view to countering the Black Codes taking effect through the post–Civil War southern states in response to the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment freeing slaves. In most instances the legislatures of the southern states that passed these codes had been installed as a result of Johnson’s policies in 1865.

Johnson’s veto of the bill on March 27, in the wake of his veto of the Freedmen’s Bureau Bill, marked a decisive break with the Republican Party. Johnson was now seen as allied more with southern Democrats, who opposed the expansion of civil rights for former slaves, than with his own party. The Republican-controlled Congress overrode the veto by votes of 182 to 41 in the House and 33 to 15 in the Senate. It must be remembered that although Johnson had tried to readmit the southern states to Congress, Congress opposed him and refused to seat the representatives and senators from the eleven states of the Confederacy. These states were overwhelmingly Democratic, in contrast to the North, which had strong Republican majorities. A coalition of Radical and moderate Republicans had the votes to overturn any presidential veto.

After announcing that he is vetoing the bill, Johnson explains his reasons. His first objection is that the bill would grant U.S. citizenship to classes of people. But consistent with his unwavering support for states’ rights, he objects that doing so imposes on the states the obligation of granting state citizenship. Further, Johnson argues, the Constitution already makes all native-born persons citizens of the United States; if African Americans (even those born in the United States) are not citizens, as the language of the bill implies, then Johnson believes that legislation making them citizens should not be enacted when eleven of the states that will be affected by the legislation are unrepresented in Congress. Johnson goes on to argue that the Constitution already grants rights, even to noncitizens, so he objects to “special legislation” granting rights to classes of people. A further argument is that to grant citizenship to freed slaves at the stroke of a pen is unfair to other noncitizens, who are required to pass through “a certain probation” before becoming citizens. In this respect, Johnson reflected the widely held view that newly freed slaves were not capable of exercising the responsibilities of citizenship.

Johnson then justifies his position on racial grounds. By extending such rights to “every State and Territory in the United States,” an effort is being made to fix “by Federal law” “a perfect equality of the white and colored races” without allowing the states to make distinctions between the races. What troubles Johnson is that, historically, the rights enumerated in the bill have been protected under the auspices of the states; it is the state, for example, that enforces contracts, conducts trials, and the like. If the federal government has the power to pass a law that requires states to give special consideration to protected classes of people, it would then by implication have the power to pass any law that would intrude on the prerogatives of the states. Johnson contends that Congress does have the power to “make rules and regulations” in the territories, but it does not have such power with regard to the states.