Politics and the Fifteenth Amendment
The Fifteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guaranteed every adult male the right to vote regardless of race, creed, color, or condition of previous servitude. This was a noble gesture to expand suffrage, but politics played a key role in the amendment’s passage.
The amendment was introduced by George S. Boutwell, a Massachusetts congressman who belonged to the radical faction of the Republican Party. The Radical Republicans sought to advance black rights by subjugating southern whites after the Civil War. At that time, many southern whites were barred from voting for not only having supported the Confederacy, but for opposing the Republicans. In submitting the amendment, Boutwell declared that Republicans could no longer “escape this issue as a Congress and as a party.”[1]
The Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments had granted freedom and equal rights to former slaves. Many believed that granting them the right to vote would complete the emancipation process by empowering them to protect their freedom and equality through the ballot box. More importantly, Republicans were confident that former slaves would consistently vote for the party that freed them, thus permanently solidifying Republican power in the South.[2]
The new amendment caused serious political concerns. Since only former Confederate states were required to allow black men to vote, northern states actually placed greater restrictions on voting rights than the South. Most prospective voters in the North had to be white men, pay taxes or own real estate, or pass literacy tests to cast a ballot; Californians excluded the Chinese from voting to discourage the influx of Chinese immigration. Most northerners did not want these restrictions superseded by a constitutional amendment.[3]
Democrats opposed the amendment because voting had always been considered a privilege, not a right for all men. And states, not the federal government, had traditionally regulated voting rights. The Fifteenth Amendment would transform the U.S. from a collection of sovereign states as the founders envisioned into a centralized nation. Many accused Republicans of singling out “the colored race as its special wards and favorites” because uneducated former slaves would likely vote for Republicans.[4]
Northern moderates balked at the amendment’s original language, which guaranteed not only voting rights, but the right to hold public offices as well. This was because they wanted to maintain current laws in the northern states prohibiting blacks from being elected public officials. Thus, the public office guarantee was removed.[5]
It was also decided not to prohibit the use of literacy or loyalty tests, ownership of property, or the payment of taxes as a prerequisite to vote. This appeased moderates who still wanted states to maintain some control over the voting process. It was also feared that removing loyalty tests would restore voting rights to former Confederates, most of whom would vote Democratic and offset the Republican votes of former slaves in the South.[6]
Women were ignored, which outraged feminist leaders such as Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony. These leaders opposed the amendment because it would confer voting rights upon men regardless of their education or knowledge of the voting process, while denying those same rights to educated, politically savvy women. This amendment shattered the longtime alliance between abolitionists and feminists in the dual quest for black and female equality.[7]
Despite objections, the amendment was finally drafted in language that secured its passage in Congress. There were loopholes around granting universal male suffrage in Section 1, but Section 2 gave Congress the right to act if it was determined that the amendment was being violated. The amendment was then sent to the states for ratification.[8]
At the time, the Republican-controlled Congress was denying federal representation to three southern states (Virginia, Mississippi, and Texas) for violating the Republican Reconstruction program. Congress required all three states to ratify the Fifteenth Amendment as a condition for restoring representation. Requiring states to ratify an amendment when they had no federal representation (which disqualified them from ratifying an amendment in the first place) prompted questions about the ratification’s legality.[9]
Nevertheless, the amendment garnered the three-fourths majority needed to become part of the Constitution. Northerners believed that this was the final step in helping former slaves become free and equal citizens. According to the New York Times, “… the work of the Republican party… ends with the adoption of the Fifteenth Amendment.” Future President James A. Garfield said, “The Fifteenth Amendment confers upon the African race the care of its own destiny. It places their fortunes in their own hands.”[10]
However, the political wrangling over the amendment’s language enabled southern states to impose various restrictions on voting rights after Reconstruction ended. These restrictions carefully avoided singling out blacks, but by imposing literacy tests, grandfather clauses, and property ownership requirements, they effectively excluded most blacks from voting in the South for nearly a century.
[1] Eric Foner, Reconstruction: The Unfinished Revolution, 1865-77 (New York: Harper & Row, 1988), p. 446-47
[2] Claudine L. Ferrell, Reconstruction (Greenwood Guides to Historic Events 1500-1900) (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 2003), p. 44
[3] Foner, p. 446-47; Ferrell, p. 49
[4] Foner, p. 446-47; Ferrell, p. 44, 50
[5] Claude Bowers, The Tragic Era: The Revolution After Lincoln (Houghton Mifflin, 1929), p. 295
[6] Bowers, p. 295; Foner, p. 446-47
[7] Foner, p. 446-47
[8] Foner, p. 446-47; Ferrell, p. 50
[9] Howard Ray White, Bloodstains: An Epic History of the Politics That Produced the American Civil War, Volume 4, Political Reconstruction and the Struggle for Healing (SouthernBooks on Kindle), Ch. 1Q69
[10] Ferrell, p. 50; Foner, p. 446-47
