Civil Rights Act of 1866
|Long title||An Act to protect all Persons in the United States in their Civil Rights and liberties, and furnish the Means of their Vindication.|
|Colloquial acronym(s)||CRA 1866|
|Enacted by the||39th United States Congress|
|Effective||April 9, 1866|
|Public Law||14 Stat. 27-30|
|Civil Rights Act of 1991 (Section 1981) P.L. 102–166|
|United States Supreme Court cases|
|Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co. (1968)
Saint Francis College v. al-Khazraji (1987)
Domino's Pizza, Inc. v. McDonald (2006)
The Civil Rights Act of 1866, 14 Stat. 27-30, enacted April 9, 1866, is a United States federal law that was mainly intended to protect the civil rights of African-Americans, in the wake of the American Civil War. This legislation was enacted by Congress in 1865 but vetoed by President Andrew Johnson. In April 1866 Congress again passed the bill. Although Johnson again vetoed it, a two-thirds majority in each house overcame the veto and the bill ostensibly became law.
John Bingham and some other congressmen argued that Congress did not yet have sufficient constitutional power to enact this law. Following passage of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868, Congress reenacted the 1866 Act in 1870.
Introduction and amendment
The author of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 was Senator Lyman Trumbull, who introduced the bill in the Senate. Congressman James F. Wilson summarized what he considered to be the purpose of the act as follows, when he introduced the bill in the House of Representatives:
It provides for the equality of citizens of the United States in the enjoyment of "civil rights and immunities." What do these terms mean? Do they mean that in all things civil, social, political, all citizens, without distinction of race or color, shall be equal? By no means can they be so construed. Do they mean that all citizens shall vote in the several States? No; for suffrage is a political right which has been left under the control of the several States, subject to the action of Congress only when it becomes necessary to enforce the guarantee of a republican form of government (protection against a monarchy). Nor do they mean that all citizens shall sit on the juries, or that their children shall attend the same schools. The definition given to the term "civil rights" in Bouvier's Law Dictionary is very concise, and is supported by the best authority. It is this: "Civil rights are those which have no relation to the establishment, support, or management of government."
During the subsequent legislative process, the following key provision was deleted: "there shall be no discrimination in civil rights or immunities among the inhabitants of any State or Territory of the United States on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude." John Bingham was an influential supporter of this deletion, on the ground that courts might construe the term "civil rights" more broadly than people like Wilson intended. Weeks later, Senator Trumbull described the bill's intended scope:
This bill in no manner interferes with the municipal regulations of any State which protects all alike in their rights of person and property. It could have no operation in Massachusetts, New York, Illinois, or most of the States of the Union.
The next day, on April 5, 1866, the Senate overrode President Johnson's veto.
Formally titled "An Act to protect all Persons in the United States in their Civil Rights, and furnish the Means of their vindication", the Act declared that people born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power are entitled to be citizens, without regard to race, color, or previous condition of slavery or involuntary servitude. A similar provision (called the Citizenship Clause) was written a few months later into the proposed Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
The Civil Rights Act of 1866 also said that any citizen has the same right as a white citizen to make and enforce contracts, sue and be sued, give evidence in court, and inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property. Additionally, the Act guaranteed to all citizens the "full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and property, as is enjoyed by white citizens, and ... like punishment, pains, and penalties..." Persons who denied these rights on account of race or previous enslavement were guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction faced a fine not exceeding $1,000, or imprisonment not exceeding one year, or both. Using language very similar to that of the Equal Protection Clause in the newly-proposed Fourteenth Amendment, the Act discussed the need to provide "reasonable protection to all persons in their constitutional rights of equality before the law...."
This statute was a major part of general federal policy during Reconstruction, and was closely related to the Second Freedmen's Bureau Act of 1866. According to Congressman John Bingham, "the seventh and eighth sections of the Freedmen's Bureau bill enumerate the same rights and all the rights and privileges that are enumerated in the first section of this [the Civil Rights] bill."
All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exactions of every kind, and to no other.
This section of the United States Code, § 1981, is based on section one of the Civil Rights Act of 1866.
Enactment, constitutionalization, and reenactment
Senator Lyman Trumbull was the Senate sponsor of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, and he argued that Congress had power to enact it in order to eliminate a discriminatory "badge of servitude" prohibited by the Thirteenth Amendment. John A. Bingham, principal author of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment, was one of several Republicans who believed (prior to that Amendment) that Congress lacked power to pass the 1866 Act. In the 20th century, the U.S. Supreme Court ultimately adopted Trumbull's Thirteenth Amendment rationale for congressional power to ban racial discrimination by states and by private parties, in view of the fact that the Thirteenth Amendment does not require a state actor.
To the extent that the Civil Rights Act of 1866 may have been intended to go beyond preventing discrimination, by conferring particular rights on all citizens, the constitutional power of Congress to do that was more questionable. For example, Congressman William Lawrence argued that Congress had power to enact the statute because of the Privileges and Immunities Clause in Article IV of the original unamended Constitution, even though courts had suggested otherwise.
In any event, there is currently no consensus that the language of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 actually purports to confer any legal benefits upon white citizens. Congressman Samuel Shellabarger said that it did not.
After the Civil Rights Act of 1866 had been enacted into law over President Andrew Johnson's veto, some members of Congress voted for the Fourteenth Amendment in order to eliminate doubts about the constitutionality of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, or to ensure that no subsequent Congress could later repeal or alter the main provisions of that Act. Thus, the Citizenship Clause in the Fourteenth Amendment parallels citizenship language in the Civil Rights Act of 1866, and likewise the Equal Protection Clause parallels nondiscrimination language in the 1866 Act; the extent to which other clauses in the Fourteenth Amendment may have incorporated elements of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 is a matter of continuing debate.
Aftermath and consequences
The activities of insurgent groups such as the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) undermined the act; and it failed to immediately secure the civil rights of African Americans. Since 1866 it has been illegal in the U.S. to discriminate in jobs and housing on the basis of race. However, federal penalties were not provided for, so that remedies were left to the individuals involved. Because those being discriminated against had limited access to legal help, this left many victims of discrimination without recourse. Since the latter half of the 20th century and passage of related civil rights legislation, there have been an increasing number of remedies provided under this act, including the landmark Jones v. Mayer and Sullivan v. Little Hunting Park, Inc. decisions in 1968.
Section 1981 (the original Civil Rights Act of 1866) was the first major anti-discrimination employment statute. This act prohibited employment discrimination based on race and color. This Act has been interpreted by the Supreme Court to protect all ethnic groups.
- Lash, Kurt. "The Origins of the Privileges or Immunities Clause, Part II: John Bingham and the Second Draft of the Fourteenth Amendment", Georgetown Law Journal, Volume 99, p. 361 (2011).
- Congressional Globe, House of Representatives, 39th Congress, 1st Session, p. 1117 (March 1, 1866).
- Kull, Andrew. The Color-Blind Constitution, pp. 75-78 (Harvard University Press, 1994).
- Lash, Kurt. "The Origins of the Privileges or Immunities Clause, Part II: John Bingham and the Second Draft of the Fourteenth Amendment", Georgetown Law Journal, Volume 99, p. 394 (2011). This statement by Senator Trumbull was discussed by both the majority as well as by dissenting Justice Harlan in the Supreme Court case of Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co., 392 U.S. 409 (1968). See the transcript from April 4, 1866.
- See Civil Rights Act of 1866 (full text) via the Online Library of Liberty.
- Halbrook, Stephen. Freedmen, the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Right to Bear Arms, 1866-1876, page 29 (Greenwood Publishing Group 1998).
- Full text of Second Freedmen's Bureau Bill (December 4, 1865) from the Online Library of Liberty.
- 42 U.S.C. § 1981
- Salzman, Lawrence. "Civil Rights Act of 1866" in Encyclopedia of American Civil Liberties, by Paul Finkelman, Volume 1, pages 299-300 (CRC Press, 2006).
- Curtis, Michael Kent. No State Shall Abridge: The Fourteenth Amendment and the Bill of Rights, p. 80 (Duke University Press 1986).
- Bogen, David. Privileges and Immunities: Reference Guide to the United States Constitution, page 43 (Greenwood Publishing Group, 2003).
- Lund, Nelson. "Two Faces of Judicial Restraint (Or Are There More?) in McDonald v. Chicago", Florida Law Review (forthcoming).
- Harrison, John. "Reconstructing the Privileges or Immunities Clause", 10 Yale Law Journal 1385 (1992).
- Congressional Globe, House of Representatives, 39th Congress, 1st Session, page 1293 (1866).
- Johnson, Andrew. "Veto of the Civil Rights Bill" (March 27, 1866).
- Belz (2000)
- Jones v. Mayer, 392 U.S. 409 (1968).
- Yen, Chin-Yung. Rights of citizens and persons under the Fourteenth amendment, page 7 (New Era Printing Company 1905).
- See McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. (2010).
- See Enforcement Act of 1870 (full text) via the Online Library of Liberty.
- Player (2004).
- Belz, Herman. A New Birth of Freedom: The Republican Party and Freedom Rights, 1861 to 1866 (2000)
- Dew, Lee Allen. "The Reluctant Radicals of 1866," Midwest Quarterly (Spring 1967) 8#3 pp 261-276.
- Foner, Eric. Reconstruction: America's Unfinished Revolution, 1863–1877 (1988)
- Hyman, Harold M. A More Perfect Union (1975)
- Player, Mack A. Federal Law of Employment Discrimination in a Nutshell (2004)
- Tsesis, Alexander. The Thirteenth Amendment and American Freedom: A Legal History (2004)
- Texts on Wikisource: