Civil Rights Act of 1866

• 1. The Veto Override

  ›

  On the 5th of April 1866, the Senate voted to override President Andrew Johnson's veto of a major bill. This marked the first time Congress ever overrode a presidential veto for significant legislation. The vote breakdown showed Republicans voting 32 in favor and 4 against. Democrats opposed it with zero votes in favor and eleven against. Unconditional Unionists supported it with twelve votes. The House followed suit on the 9th of April 1866, where Republicans voted 117 in favor and only two against. Democrats again voted zero in favor and thirty-three against. Two members did not cast ballots in either chamber. President Johnson had vetoed the bill twice before this final push. His opposition stemmed from constitutional doubts about federal power over state citizenship laws. Congress needed a two-thirds majority in each chamber to enact the law without his signature. The political landscape was fractured along party lines during these critical votes.

  2122

• 2. Defining Citizenship Rights

  ›

  Senator Lyman Trumbull introduced the bill as S. 61 to protect all persons in their civil rights within the United States. The act declared that all people born in the country who were not subject to any foreign power are entitled to be citizens. Race, color, or previous condition of slavery could not disqualify anyone from this status. A white citizen possessed the same right to make contracts as any other person. Citizens gained the ability to sue and be sued in court proceedings. They could give evidence in legal cases and inherit property freely. The statute guaranteed full and equal benefit of all laws for security of person and property. Anyone denying these rights based on race faced criminal penalties. Conviction carried a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars or imprisonment up to one year. The language mirrored what would later appear in the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. Representative James F. Wilson summarized the purpose when introducing the legislation in March 1866. He stated the goal was to attach civil rights flowing directly from citizenship itself.

  8914

• 3. Constitutional Power Debates

  ›

  John Bingham argued before passage that Congress lacked sufficient constitutional authority to enact this law. He believed the Thirteenth Amendment prohibited only slavery but did not grant broad legislative powers over state actions. Other Republicans shared his concern about overstepping federal boundaries. Senator Trumbull countered that Congress had power to eliminate a discriminatory badge of servitude under the Thirteenth Amendment. This rationale allowed federal intervention against private discrimination without requiring state actor involvement. Representative William Lawrence invoked the Privileges and Immunities Clause in Article IV to justify the statute. Courts had previously suggested such clauses offered limited protection compared to new amendments. After enactment, some members doubted whether Congress possessed true constitutional power to turn goals into enforceable laws. The experience encouraged both radical and moderate Republicans to seek Constitutional guarantees for black rights instead of relying on temporary political majorities. Two years after ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868, Congress reenacted the original act as Section 18 of the Enforcement Act of 1870. This move dispelled doubts regarding its constitutionality moving forward.

  356

• 4. Reenactment And Codification

  ›

  The Civil Rights Act of 1866 was originally passed by Congress in April 1866. It became law after overriding President Johnson's veto later that month. In 1870, Congress reenacted the measure as part of the Enforcement Act. Sections 1977 and 1978 of the Revised Statutes of 1874 codified these provisions. Today they appear as 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 82 within the United States Code. Section two of the original act now exists at 18 U.S.C. §242. These statutes remain enforceable into the twenty-first century. The language used very similar phrasing to the Equal Protection Clause proposed shortly afterward. Representative Samuel Shellabarger stated it did not confer legal benefits upon white citizens specifically. There remains no consensus today about whether the text purports to grant any actual legal advantages to white people. The statute functioned as a major component of general federal policy during Reconstruction. It closely related to the Second Freedmen's Bureau Act of 1866. Congressman John Bingham noted that sections seven and eight of the Freedmen's Bureau bill enumerated identical rights found in section one of this civil rights bill.

  1117

• 5. Judicial Revival And Legacy

  ›

  Groups like the Ku Klux Klan undermined the act immediately after its passage. Federal penalties were not provided until the second half of the twentieth century. Remedies remained left to individuals involved who often lacked access to legal assistance. Many victims of discrimination had limited or no recourse through existing systems. An increasing number of remedies emerged under this act starting in the late 1900s. Landmark decisions included Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co. and Sullivan v. Little Hunting Park, Inc., both decided in 1968. Justice Harlan discussed Senator Trumbull's statement regarding intended scope in the Supreme Court case of Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co. The U.S. Supreme Court ultimately adopted Trumbull's Thirteenth Amendment rationale for banning racial discrimination by states and private parties. This approach did not require state actor involvement unlike other constitutional interpretations. Despite being de jure illegal since 1866, employment and housing discrimination persisted without federal enforcement mechanisms. Modern courts continue to rely on these foundational statutes when addressing civil rights violations today.

  16