So What Happened To Blacks After Slavery?

IM2

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Mar 11, 2015
75,525
31,652
2,330
This thread is specifically about what the government of these united states did to blacks after the years of slavery up until right now.

The republicans here want to take credit for ending slavery while simultaneously telling us that they should not be held responsible for what their ancestors did before they were born. In standard republican fashion everybody else must take responsibility but them. However in the 150 or so years after slavery things have happened that most of these guys don't want to discuss. It is time to take a look at what has happened.

Lincoln signed words on a piece of paper but were those words actually honored?

Not really.

At the time of "emancipation" 80 percent of Americas GNP was tied to slavery. America, not just the south. Blacks got none of the money. In January of 1865, Special Field Order 15 was issued. Special Field Orders No. 15 - Wikipedia In July 1865, Circular 13, Resource Sheet #7 was issued by General Howard which fully authorized the lease of 40 acres of land to the newly freed slaves. As a result of this action 40,000 former slaves began work on several hundred thousand acres of land.

President Andrew Johnson killed that by his doing so removed those 40,000 blacks off that land and destroyed any income they could make. Meanwhile Johnson advocated for the homestead act and wanted to take plantation land and distribute it to whites without money.

Johnson pardoned most of the confederate leaders and they regained their prior positions of state leadership. By doing this, Johnson unleashed a reign of terror on blacks that really was nothing short of attempted ethnic cleansing. Blacks were beaten, scalped, killed, set on fire with their bodies left in the streets to rot.

A representative from the Johnson administration traveled the south and reported seeing black women scalped, or had their ears cut off, thrown into rivers and drowned. Black men and boys were clubbed, beaten, shot, some chained on trees and burned to death. State to state this man witnessed the stench of dead decomposing black bodies hanging from tree limbs, lying in ditches, and piled up on the roadways.

But blacks were free, right?

Now if anyone goes off topic, I expect the post to be eliminated .
 
Last edited:
Three months after Sherman issued his Field Orders, No. 15, the U.S. Congress created the Freedmen's Bureau for the purpose of ensuring the welfare of millions of slaves being freed by the war.

One task of the Freedmen's Bureau was to be the management of lands confiscated from those who had rebelled against the United States. The intent of Congress, led by the Radical Republicans, was to break up the plantations and redistribute the land so former slaves could have their own small farms.

Andrew Johnson became president following the assassination of Abraham Lincoln in April 1865. And Johnson, on May 28, 1865, issued a proclamation of pardon and amnesty to citizens in the South who would take an oath of allegiance.

As part of the pardon process, lands confiscated during the war would be returned to white landowners. So while the Radical Republicans had fully intended for there to be a massive redistribution of land from former slave owners to former slaves under Reconstruction, Johnson's policy effectively thwarted that.

And by late 1865 the policy of granting the coastal lands in Georgia to freed slaves had run into serious roadblocks. An article in the New York Times on December 20, 1865 described the situation: the former owners of the land were demanding its return, and the policy of President Andrew Johnson was to give the land back to them.

It has been estimated that approximately 40,000 former slaves received grants of land under Sherman's order. But the land was taken away from them.

 
Sharecropping Became the Reality for Freed Slaves
Denied the opportunity to own their own small farms, most former slaves were forced to live under the system of sharecropping.

Life as a sharecropper generally meant living in poverty. And sharecropping would have been a bitter disappointment to people who once believed they could become independent farmers.


Sharecropping was a system of agriculture instituted in the American South during the period of Reconstruction after the Civil War. It essentially replaced the plantation system which had relied on slave labor and effectively created a new system of bondage.

Under the system of sharecropping, a poor farmer who did not own land would work a plot belonging to a landowner. The farmer would receive a share of the harvest as payment.

So while the former slave was technically free, he would still find himself bound to the land, which was often the very same land he had farmed while enslaved. And in practice, the newly freed slave faced a life of extremely limited economic opportunity.

Generally speaking, sharecropping doomed freed slaves to a life of poverty. And the system of sharecropping, in actual practice, doomed generations of American in the South to an impoverished existence in an economically stunted region.

Beginning of the Sharecropping System
Following the elimination of slavery, the plantation system in the South could no longer exist. Landowners, such as cotton planters who had owned vast plantations, had to face a new economic reality. They may have owned vast amounts of land, but they did not have the labor to work it, and they did not have the money to hire farm workers.

The millions of freed slaves also had to face a new way of life. Though freed from bondage, they had to cope with numerous problems in the post-slavery economy.

Many freed slaves were illiterate, and all they knew was farm work. And they were unfamiliar with the concept of working for wages.

Indeed, with freedom, many former slaves aspired to become independent farmers owning land. And such aspirations were fueled by rumors that the U.S. government would help them get a start as farmers with a promise of "forty acres and a mule."

In reality, former slaves were seldom able to establish themselves as independent farmers. And as plantation owners broke up their estates into smaller farms, many former slaves became sharecroppers on the land of their former masters.

 
There appears to be a problem around here with threads created to produce evidence of what whites did after slavery that has kept blacks in the position we are in as of today. So while white folks here can make threads about black names then comment on anything they want, blacks cannot do the same thing.

Sure you can. In fact you do so all the time.

So this thread is specifically about what the governmemt of these united states did to blacks after the years of slavery up until right now.

And look, no one is stopping you. Almost like what you claimed in your opening sentence was complete shit.


The republicans here want to take credit for ending slavery while simultaneously telling us that they should not be held responsible for what their ancestors did before they were born. In standard republican fashion everybody else must take responsibility but them.


You are ignoring our actual point.


When you try to hold US responsible for the actions of whites centuries dead, it is a reasonable defense to point out that, by your standards then, you should also be giving US, credit for freeing you.

That you want to give us BLAME for the bad actions of some of our ancestors, while NOT giving us CREDIT for the good actions of other ancestors, is just you trying to have it both ways to justify your bullshit claims and positions.


However in the 150 or so years after slavery things have happened that most of these guys don't want to discuss. It is time to take a look at what has happened.


We are actually happy to have such discussions. Except when you just want to spin lies about them to hold us responsible for the bad, without any giving of credit for the good.

THat is where we correctly point out that you are full of shit.

Lincoln signed words on a piece of paper but were those words actually honored?

Not really.

Yes, yes they were. Slavery was ended, in fairly short order. Your denial of this is just you being a filthy liar.

At the time of "emancipation" 80 percent of Americas GNP was tied to slavery. America, not just the south. Blacks got none of the money

Utter bullshit and you don't come back to it anyways.

. In January of 1865, Special Field Order 15 was issued. Special Field Orders No. 15 - Wikipedia In July 1865, Circular 13, Resource Sheet #7 was issued by General Howard which fully authorized the lease of 40 acres of land to the newly freed slaves. As a result of this action 40,000 former slaves began work on several hundred thousand acres of land.

Gen Howard? A white man? A old dead white man? Why should we have any special consideration for him or what he said?

Oh, because you can use it as a club to attack people with? That's bullshit. Consider your shit laughed at and dismissed.


President Andrew Johnson killed that by his doing so removed those 40,000 blacks off that land and destroyed any income they could make. Meanwhile Johnson advocated for the homestead act and wanted to take plantation land and distribute it to whites without money.

Johnson pardoned most of the confederate leaders and they regained their prior positions of state leadership. By doing this, Johnson unleashed a reign of terror on blacks that really was nothing short of attempted ethnic cleansing. Blacks were beaten, scalped, killed, set on fire with their bodies left in the streets to rot.

A representative from the Johnson administration traveled the south and reported seeing black women scalped, or had their ears cut off, thrown into rivers and drowned. Black men and boys were clubbed, beaten, shot, some chained on trees and burned to death. State to state this man witnessed the stench of dead decomposing black bodies hanging from tree limbs, lying in ditches, and piled up on the roadways.

But blacks were free, right?

Yes, Freed. And that was a long time ago. You find any of the people involved and I will be happy to support charges and punishment.


Now if anyone goes off topic, I expect those in positions to stop it, to eliminate the off topic post instead of allowing it to continue then closing the motherfucking thread because they don't like the truth they are going to be shown..


No one cares about your nonsense.
 
Sharecropping Became the Reality for Freed Slaves
Denied the opportunity to own their own small farms, most former slaves were forced to live under the system of sharecropping.

Life as a sharecropper generally meant living in poverty. And sharecropping would have been a bitter disappointment to people who once believed they could become independent farmers.


Sharecropping was a system of agriculture instituted in the American South during the period of Reconstruction after the Civil War. It essentially replaced the plantation system which had relied on slave labor and effectively created a new system of bondage.

Under the system of sharecropping, a poor farmer who did not own land would work a plot belonging to a landowner. The farmer would receive a share of the harvest as payment.

So while the former slave was technically free, he would still find himself bound to the land, which was often the very same land he had farmed while enslaved. And in practice, the newly freed slave faced a life of extremely limited economic opportunity.

Generally speaking, sharecropping doomed freed slaves to a life of poverty. And the system of sharecropping, in actual practice, doomed generations of American in the South to an impoverished existence in an economically stunted region.

Beginning of the Sharecropping System
Following the elimination of slavery, the plantation system in the South could no longer exist. Landowners, such as cotton planters who had owned vast plantations, had to face a new economic reality. They may have owned vast amounts of land, but they did not have the labor to work it, and they did not have the money to hire farm workers.

The millions of freed slaves also had to face a new way of life. Though freed from bondage, they had to cope with numerous problems in the post-slavery economy.

Many freed slaves were illiterate, and all they knew was farm work. And they were unfamiliar with the concept of working for wages.

Indeed, with freedom, many former slaves aspired to become independent farmers owning land. And such aspirations were fueled by rumors that the U.S. government would help them get a start as farmers with a promise of "forty acres and a mule."

In reality, former slaves were seldom able to establish themselves as independent farmers. And as plantation owners broke up their estates into smaller farms, many former slaves became sharecroppers on the land of their former masters.

That was good. They too stupid to run their own farms. Remember those dumbass blacks that kicked all the white farmers out over in Africa? They nearly starved to death and had to beg the whites to come back and help them. After being in Africa for centuries they are still too stupid to feed themselves.
 
Convict leasing was a system of prison labor used mainly in the Southern United States from 1884 until 1928. In convict leasing, state-run prisons profited from contracting with private parties from plantations to corporations to provide them with convict labor. During the term of the contracts, the lessees bore all cost and responsibility for overseeing, housing, feeding, and clothing the prisoners.

Key Takeaways: Convict Leasing
  • Convict leasing was an early system of prison labor that existed from
  • Convict leasing existed mainly in the Southern United States from 1884 until 1928.
  • Convicts were typically leased to operators of plantations, railroads, and coal mines.
  • The lessees assumed all costs of housing, feeding, and overseeing the convicts.
  • The states profited greatly from convict leasing.
  • Most leased convicts were recently-freed African American slaves.
  • Many leased convicts suffered inhumane treatment.
  • Public opinion, economic factors, and politics led to the abolishment of convict leasing.
  • Convict leasing was justified by a loophole in the 13th Amendment.
  • Most historians consider convict leasing to have been a form of state-sanctioned slavery.
While it was first used by Louisiana as early as 1844, contract leasing spread quickly after the emancipation of slaves during the period of American Reconstruction following the end of the Civil War in 1865.

As an example of how the states profited from the process, the percentage of Alabama’s total annual revenue generated from convict leasing increased from 10 percent in 1846 to nearly 73 percent by 1889.

As a result of aggressive and discriminatory enforcement of the numerous “Black Codes” laws passed in the South after the abolishment of slavery, the majority of prisoners leased out by the prisons were black.

The practice of convict leasing extracted a substantial human cost, with death rates among leased convicts running about 10 times higher than death rates among prisoners in non-leasing states. In 1873, for example, 25 percent of all black leased convicts died while serving their sentences.

Despite its profitability to the states, convict leasing was slowly phased out during the late 19th and early 20th centuries largely due to negative public opinion and opposition from the growing labor union movement. While Alabama became the last state to end the official practice of convict leasing in 1928, several of its aspects remain as part of today’s growing prison industrial complex.

 
Three months after Sherman issued his Field Orders, No. 15, the U.S. Congress created the Freedmen's Bureau for the purpose of ensuring the welfare of millions of slaves being freed by the war.

One task of the Freedmen's Bureau was to be the management of lands confiscated from those who had rebelled against the United States. The intent of Congress, led by the Radical Republicans, was to break up the plantations and redistribute the land so former slaves could have their own small farms.

Andrew Johnson became president following the assassination of Abraham Lincoln in April 1865. And Johnson, on May 28, 1865, issued a proclamation of pardon and amnesty to citizens in the South who would take an oath of allegiance.

As part of the pardon process, lands confiscated during the war would be returned to white landowners. So while the Radical Republicans had fully intended for there to be a massive redistribution of land from former slave owners to former slaves under Reconstruction, Johnson's policy effectively thwarted that.

And by late 1865 the policy of granting the coastal lands in Georgia to freed slaves had run into serious roadblocks. An article in the New York Times on December 20, 1865 described the situation: the former owners of the land were demanding its return, and the policy of President Andrew Johnson was to give the land back to them.

It has been estimated that approximately 40,000 former slaves received grants of land under Sherman's order. But the land was taken away from them.




I get that you disagree with the decisions, but Johnson was President. Lincoln was dead.

kInd of late to whine about it now.
 
Three months after Sherman issued his Field Orders, No. 15, the U.S. Congress created the Freedmen's Bureau for the purpose of ensuring the welfare of millions of slaves being freed by the war.

One task of the Freedmen's Bureau was to be the management of lands confiscated from those who had rebelled against the United States. The intent of Congress, led by the Radical Republicans, was to break up the plantations and redistribute the land so former slaves could have their own small farms.

Andrew Johnson became president following the assassination of Abraham Lincoln in April 1865. And Johnson, on May 28, 1865, issued a proclamation of pardon and amnesty to citizens in the South who would take an oath of allegiance.

As part of the pardon process, lands confiscated during the war would be returned to white landowners. So while the Radical Republicans had fully intended for there to be a massive redistribution of land from former slave owners to former slaves under Reconstruction, Johnson's policy effectively thwarted that.

And by late 1865 the policy of granting the coastal lands in Georgia to freed slaves had run into serious roadblocks. An article in the New York Times on December 20, 1865 described the situation: the former owners of the land were demanding its return, and the policy of President Andrew Johnson was to give the land back to them.

It has been estimated that approximately 40,000 former slaves received grants of land under Sherman's order. But the land was taken away from them.




I get that you disagree with the decisions, but Johnson was President. Lincoln was dead.

kInd of late to whine about it now.
It's all those losers can do is cry about stuff that happened over 100 years ago and make up crap.
 
In the Civil Rights Cases of 1883, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the Civil Rights Act of 1875, which had prohibited racial discrimination in hotels, trains, and other public places, was unconstitutional.

In an 8-1 decision, the court ruled that the 13th and 14th amendments to the Constitution did not give Congress the power to regulate the affairs of private individuals and businesses.

Background
During the post-Civil War Reconstruction Period between 1866 and 1877, Congress passed several civil rights laws intended to implement the 13th and 14th amendments.

The last and most aggressive of these laws, the Civil Rights Act of 1875, imposed criminal penalties against the owners of private businesses or modes of transportation that restricted access to their facilities because of race.

The law read, in part:

“(A)ll persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the accommodations, advantages, facilities, and privileges of inns, public conveyances on land or water, theaters, and other places of public amusement; subject only to the conditions and limitations established by law, and applicable alike to citizens of every race and color, regardless of any previous condition of servitude.”

Many people in both the South and the North objected to the Civil Rights Act of 1875, arguing that the law unfairly infringed on personal freedom of choice. Indeed, the legislatures of some Southern states had already enacted laws allowing separate public facilities for whites and African Americans.

Details of the Cases
In the Civil Rights Cases of 1883, the Supreme Court took the rare route of deciding five separate but closely related cases with one unified ruling.

The five cases (United States v. Stanley, United States v. Ryan, United States v. Nichols, United States v. Singleton, and Robinson v. Memphis & Charleston Railroad) reached the Supreme Court on appeal from the lower federal courts and involved suits filed by African American citizens claiming they had been illegally been refused equal access to restaurants, hotels, theaters, and trains as required by the Civil Rights Act of 1875.

Decision and Reasoning
In an 8-1 opinion written by Justice Joseph P. Bradley, the Supreme Court found the Civil Rights Act of 1875 to be unconstitutional. Justice Bradley declared that neither the 13th nor the 14th Amendment granted Congress the power to enact laws dealing with racial discrimination by private citizens or businesses.

Of the 13th Amendment, Bradley wrote, “The 13th Amendment has respect, not to distinctions of race … but to slavery.” Bradley added,

“The 13th Amendment relates to slavery and involuntary servitude (which it abolishes); ... yet such legislative power extends only to the subject of slavery and its incidents; and the denial of equal accommodations in inns, public conveyances and places of public amusement (which is forbidden by the sections in question), imposes no badge of slavery or involuntary servitude upon the party, but at most, infringes rights which are protected from State aggression by the 14th Amendment.”

Justice Bradley went on to agree with the argument that the 14th Amendment applied only to the states, not to private citizens or businesses.

He wrote:

“The 14th Amendment is prohibitory upon the States only, and the legislation authorized to be adopted by Congress for enforcing it is not direct legislation on the matters respecting which the States are prohibited from making or enforcing certain laws, or doing certain acts, but it is corrective legislation, such as may be necessary or proper for counteracting and redressing the effect of such laws or acts.”

The Lone Dissent
Justice John Marshall Harlan wrote the only dissenting opinion in the Civil Rights Cases. Harlan’s belief that the majority’s “narrow and artificial” interpretation 13th and 14th Amendments led him to write,

“I cannot resist the conclusion that the substance and spirit of the recent amendments of the Constitution have been sacrificed by a subtle and ingenious verbal criticism.”

Harlan wrote that the 13th Amendment did far more than “to prohibit slavery as an institution,” it also “established and decreed universal civil freedom throughout the United States.”

In addition, noted Harlan, Section II of the 13th Amendment decreed that “Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation,” and had thus been the basis for the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which granted full citizenship to all persons born in the United States.

Harlan contended that the 13th and 14th amendments, as well as the Civil Rights Act of 1875, were constitutional acts of Congress intended to ensure African Americans the same rights to access and use of public facilities that white citizens took for granted as their natural right.

In summary, Harlan stated that the federal government had both the authority and the responsibility to protect citizens from any actions that deprive them of their rights and to allow private racial discrimination would “permit the badges and incidents of slavery” to remain.

Impact
The Supreme Court’s decision in the Civil Rights Cases virtually stripped the federal government of any power to ensure African Americans equal protection under the law.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
In the Civil Rights Cases of 1883, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the Civil Rights Act of 1875, which had prohibited racial discrimination in hotels, trains, and other public places, was unconstitutional.

In an 8-1 decision, the court ruled that the 13th and 14th amendments to the Constitution did not give Congress the power to regulate the affairs of private individuals and businesses.

Background
During the post-Civil War Reconstruction Period between 1866 and 1877, Congress passed several civil rights laws intended to implement the 13th and 14th amendments.

The last and most aggressive of these laws, the Civil Rights Act of 1875, imposed criminal penalties against the owners of private businesses or modes of transportation that restricted access to their facilities because of race.

The law read, in part:

“(A)ll persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the accommodations, advantages, facilities, and privileges of inns, public conveyances on land or water, theaters, and other places of public amusement; subject only to the conditions and limitations established by law, and applicable alike to citizens of every race and color, regardless of any previous condition of servitude.”

Many people in both the South and the North objected to the Civil Rights Act of 1875, arguing that the law unfairly infringed on personal freedom of choice. Indeed, the legislatures of some Southern states had already enacted laws allowing separate public facilities for whites and African Americans.

Details of the Cases
In the Civil Rights Cases of 1883, the Supreme Court took the rare route of deciding five separate but closely related cases with one unified ruling.

The five cases (United States v. Stanley, United States v. Ryan, United States v. Nichols, United States v. Singleton, and Robinson v. Memphis & Charleston Railroad) reached the Supreme Court on appeal from the lower federal courts and involved suits filed by African American citizens claiming they had been illegally been refused equal access to restaurants, hotels, theaters, and trains as required by the Civil Rights Act of 1875.

Decision and Reasoning
In an 8-1 opinion written by Justice Joseph P. Bradley, the Supreme Court found the Civil Rights Act of 1875 to be unconstitutional. Justice Bradley declared that neither the 13th nor the 14th Amendment granted Congress the power to enact laws dealing with racial discrimination by private citizens or businesses.

Of the 13th Amendment, Bradley wrote, “The 13th Amendment has respect, not to distinctions of race … but to slavery.” Bradley added,

“The 13th Amendment relates to slavery and involuntary servitude (which it abolishes); ... yet such legislative power extends only to the subject of slavery and its incidents; and the denial of equal accommodations in inns, public conveyances and places of public amusement (which is forbidden by the sections in question), imposes no badge of slavery or involuntary servitude upon the party, but at most, infringes rights which are protected from State aggression by the 14th Amendment.”

Justice Bradley went on to agree with the argument that the 14th Amendment applied only to the states, not to private citizens or businesses.

He wrote:

“The 14th Amendment is prohibitory upon the States only, and the legislation authorized to be adopted by Congress for enforcing it is not direct legislation on the matters respecting which the States are prohibited from making or enforcing certain laws, or doing certain acts, but it is corrective legislation, such as may be necessary or proper for counteracting and redressing the effect of such laws or acts.”

The Lone Dissent
Justice John Marshall Harlan wrote the only dissenting opinion in the Civil Rights Cases. Harlan’s belief that the majority’s “narrow and artificial” interpretation 13th and 14th Amendments led him to write,

“I cannot resist the conclusion that the substance and spirit of the recent amendments of the Constitution have been sacrificed by a subtle and ingenious verbal criticism.”

Harlan wrote that the 13th Amendment did far more than “to prohibit slavery as an institution,” it also “established and decreed universal civil freedom throughout the United States.”

In addition, noted Harlan, Section II of the 13th Amendment decreed that “Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation,” and had thus been the basis for the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which granted full citizenship to all persons born in the United States.

Harlan contended that the 13th and 14th amendments, as well as the Civil Rights Act of 1875, were constitutional acts of Congress intended to ensure African Americans the same rights to access and use of public facilities that white citizens took for granted as their natural right.

In summary, Harlan stated that the federal government had both the authority and the responsibility to protect citizens from any actions that deprive them of their rights and to allow private racial discrimination would “permit the badges and incidents of slavery” to remain.

Impact
The Supreme Court’s decision in the Civil Rights Cases virtually stripped the federal government of any power to ensure African Americans equal protection under the law.



That was a long time ago. Hard to believe it has much importance now.
 
Andrew Johnson and Donald Trump are alike in many ways.
They're names will often be referenced together by historians.

d559293d-4ea0-4942-bb79-cdb64720497f-Johnson_Trump.jpg
 
After slavery ended whites went on a killing spree in an attempt at ethnic cleansing in the south. But that was not all.

The Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 36 (1873), was a U.S. Supreme Court decision that held that the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution only protects the legal rights that are associated with federal citizenship, not those that pertain to state citizenship. The decision consolidated two similar cases.

Seeking to improve sanitary conditions, the Louisiana legislature and the city of New Orleans had established a corporation charged with regulating the slaughterhouse industry. Members of the Butchers' Benevolent Association challenged the constitutionality of the corporation, claiming that it violated the Fourteenth Amendment. That amendment had been ratified in the aftermath of the American Civil War with the primary intention of protecting civil rights of millions of newly emancipated freedmen in the Southern United States, but the butchers argued that the amendment protected their right to "sustain their lives through labor."

In the majority opinion written by Associate Justice Samuel Freeman Miller, the Court held to a narrower interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment than the plaintiffs urged, ruling that it did not restrict the police powers exercised by Louisiana because the Privileges or Immunities Clause protected only those rights guaranteed by the United States, not individual states. In effect, the clause was interpreted to convey limited protection pertinent to a small minority of rights, such as the right to seek federal office.

In a dissenting opinion, Associate Justice Stephen J. Field wrote that Miller's opinion effectively rendered the Fourteenth Amendment a "vain and idle enactment." Though the decision in the Slaughter-House Cases minimized the impact of the Privileges or Immunities Clause on state law, the Supreme Court would later strike down state laws on the basis of other clauses in the Fourteenth Amendment, including the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause.

Slaughter-House Cases - Wikipedia

Basically this was the beginning of states rights. States rights allowed whites to nullify or ignore federal laws such as the 13th and 14th amendments.
 
Blacks were supposed to have been given the right to vote by the fifteenth amendment.

The Fifteenth Amendment (Amendment XV) to the United States Constitution prohibits the federal government and each state from denying a citizen the right to vote based on that citizen's "race, color, or previous condition of servitude." It was ratified on February 3, 1870, as the third and last of the Reconstruction Amendments.

Fifteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia

But alas, the constitution didn't matter to whites.

Minor v. Happersett, U.S. Supreme Court case in which the court ruled unanimously in 1874 that the right of suffrage was not protected by the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

In its decision the Supreme Court declared that the privileges and immunities of citizenship are not defined by the U.S. Constitution; thus, individual states’ enfranchisement of male citizens only was not necessarily a violation of the citizenship rights of women. This finding effectively put an end to attempts to win voting rights for women through court decree. Subsequent efforts in the woman suffrage movement in the United States focused on the revision of voting laws of individual states and on the ratification of a separate amendment to the Constitution.

Minor v. Happersett | law case

Now before the excuses start from the racists about how this only applied to women:

United States v. Reese, 92 U.S. 214 (1876), was a voting rights case in which the United States Supreme Court narrowly construed the 15th Amendment to the United States Constitution, which provides that suffrage for citizens can not be restricted due to race, color or the individual having previously been a slave.

This was the Supreme Court's first voting rights case under the Fifteenth Amendment and the Enforcement Act of 1870. A Kentucky electoral official had refused to register an African‐American's vote in a municipal election and was indicted under two sections of the 1871 act: section 1 required that administrative preliminaries to elections be conducted without regard to race, color, or previous condition of servitude; section 2 forbade wrongful refusal to register votes where a prerequisite step “required as foresaid” had been omitted.

The Court held that the Fifteenth Amendment did not confer the right of suffrage, but it prohibited exclusion from voting on racial grounds. The justices invalidated the operative section 3 of the Enforcement Act since it did not repeat the amendment's words about race, color, and servitude. They ruled that the section exceeded the scope of the Fifteenth Amendment. This ruling was the grounds for which the Ku Klux Klan was invented, as it provided white southerners with legal reassurance.

United States v. Reese - Wikipedia

This was an 8-1 SCOTUS decision whereby the court decided that,"the 15th amendment did not guarantee the right to vote but it just prevented states from giving preference to one citizen over another on account of race or color." Chief Justice Morrison Waite, a REPUBLICAN, decided that the right to vote was decided by the states.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top