130. EXTENSION OF THE SUFFRAGE TO NEGROES.

Soon after the close of the war, the Southern States had granted the suffrage to the negroes, but the grant was revocable, and the disposition to discriminate against the negro was so manifest that a series of amendments was proposed compelling the States to continue or to extend to the negro the suffrage. During the debate on the fourteenth amendment, some of the amendments introduced proposed the reduction of the representation of a State whenever the right of suffrage was denied or abridged, except for participation in rebellion or other crimes. The fourteenth amendment only negatively aided the negro in securing the right of suffrage by laying the penalty of a decreased representation upon any State that should deny or abridge his right to vote. As time went on, it was deemed expedient to guarantee to the freedman the franchise.

In the opening days of the thirty-ninth Congress six distinct propositions looking to this end were offered. Two of these proposed establishing an educational standard of voting for Federal officers.' Mr. Boutwell was the first to suggest an amendment to the Constitution, providing that "no State shall make any distinction in the exercise of the elective franchise on account of race or color."" Another proposed to give Congress the power to prescribe the qualifications of electors of the members of the House of Representatives and Presidential electors, and "provide for the election and return of such officers."3

Meanwhile Mr. Henderson of Missouri, who had introduced the resolution which led to the thirteenth amendment, was preparing an amendment, which he submitted January 23, 1866. It read: "No State, in prescribing the qualifications requisite for electors therein, shall discriminate against any person on account of color or race." 4

Shortly after this the resolution passed by the House to amend the Constitution in regard to the apportionment of Representatives came before the Senate for consideration. Among the various attempts to amend this resolution were five in regard

App., Nos. 1058, 1059.

2 App., No. 1064. Mr. Elliott proposed a similar amendment. App., No. 1088.
App., No. 1070.

3

to the suffrage.' Mr. Sumner proposed as a substitute for the amendment a declaration that "there shall be no oligarchy, aristocracy, caste, or monopoly invested with peculiar privi. leges or powers, and there shall be no denial of rights, civil or political, on account of color or race anywhere within the limits of the United States or the jurisdiction thereof, but all persons therein shall be equal before the law whether in the court room or at the ballot box." This 'esolution was temporarily withdrawn, but afterwards presented in a modified form, and rejected by a vote of 8 to 39.2

Mr. Henderson offered his proposition anew as an amendment to Mr. Sumner's resolution. In spite of his warning to his Republican associates, that though they might reject this amendment now it would be required of them within five years, it was lost, by a vote of 10 yeas to 37 nays.

Senator Howard of Michigan submitted as a substitute an amendment enumerating the different classes of persons of African descent upon whom the right of franchise should be conferred. Among the classes mentioned were all males over twenty-one who were members of the Army and Navy, all who were able to read and write the English, French, or Spanish language, and all males in possession of property to the value of $2.50. This amendment was not acted upon. His previous resolution having been rejected, Mr. Sumner now attempted to amend the resolution by inserting the clause "The elective franchise shall not be denied or abridged in any State on account of race or color." It was rejected, 8 to 38.5 Mr. Yates of Illinois likewise presented a similar proposition in a more elaborate form. It also was rejected by nearly the same vote."

Three other propositions to amend the Constitution relative to the suffrage were introduced before the close of this Congress. On April 30, 1866, the same day that the Committee on Reconstruction in the House reported the resolution which became the fourteenth amendment, Mr. Fessenden in the Senate reported from the Joint Committee of fifteen on the Condition of the States which formed the so called Confederate States, a resolution to amend the Constitution. It provided that political power should be possessed in all the States

exactly in proportion as the right of suffrage should be granted, without distinction of color or race.'

Early in 1867 two amendments presenting the following new features were introduced: One to prohibit a State from depriving any citizen of the United States from voting at any Federal or State election; the other contained a provision prohibiting any State from requiring more than a $250 property qualification, or as an educational test more than the ability to read the Constitution in English and to write one's name.3 In the early part of the Fortieth Congress, Senator Henderson reintroduced his amendment in somewhat different words. It read: "No State shall deny or abridge the right of its citizens to vote and hold office on account of race, color, or previous condition." The resolution was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary and was not reported until nearly two years later, January 15, 1869, when it was taken as the basis of the fifteenth amendment. In this same year four very similar resolutions were presented."

4

During the second session of the Fortieth Congress, one further attempt was made to secure an amendment on this subject. Mr. Newcomb of Missouri, March 9, 1868, offered a resolution instructing the Committee on the Judiciary of the House to report an amendment which should settle the qualifications of electors impartially and uniformly in all the States."

131. THE FIFTEENTH AMENDMENT."

The experience of the four years following the close of the war showed that the right of suffrage was too important and essential to be left to ordinary legislation. It should be incorporated into the Constitution. The indorsement of the action

'App., No. 1134. Senator Stewart offered an amendment, which he had previously introduced (App., No. 1128) to the committee's proposition. App., No. 1190.

2App., No. 1197, provided the citizens were of sound mind, unconvicted of any infamous offense, and had attained the age of 21, and had resided in the State one year.

App., No. 1203. The same had been presented before, to be printed. App., No. 1194f. 4App., No. 1209 (March 7, 1867).

App., Nos. 1212, 1213, 1215, 1217. Mr. Ashley, who presented two of these, proposed that after July 4, 1876, ability to read and write English should be a requirement for the suf frage. App., No. 1227e, conferring the suffrage on all citizens of age, was also introduced by him.

"App., No. 1224.

'Brief history of its proposal and adoption: See Foster, Com. on Const., I, sec. 52, pp. 325-329; Story, II, Chap. XLVIII (by Judge Cooley). The writer has not deemed it neces sary to trace the political history of the "reconstruction amendments," as it has already been done many times.

of the Republican party at the polls in 1868, convinced the rank and file of the party that another amendment was necessary. Accordingly, at the opening of the third session of the Fortieth Congress, in 1868, eight distinct amendments were introduced, the effect of which, if adopted, would have been to extend the right of suffrage to the freedmen.' In a short time three more amendments on this same subject were offered.2 Of these eleven amendments, seven were presented in the House and four in the Senate. With one exception, they were all referred to the Committee on the Judiciary in their respective Houses.

The Committee on the Judiciary reported to the House on the 11th of June, 1869, through their chairman, Mr. Boutwell of Massachusetts, a joint resolution proposing an amendment which provided that "the right of any citizen of the United States to vote shall not be abridged by the United States or any State by reason of race, color, or previous condition of slavery of any citizen or class of citizens of the United States.":

This resolution gave rise to extended discussion, as Mr. Boutwell remarked, "This debate has demonstrated two facts, one is, there is a very general agreement that it is desirable to submit an amendment to the Constitution; and the other is, that there is a very great difference of opinion as to the details of the amendment." The truth of this last statement appears throughout the entire discussion preparatory to the passage of the fifteenth amendment in both branches of Congress. Some eleven amendments were offered in the House to the resolution reported by the committee.1

One offered by Mr. Brooks of New York was very peculiar. It provided that the right of any citizen to vote should not be abridged "by reason of his or her race, sex, nativity, or age when over twelve years of age, color or previous condition of slavery." 5

Mr. Shellabarger of Ohio, objecting to the amendment proposed by the committee as not preventing the limitation of the suffrage on other grounds such as intelligence and property, presented an amendment extending the right of suffrage to all male citizens of suitable age and "sound mind," except those

1 App., Nos. 1233, 1234, 1235, 1236, 1237, 1238, 1239, 1245.

2 App., Nos. 1249, 1307, 1312.

App., No. 1250.

4 App., Nos. 1251–1260.

App., No. 1251.

"who have engaged or may hereafter engage" in rebellion.1 Mr. Ward of New York offered an amendment allowing all to exercise the right of suffrage, except such as have been convicted of treason or other crimes, on complying with certain regulations concerning registration and naturalization. Mr. Bingham of Ohio introduced an amendment the "same in substance" as his colleague's, with "one exception;" it excepted those who might "hereafter engage in rebellion .": Mr. Boutwell, in response to the desire of several to test the sense of the House, proposed to add the words "nor shall educational attainments or the possession or ownership of property ever be made a test of the right of any citizen to vote."4

6

All these amendments were rejected by decisive votes, and the resolution as proposed by the committee, with only one minor change, was passed by the House by a vote of 150 to 42, on January 30, 1869. Meanwhile a similar discussion was taking place in the Senate. The Committee on the Judiciary at last, on the 15th of January, reported a substitute for the amendment introduced by Mr. Henderson of Missouri nearly two years before. Within the next few days seven amendments to the joint resolution were presented. One, offered by Mr. Williams of Oregon proposed that "Congress shall have power to abolish or modify any restrictions upon the right to vote or hold office prescribed by the constitution or laws of any State."7 Mr. Pomeroy of Kansas submitted an amend ment which stipulated that the right to vote and hold office should not be "denied or abridged by the United States or any State for any reason not equally applicable to all citizens."3 Mr. Buckalew of Pennsylvania presented as an additional article an amendment making provision for the choice of Presidential electors. This proposition was later withdrawn, but it was shortly afterwards again presented to Congress. Mr. Dixon of Connecticut moved that the resolution be submitted to conventions in the States for ratification. 10 Mr. Davis of

'App., No. 1255. Somewhat similar amendments to this were Nos. 1197, 1245, 1252a, 1289a, 1289b, 1311, 1312, limited, however, to male citizens in most instances.

2 App., No. 1256.

3 App., No. 1257.

4 App., No. 1258. Rejected, 45 to 95.

5 Ante par. 130.

"App., No. 1284.

'App., No. 1285. "App., No. 1289.

9App., No. 1287.

10 App., No. 1286. Post, par. 179.