The Causes Behind American Legislation for African Americans
For example, the act ending the slave trade that was signed by Thomas Jefferson in 1808 was intended to stop importing slaves to the United States. This meant that no more slave ships were permitted to go to Africa and acquire more slaves to bring in. Many people were against importing slaves while they still supported slavery.
However, since the ending of importing slaves did not end slavery, it increased the domestic slave trade. The price of slaves increased and more slave families were split at the auction block. Therefore while this act may have helped those slaves that may have been imported here but were not, it may have actually made life worse for those slaves already here.
This act simply does not endeavor far enough. Since the slaves were still regarded as property rather than people, no one seemed to care that it caused more families to be split up. Even though this act appeared to have respectable intentions on the surface, it increased domestic slave trade and the prices of slaves. In addition, this law was not well enforced, and therefore there was an abundance of slave smuggling. According to Tindall and Shi, “300,000 slaves were smuggled into southern states between 1808 and 1861.” In addition, the British had outlawed the slave trade that same year and they knew that the Americans were smuggling in slaves.
According to Tindall and Shi, “In August 1841 the British Prime Minister asserted their right to patrol off the coast of Africa and search vessels flying the American flag to see if they carried slaves.” This is ironic because usually America sees itself as the protector of other peoples’ liberties. Yet in this case, the British were protecting the would-be-slaves from the Americans. This leads me to believe that this act had very little impact.
The Emancipation Proclamation often appears to be the humanitarian act of freeing the slaves. The slaves were to be free from that point on in 1863. The United States was to recognize and maintain the freedoms of the slaves. This is one of the reasons Lincoln is often viewed as a humanitarian President.
However, looking at the precedents of the Emancipation Proclamation, we see that the intentions were not for the well being of the slaves. Looking at the Preliminary Emancipation Proclamation, notice that it was intended more as a punishment for the Confederate states than as a humanitarian act. Lincoln originally wrote, “That on the first day of January in the year of our Lord, one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, all persons held as slaves within any State, or designated part of a State, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free.”
Observing the District of Columbia Emancipation Act, we see that the way the United States wanted to end the shame of slavery was to pay slaves to leave the country, rather than dealing with the problem. “The law provided for immediate emancipation, compensation of up to $300 for each slave to loyal Unionist masters, voluntary colonization of former slaves to colonies outside the United States, and payments of up to $100 to each person choosing emigration. Over the next nine months, the federal government paid almost $1 million for the freedom of approximately 3,100 former slaves.” Therefore it was not that the government wanted to help bring the slaves closer to being equals with citizens. The government wanted to be rid of this social problem and also impair the enemy.
The Emancipation Proclamation emancipated the slaves, but fulfilled nothing else for them. They only had freedom. Without land it was hard for them to make a living. Since the proclamation had mixed motives, that may have been why more was not done to ensure that the slaves were able to mix with society more successfully. Saving the Union was atop the list of priorities. This resulted in poor enforcement of the proclamation in Union states. The proclamation was only enforced in the rebel states because that was whom it was intended to harm.
Legislation affecting African Americans post-reconstruction follows the same pattern as the pre-reconstruction legislation. Popular opinion is that the late 19th century and the 20th century have progressed so much further than the 19th in terms of tolerance. Americans are likely to believe this due to their deep faith in progress. The truth about late 19th and the 20th century legislation as compared to the 19th century is that it too does not go far enough, may have mixed intent, and is not always enforced. America’s faith in progress is perhaps misguided.
Looking at a later 19th century amendment for civil rights, we see that the 14th Amendment is important to civil rights in that it establishes that the freed slaves are citizens. The Civil Rights Clause in the 14th Amendment states, “Nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” The use of “any person” means that now former slaves were no longer regarded as property.
However, due to an oversight in the wording of the 14th Amendment, it resulted in some rights being taken away.
“From 1875 to 1883…any racial segregation violated a federal Civil Rights Act, which forbade discrimination in places of public accommodation. But in 1883 the Supreme Court ruled on seven Civil Rights Cases involving discrimination against Negroes by corporations or individuals. The Court held, with only one dissent, that the force of federal law could not extend to individual action because the fourteenth Amendment, which provided that ‘no State’ could deny citizens the equal protection of the laws, stood as a prohibition only against state, not individual, action.”
This resulted in the Plessy v Ferguson decision that separate was approved as long as it was equal.
By only mentioning state and not individual abridgement of rights, the 14th Amendment did not go far enough in helping African Americans to gain more rights. Since the writers of the 14th Amendment did not want the former slaves fully covered by the Bill of Rights, they used the word “immunities” rather than “rights” in the wording. This was not upheld by the Supreme Court and even resulted in more rights being taken away.
Similarly, the 15th Amendment states that, “The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.” This Amendment gives African Americans the right to vote.
However, there were loopholes in the 15th Amendment that made it possible to deny African Americans the right to vote. According to Tindall and Shi, “Since the Fifteenth Amendment made it illegal to disfranchise Negroes…racists accomplished their purpose indirectly with devices such as poll taxes, head taxes, and literacy tests. Some opposed such devices because they also ensnared poor whites, and this led to the creation of loopholes through which some whites could slip.” This Amendment prevented open discrimination, but did not account for covert discrimination.
The 15th Amendment did not go far enough in giving freed slaves the vote because there were still ways to prevent African Americans from voting. If the Northern lawmakers had realized that most freed slaves were illiterate, they may have suspected literacy tests. If they had realized that freed slaves had no property, they would have suspected that a poll tax might prevent slaves from voting. The various other methods of denying African Americans the right to vote also could have possibly been prevented. A primary reason that these methods of discrimination may have been over looked was that the writers of the 15th Amendment predominantly wanted African Americans to be able to vote to secure more Republican votes. In “Life After the 13th Amendment” the author says that, “Fortunately, abolitionists were not the only ones interested in giving blacks the right to vote. The Republican Party was worried that the Democrats would regain their power in the South. If this happened, the Republicans would lose their dominant position in Congress when the southern states were readmitted to the Union. Led by two fierce antislavery senators, Thaddeus Stevens and Charles Sumner, a group of radical Republicans joined with abolitionists in a campaign for voting rights for black men, who, they believed, would naturally support the Republicans.”
However, despite the fact that many blacks studied so that they could pass these tests, they were still denied the right to vote. Therefore the government was not doing its job in enforcing the 15th Amendment.
In contrast to the amendments, court decisions tend to be more specific. The Brown v Board decision reversed the Plessy v Ferguson decision. It was found that separate but equal was inherently unequal. This was considered a major victory in civil rights. When it was decided the Linda Brown could go to the school that was closer to her house and all schools should be desegregated with “all deliberate speed” many rejoiced.
However, “all deliberate speed” was apparently not all that expeditious. With the Brown decision taking place in 1954, there was a dispute in Little Rock, Arkansas in 1957 about desegregating Central High. According to The Essential America, “Arkansas governor Orval Faubus called out the National Guard to prevent nine black students from entering Little Rock’s Central High School under federal court order.” Governor Faubus was not going to allow nine black students to enter the school, despite the Brown decision. Eisenhower had to send in the 101st Airborne Division to force desegregation.
The Brown v Board decision does not go far enough because it fails to specify a time frame for desegregation. This is most likely because none of the justices really wanted immediate implementation; it was Eisenhower who added the “all deliberate speed” clause. Since the desegregation was not enforced, it resulted in the Little Rock, Arkansas dispute.
American lawmaking often fails to go far enough to ensure the laws will work, has mixed motives for making the laws, and does not enforce those laws that it creates to the full extent. This results in many laws that appear to be great reforms, but in reality are not to the extent that they appear on the outside. From the act ending the slave trade not being enforced, to the Brown v Board decision not even specifying when to be enforced, we see a trend in civil rights legislation. Often it does not matter enough to the officials making these laws to care if this legislation is even enforced. They may have had mixed motives while making these laws. They may not even have wanted to go far enough with the extent of the law to ensure that it even could cause a significant impact. With this trend in civil rights legislation, it will be hard to see much true advancement.
