I wasn't referring to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. You are 100+ years late with that reference. I was referring to the free slaves. Due process was about them. That was the purpose. The debate and legislative intent records make it very clear. The courts have bastardized the real meaning and purpose of the XIV Amendment. And in doing so, they have ceded power to themselves, that was not theirs to have, in my opinion.
The slaves weren't freed by the 14th Amendment. The 13th contains no due process provision. There were practices other than slavery happening in the States that needed to be addressed, although slavery was the tipping point that made the 14th's provisions possible and more obviously necessary. What is the point of having Federal guarantees of individual liberites if the States could simply take them away at will and with impunity?
The Constitution does not give us our rights, in my opinion. In my opinion, the Constitution was written primarily to restrict the powers of the federal government not the states. There were freed slaves in 1867, 68, and 69. I didn't say anything about there being no slavery at all at the time the XIV Amendment was ratified. It was, as I said, put forth to address the issue of race and the forbiddance of the federal government from discriminating based on such. And the primary focus was the slaves. More succinctly, those who were free at the time and taking issue with the federal government.
Then why do the First, Second, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh and Ninth Amendments (remind me if I forgot any) use the word "rights"?
And if not "rights", then what exactly are "privileges and immunities" of the United States?