A legal question originating in the Reconstruction period of the Civil War aftermath. Were the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments legally passed?
After the end of the Civil war the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments were passed by Congress and sent to the states to ratify. The then existing states did not include the southern states at has left the union. They could not vote , were not represented in Congress . They had no political rights until accepted back into the union.
When the then legal states voted, the requisite majority was not obtained to ratify the amendments. See this, the congress made it a requirement for re-admission that the former Confederate States accept and ratify the proposed amendments before being re-admitted.
Now here is the question. If the states could not vote and were not represented in the Congress, how could they vote on the proposed amendments and if they did, how could the votes be accepted as legal, they were not part of the USA at the time of voting.
Note: I am not, repeat NOT questioning the validity of the amendments, I just asking if anyone knows the legal argument presented at the time. I have been unable to find a coherent answer to the question.
When the then legal states voted, the requisite majority was not obtained to ratify the amendments. See this, the congress made it a requirement for re-admission that the former Confederate States accept and ratify the proposed amendments before being re-admitted.
Now here is the question. If the states could not vote and were not represented in the Congress, how could they vote on the proposed amendments and if they did, how could the votes be accepted as legal, they were not part of the USA at the time of voting.
Note: I am not, repeat NOT questioning the validity of the amendments, I just asking if anyone knows the legal argument presented at the time. I have been unable to find a coherent answer to the question.
Even at the time it was discussed as to how they were not given full admission. Questions were raised about the term re-admission. This implied they had left the Union and were now being brought back into it. many people did not like this idea primarily because it did acknowledge they had been separate from the Union. It played into the hands of the south when they claimed they were an independent nation and were forced via force of arms to join another country. It was a ver turbulent time on both sides and the assignation of Lincoln and impeachment of Johnson didn't help at all. (Both were for much easier terms of reunification.)
I agree with William Shipley: you cannot have it both ways; either they left, or they did not. I would say that they did not. No state actually held a plebiscite. Instead, gangs of the moment in control of the state governments claimed to represent "everyone." Here in Texas, they actually had to arrest Sam Houston, who was opposed to secession. Just sayin'... if secession was not lawful, then Reconstruction was not, either.
That said, perhaps, it might help to look at deeper principles to explain the need for exigent solutions to special problems.
The answer is -- the then-existing state governments were in rebellion, and their members had not sworn oaths to preserve the US constitution. Thus whether you recognized the Confederacy or not, the existing state government of Virginia in 1863 (for example) was certainly not the government of a US state -- and therefore, Congress had the power under Article IV to "ensure a republican form of government" for Virginia by choosing a new one, with the help of the pro-Union citizens who had petitioned Congress to do exactly that.
The same held true after the war in each rebel state, until that state had new officials sworn to uphold the federal constitution. And in the interim, the occupying troops could pretty much do what they wanted.
or #15 now?
about it now as they did then. And, besides, there
are plenty of black voters now who would certainly
not go for repeal.
(Of course, New Jersey took away woman
suffrage in 1807, but maybe a lot of women
were not paying attention and sat on their butts.
Or maybe they did not meet the property qualif-
cations in effect at that time).
As for Women's suffrage, it didn't really end until the 19th amendment was passed in 1920. In fact, I have a photo of my maternal grandmother waving an American flag on the same day she first was allowed to vote (in 1920). While Victoria Woodhull of Ohio ran for President prior to this (1872 election), she couldn't even vote for herself. How ironic is that!
I have tried to imagine what it would have been like to be a legislator after the Revolution, or after the Civil War. The Civil War in particular. What emotions, what triumph, what sorrow. To say it was a turbulent time would be a great understatement. Those amendments were needed by the people who won in order to rub the Confederate's noses in it. As if to say," Most humans know this to be factual and true, but for you dummies, we're putting it in writing so you'll never question it again." It is the feeling of euphoria that a person gets after a good cry.
Not sure how much of this is strictly accurate, but Wikipedia at least seems to point to the Thirteenth as having passed (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirtee...) correctly.
The Fourteenth appears quite a bit more suspect, however, as Congress effectively imposed martial law and overrode the elected representatives of Southern States via the Reconstruction Acts then made Congressional representation contingent on ratification. I agree that this prima facie could be termed a problem, except that only a few years later each did in fact ratify the Amendment.
The Fifteenth amendment suffers from the same problems as the conditions of the 14th, with several Southern States effectively being deprived of their representatives - rebels or not - through military occupation.
I'm not looking for a nullification of the amendments or a restarting the war. Just curious. The reconstruction period was one that had many oddities and strange events occurring and this is just one of them.