The 14th - A Reconstruction Amendment
Many have been told that the people formally enslaved in America didn’t become citizens until the passing of the 14th Amendment. This is an outgrowth of a misreading of the congressional record of the 39th Congress. Unfortunately, that did not address birthright citizenship for those white children born within the United States of foreign parentage. However, birthright citizenship was addressed in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in 1780 under the Gradual Abolition Act of 1780, which authorized birthright citizenship to children of enslaved parentage.
We will first delineate the people of the United States into their historic and congressional categories:
The concept of citizenship (not law) in the United States was largely inherited from British colonial practices. During the colonial period, individuals who were considered "free white persons" were generally recognized as subjects of the British Crown and, by extension, as citizens of the colonies. This status was based on English common law and colonial charters, which granted certain rights and privileges to free white men, particularly property owners. After the American Revolution, the Articles of Confederation and various state constitutions continued to recognize the rights of free white persons as citizens (race-based). However, there was no uniform federal law defining citizenship until the passage of the Naturalization Act of 1790.
The first naturalization act in the United States was the Naturalization Act of 1790. This act, passed by the 1st United States Congress and signed into law by President George Washington on March 26, 1790, established the first uniform rules for granting U.S. citizenship by naturalization. The Naturalization Act of 1790 did not establish birthright citizenship. Instead, it focused on the naturalization process for "free white persons" of good character who had resided in the United States for at least two years. The act did include a provision that children born abroad to U.S. citizen parents would be considered natural-born citizens, but it did not address birthright citizenship for those white children born within the United States of foreign parentage.
Senator Lyman Trumbull played a pivotal role in the introduction, and enactment of the Civil Rights Act of January 29, 1866. As the bill’s principal sponsor in the Senate, his proposal aimed to ensure that all persons of African descent (American Freedmen) born in the United States were recognized as citizens. (see: Congressional Globe, 39th Congress, 1st Session at 474.) Congress’s authority to enact the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and to establish a protected status (citizenship) for newly freed people and their progeny could not be repealed by future Congresses. (See, e.g., J. Harrison, Reconstructing the Privileges or Immunities Clause, 101 Yale L. J. 1385, 1388 (1992). Citizenship for the emancipated carries a unique political status and congressional designation that should never be construed as naturalization.
The process of naturalization for non-white people in the United States has evolved through various laws and amendments. The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, also known as the McCarran-Walter Act, was a significant piece of legislation that removed racial restrictions on naturalization. This act allowed individuals of all races to become U.S. citizens through the naturalization process.
After legal analysis, we have four categories of “citizenship” in America.
The first and only constitutional assignment of citizenship in the United States was bestowed upon the American Freedmen. The 14th Amendment does not and was never intended to subsume all other forms of citizenship that existed in America before it came to be because if it did, those prior race-based naturalization acts would be repealed. The fact that they are still positive law is mounting proof that the 14th Amendment remains a codicil of an existing estate created via war heroics, military negotiations, and human sacrifice for the benefit of American Freedmen.
After the war, Senator John Sherman defended the proposed Fourteenth Amendment in a manner that encapsulated our Reconstruction Framers’ highest sentiments: “We are bound by every obligation, by [Freedmen ] service on the battlefield, by their heroes who are buried in our cause, by their patriotism in the hours that tried our country, we are bound to protect them and all their natural rights.
In the Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. 36 (1873), the Court identified the “pervading purpose” of the Reconstruction Amendments as “the freedom of the slave race, the security and firm establishment of that freedom, and the protection of the newly-made freeman and citizen from the oppressions of those who had formerly exercised unlimited dominion over him.
The Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment was proposed by Senator Jacob M. Howard of Michigan on May 30, 1866, as an amendment to the joint resolution from the House of Representatives which had framed the initial draft of the proposed Fourteenth Amendment. The debate was intense because it addressed fundamental questions about the scope and application of citizenship in the United States. The key issue was whether the new language ( "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.") in the Fourteenth Amendment would provide broader protections and rights for Freedmen than the 1866 Civil Rights Act.
The 1866 Civil Rights Act aimed to protect the rights of formerly enslaved individuals by granting them citizenship and ensuring their civil rights. However, some lawmakers were concerned that the Act alone might not be sufficient to guarantee these protections, especially in the face of potential legal challenges and resistance from states (i.e. white hegemony). In essence, the 14th Amendment guaranteed affirmative action and enforcement of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 (i.e. a proactive measure to bring to life the complete abolition of the badges, incidents, and vestiges of slavery, Senator Howard's proposed language in the Citizenship Clause sought to enshrine these protections in the Constitution, making them more permanent and less vulnerable to legislation or political climate changes. The language has nothing to do with immigrants or their birthright to citizenship.
We will first delineate the people of the United States into their historic and congressional categories:
The concept of citizenship (not law) in the United States was largely inherited from British colonial practices. During the colonial period, individuals who were considered "free white persons" were generally recognized as subjects of the British Crown and, by extension, as citizens of the colonies. This status was based on English common law and colonial charters, which granted certain rights and privileges to free white men, particularly property owners. After the American Revolution, the Articles of Confederation and various state constitutions continued to recognize the rights of free white persons as citizens (race-based). However, there was no uniform federal law defining citizenship until the passage of the Naturalization Act of 1790.
The first naturalization act in the United States was the Naturalization Act of 1790. This act, passed by the 1st United States Congress and signed into law by President George Washington on March 26, 1790, established the first uniform rules for granting U.S. citizenship by naturalization. The Naturalization Act of 1790 did not establish birthright citizenship. Instead, it focused on the naturalization process for "free white persons" of good character who had resided in the United States for at least two years. The act did include a provision that children born abroad to U.S. citizen parents would be considered natural-born citizens, but it did not address birthright citizenship for those white children born within the United States of foreign parentage.
Senator Lyman Trumbull played a pivotal role in the introduction, and enactment of the Civil Rights Act of January 29, 1866. As the bill’s principal sponsor in the Senate, his proposal aimed to ensure that all persons of African descent (American Freedmen) born in the United States were recognized as citizens. (see: Congressional Globe, 39th Congress, 1st Session at 474.) Congress’s authority to enact the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and to establish a protected status (citizenship) for newly freed people and their progeny could not be repealed by future Congresses. (See, e.g., J. Harrison, Reconstructing the Privileges or Immunities Clause, 101 Yale L. J. 1385, 1388 (1992). Citizenship for the emancipated carries a unique political status and congressional designation that should never be construed as naturalization.
The process of naturalization for non-white people in the United States has evolved through various laws and amendments. The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, also known as the McCarran-Walter Act, was a significant piece of legislation that removed racial restrictions on naturalization. This act allowed individuals of all races to become U.S. citizens through the naturalization process.
After legal analysis, we have four categories of “citizenship” in America.
- Race-based, free white & property owner citizenship (Common Law Citizenship)
- 1790 George Washington Naturalization Citizenship for free white immigrants
- 13th Amendment, Civil Rights Act of 1866 citizenship (Freedmen)
- 1952 McCarren - Walter Act Citizenship (all race immigration citizenship)
The first and only constitutional assignment of citizenship in the United States was bestowed upon the American Freedmen. The 14th Amendment does not and was never intended to subsume all other forms of citizenship that existed in America before it came to be because if it did, those prior race-based naturalization acts would be repealed. The fact that they are still positive law is mounting proof that the 14th Amendment remains a codicil of an existing estate created via war heroics, military negotiations, and human sacrifice for the benefit of American Freedmen.
After the war, Senator John Sherman defended the proposed Fourteenth Amendment in a manner that encapsulated our Reconstruction Framers’ highest sentiments: “We are bound by every obligation, by [Freedmen ] service on the battlefield, by their heroes who are buried in our cause, by their patriotism in the hours that tried our country, we are bound to protect them and all their natural rights.
In the Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. 36 (1873), the Court identified the “pervading purpose” of the Reconstruction Amendments as “the freedom of the slave race, the security and firm establishment of that freedom, and the protection of the newly-made freeman and citizen from the oppressions of those who had formerly exercised unlimited dominion over him.
The Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment was proposed by Senator Jacob M. Howard of Michigan on May 30, 1866, as an amendment to the joint resolution from the House of Representatives which had framed the initial draft of the proposed Fourteenth Amendment. The debate was intense because it addressed fundamental questions about the scope and application of citizenship in the United States. The key issue was whether the new language ( "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.") in the Fourteenth Amendment would provide broader protections and rights for Freedmen than the 1866 Civil Rights Act.
The 1866 Civil Rights Act aimed to protect the rights of formerly enslaved individuals by granting them citizenship and ensuring their civil rights. However, some lawmakers were concerned that the Act alone might not be sufficient to guarantee these protections, especially in the face of potential legal challenges and resistance from states (i.e. white hegemony). In essence, the 14th Amendment guaranteed affirmative action and enforcement of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 (i.e. a proactive measure to bring to life the complete abolition of the badges, incidents, and vestiges of slavery, Senator Howard's proposed language in the Citizenship Clause sought to enshrine these protections in the Constitution, making them more permanent and less vulnerable to legislation or political climate changes. The language has nothing to do with immigrants or their birthright to citizenship.