Civil Rights Act of 1866

Explanation and Analysis of the Document

The abolition of slavery triggered considerable debate about the legal status of new freedmen. Many northerners believed that the Thirteenth Amendment would provide an adequate solution: Having been freed and protected from further enslavement, Blacks would simply assume the same status as whites. In particular, they would enjoy the same rights under the law possessed by other free persons. That optimistic view, however, was dashed by the rise of the Black Codes and the widespread violence visited upon Blacks in various southern states.

In an ambitious undertaking, Congress attempted to protect Blacks in terms that dramatically shifted the nation's understanding of civil rights enforcement. The Civil Rights Act established citizenship for Blacks and provided for equality before the law in matters involving the protection of person and property. Section 1 of the act confered citizenship upon new freedmen  in complete disregard of the Supreme Court's ruling in Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), which  excluded Blacks from the ranks of citizenship.

The elevation of new freedmen to the class of American citizenship, an arrow in the heart of the racial discrimination inherent in the Black Codes, provided a seemingly effective means of ensuring security in the areas of life, liberty, and property. The declaration that Blacks, as citizens, would possess “full and equal benefit of all laws … enjoyed by white persons” represented a quantum leap for a population that had been systematically denied every right afforded whites. The measure became all the more  meaningful with the application of equality to the imposition of state court punishments, “any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, to the contrary notwithstanding.” The concept of equal justice had not been remotely within the grasp of Blacks at any point in American history. The concept is made clear by the declaration in Section 2 that the imposition of punishment on Blacks that differed from that imposed on whites could be punished as a misdemeanor that carried with it a fine up to $1,000 and a one-year prison term.

Violators, moreover, would be tried in federal and not state courts. The provision in Section 3 that federal courts would have jurisdiction over all cases involving “crimes and offenses committed” against provisions of the act brought considerable assurance to Blacks, who would justly lack confidence in state courts. The expanded jurisdiction of the federal courts also extended to appeals from state courts by persons unable to secure Section 1 rights.

Sections 4 through 9 specifically address the enforcement mechanisms of the Civil Rights Act. Chiefly, all federal law officers were authorized to initiate proceedings against violators. Federal judges were empowered to appoint commissioners for enforcement purposes. The president, moreover,  was granted statutory authority to “employ” the army and navy as well as the militia to enforce the  statute. Finally, Congress increased the appellate jurisdiction of the U.S. Supreme Court to include “questions of law” arising out of enforcement of the act.

At bottom, the purpose of the Civil Rights Act was to protect the rights of Blacks under state laws without distinction based on race. Enforcement of its provisions was assured by a national presence, armed with authority to punish those who would deny those rights. But the act was limited to the protection of civil and not political rights. Congress was not interested in full equality or in the prohibition of all forms of racial discrimination, governmental or private. This conclusion may be drawn from the refusal of the House of Representatives to adopt a measure that stated “that there shall be no discrimination in civil rights or immunities among the inhabitants of any State or Territory of the United States on account of race, color, or previous condition of slavery” (Fairman, p. 1172). Enactment of this proposal would have placed Congress center stage in the enforcement of civil rights throughout the nation. Such a statute would have revolutionized the principles of federalism.

Johnson's Veto

On March 27, 1866, President Andrew Johnson vetoed the Civil Rights Bill. In his veto message to congressional leaders, he cites political, policy, and constitutional concerns. He also reveals racist views.

Among other objections, Johnson denounces the legislation as interference with states' rights. He protests that the aim of Congress to confer citizenship upon new freedmen usurped what had long been considered a prerogative of the states. In addition, he notes, the decision of Congress to create citizens from a class of persons that had been excluded from citizenship also undercut state authority. As a defender of state powers, moreover, he objects to a measure that affected states that, in his view, remained unrepresented in Congress. The southern states, he insists, had never been out of the Union. Rather, governmental authority had been temporarily seized by hostile forces. His emphasis on absolute state equality prohibited him from embracing  legislation such as the Civil Rights Act, which imposed dramatic changes to which a southern state might not be able to object. Johnson also decries, on the ground of states' rights, the provision in the Civil Rights Act that transferred cases from state courts to federal courts.

Johnson also objects to the Civil Rights Act on policy grounds. He believes it unwise and unfair, for example, to bestow citizenship on a class of former slaves, newly freed, when foreigners worthy of citizenship were forced to wait five years to become naturalized citizens. He objects as well to the measure's interference in the relation of capital and labor. The guarantees of certain economic and property rights, he believes, represented poor economic policy.

Lurking behind Johnson's rationales for vetoing the Civil Rights Act was the ugly specter of his racism. Johnson had been on record as defending the supremacy of whites. He had derided Blacks as inferior and incapable. In his message to Congress, moreover, he complains that the act was supplying protections for Blacks that soared beyond those ever extended to whites.  It is difficult to assess the degree to which Johnson's racism affected his view of the legislation, but there can be little doubt that it was significant.

Johnson's opposition to legislative efforts to improve the quality of life and legal standing for Blacks was evident not merely in his veto of the Civil Rights Act but also in his earlier veto of legislation enacted to enhance protections for Blacks in the subsequent Freedmen's Bureau Bill. The measure of his antagonism toward Blacks may be seen as well in his stated determination to defeat the proposed Fourteenth Amendment, including the expenditure of $20,000 of his own money.