Government any person included in any of the classes of persons enumerated. In this was included the President and Vice-President, the heads of departments, and the foreign agents of the so-called Confederate States of America; also all persons who had held any office, either civil or military, under the Government at the time of secession, who had given aid and comfort to the late rebellion.1

When the resolution reached the Senate there were twelve attempts to alter the third section. A disposition was shown by some Senators to make this section more stringent by increasing the period of disability, and also by increasing the number of offices from which ex-Confederates should be excluded.2

On the 30th of May Senator Howard of Michigan, in behalf of the Senate members of the Joint Committee on Reconstruction, presented a new draft as a substitute for the entire resolution. It proposed to insert in place of the third section the precise provision which now appears in the fourteenth amendment. The section was so much more stringent than that for which it was substituted that several unsuccessful attempts were made to mitigate the terms of the amendment. They were introduced by adherents of the Administration, Hendricks of Indiana, Johnson of Maryland, Saulsbury of Delaware, Doolittle of Wisconsin, and Davis of Kentucky. For some reason which has never been adequately explained, the Democratic Senators preferred the third section of the substi tute, presented by Mr. Howard, to that of the corresponding section of the House amendment, although the terms of the latter were decidedly more mild. The vote by which the Senate proposition was substituted was nearly unanimous, and the entire amendment finally passed the Senate by a vote of 33 yeas to 11 nays.5

In November, 1867, before the adoption of the fourteenth amendment had become assured, Mr. Ashley introduced, in App., No. 1143.

Such amendments were submitted by Senator Clark of New Hampshire and Senator Wilson of Massachusetts. App,, Nos. 1144, 1153. On the other hand, Mr. Johnson of Maryland moved to strike out this section altogether (No. 1155), and Mr. Wade of Ohio offered a substitute to the resolution, in which the provision excluding rebels from the suffrage until 1870 was left out (Nos. 1147-1151).

3 No. 1160.

4 App., Nos. 1165, 1166, 1167, 1168, 1169, 1170, 1185. Mr. Van Winkle of West Virginia moved to add to the amendment an article extending amnesty to all other persons not mentioned in section 3, who had been engaged in rebellion, on their taking oath to sup port the Constitution. App., No. 1171.

App., No. 1137. (Mr. Howard's proposition. App., No. 1160.)

H. Doc. 353, pt 2—15

connection with a series of propositions, an amendment to disqualify from holding any office under the United States, or under any State, any person who was a member of any legislature or convention which passed the ordinance of secession and who voted therefor.1

The effect of the amendment thus laboriously framed was smaller than had been expected. Little difficulty was found in securing from time to time the two-thirds vote in both Houses necessary to relieve individuals and classes from their disabilities. By 1880 there remained but a few score persons excluded from the suffrage or from office, and several ex-officers in the Confederate army and ex-members of the Confederate government were found in Congress.

129. RESTRICTIONS ON SUFFRAGE.

-The conditions of suffrage fixed by the Constitution, namely, that "the electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislature," had given rise to two difficulties before 1860– naturalization by States, and the question of the suffrage of free negroes. The first of the difficulties called out the amendment introduced by Mr. Marshall of Kentucky, January 18, 1858.3 It provided that the second section of the first article be so amended "that only natural-born citizens of the United States or the citizens naturalized according to an act of Congress shall be deemed qualified electors under the Constitution, to exercise the right to vote for a member of the House of Representatives."

The question of the suffrage of free negroes gave rise to five amendments introduced in the days just previous to the civil war; these were in each case but one of a series of amendments, presented by their authors in the hope of preventing the impending disruption of the Union. The first of these was submitted by Senator Douglas, December 24, 1860. It was in these words: "The elective franchise and the right to hold office, whether Federal, State, Territorial, or municipal, shall not be exercised by persons of the African race, in whole or in part."5

App., Nos. 1213d, 1220.

2 Art. I, sec. 2. cl. 1.

3 App., No. 777. This was the only amendment introduced in the Thirty-fifth Congress. 4 App., Nos. 843, 852h, 869h, 929, 951.

App., No. 843. The same provision appeared in the other resolutions introduced by Messrs. Crittenden, Clemens, and Pugh, as above.

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." 99 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

1 App., Nos. 1058, 1059.

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

4 App., Nos. 1099, 1104.

App., No. 1079.

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 any where 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 ǹays.

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 $250. 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

1 App., Nos. 1093, 1094, 1096, 1097, 1099.

2 App., No. 1093.

3 App., No. 1099.

App., No. 1094. 5 App., No. 1096. App., No. 1097.

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 depriv ing 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 citizeus to vote and hold office on account of race, color, or previous condition."4 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.5

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. 4 App., 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.