Reconstruction Revisited
There is no ambiguity in Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment
Orestes Brownson had profound reservations about the Fourteenth Amendment, so whenever I notice discussion of this controversial addition to our Constitution, I tuned in.
Recently, David Upham, a professor at St. Thomas University College of Law in Miami, was on a podcast promoting his recent book, Taking American Citizenship Seriously: The Recovery of the Fourteenth Amendment, to challenge the opinions of later commentators that the wording is vague. This accusation is especially topical these days as the Supreme Court is about to rule on the first words of the amendment, “All persons born in the United States…are citizens of the United States.”
Based on Professor Upham’s extensive research of the drafting and ratification of the amendment and public commentary at the time he concludes that the authors of the amendment were convinced that the meaning was clear.
He cites the governor of Virginia, a supporter of the amendment, recommending it to his State legislators, “There is no ambiguity in the proposed amendment.”
This is where my ears perked up. How could it be that a Southern governor would recommend to his state legislature an amendment that would eliminate from the Political People his kinfolk and neighbors? Recall that Section 3 reads:
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
The aim of Reconstruction was the annihilation of Southern culture, beginning with the decapitation of the aristocracy, that part of the Political People most capable of restoring the society. Southern governors and state legislatures who voted for this amendment were throwing their own people under the bus to win the favor of the Northern conquerors.
Scratch the surface here and you will learn a lot about the “consensus” and the reason that Southern politicians would betray their own.
Orestes Brownson strongly objected to the reconstruction plan that President Lincoln announced in December, 1862 and quickly gave a reasoned rebuttal in Brownson’s Quarterly Review in January, 1863. A decade later, he sadly reflected that the post-War amendments had severely damaged the nation that he had so highly praised in The American Republic.