Is U.S. in violation of the 1866 Civil Rights Act & U.S. Constitution Imposed For Black Americans


Has U.S. ignored the 1866 Civil Rights Act? Is U.S. in violation of U.S. Constitution?

Has the U.S. Government allowed other Foreign Newcomers to ‘Hi-Jack’ Black Americans Civil Rights Act of 1866? Is this a violation of  U.S. Constitution

Let’s see some interesting points about the Civil Rights Act of 1866!

On April 6, 1866, the Senate voted 33-15 to override Johnson’s veto. The House followed suit on April 9, 1866, by a vote of 122-41, with 21 members not voting. As a result, the Civil Rights Act of 1866 became law.

The Civil Rights Act of 1866 is notable for being the nation’s first civil rights law. The act established that all male persons born in the United States, regardless of race, color, or “previous condition of SLAVERY or INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE,” were entitled to basic rights of citizenship “in every state and territory in the United States.” The law further declared that all such individuals were entitled to the following specific rights:

  1. “to make and enforce contracts”
  2. “to sue, be parties, and give evidence” in court
  3. “to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property”
  4. “to full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and property, as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, and penalties, and to none other”

The law also provided for the conviction and punishment of individuals who violated the law.



The Civil Rights of 1866 did not address political rights, which include the right to vote and the right to hold public office. The Fifteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, ratified in February 1870, guaranteed to all United States citizens the right to vote regardless of “race, color, or previous condition of servitude.” Even so, according to the National Constitution Center, the Fifteenth Amendment “had little impact for almost a century because states imposed poll taxes, literacy tests, and other restrictions that kept African Americans from voting.” Subsequent legislative actions in the 20th century, including the Civil Rights Act of 1864 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, were taken to address this problem

Since the states had been the traditional guardians of fundamental rights, Republicans had to find an explicit or an implied constitutional delegation of authority to secure such rights before Congress could legislate to protect and enforce the civil rights of Americans.
Congressional proponents of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 found constitutional authorization to enforce civil rights in the ‘Thirteenth Amendment.’
The Thirteenth Amendment abolished slavery. As the quotation at the beginning
of this Comment indicates, the framers insisted that this Amendment delegated
to Congress as much authority to secure the freedom established by its abolition
of slavery as Congress previously had possessed to secure the property right
of slaveholders in their slaves.
The Democratic opposition understood the revolutionary consequences of the Republican theory of citizenship and congressional civil rights enforcement
authority under the Thirteenth Amendment and warned that “The principles
involved in this bill, if they are legitimate and constitutional, would authorize
Congress to pass civil and criminal codes for every State of the Union.
The Fourteenth Amendment and concluded that “This law is clearly corrective in
its character, intended to counteract and furnish redress against State laws and
proceedings and customs having the force of law, which sanction the wrongful
acts specified.”
Having interpreted one constitutional amendment as limiting Congress to reaching state action and one as not having such a limitation, the Court limited the Civil Rights Act’s coverage to state action. It reasoned that Congress re-enacted the statute in 1870 under the Fourteenth Amendment, and it read back into Congress the Court’s state action interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The Court ignored the fact that the legislation that re-enacted the Civil Rights Act
contained provisions enforcing civil rights against private individuals, as did the
Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871.”‘ These statutes show that Congress clearly did not legislate
in 1870 and 1871 within a state action interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The Court’s interpretation of federal guarantees of civil rights is starkly contrasted
with its earlier enforcement of slave owners’ property rights in their slaves under
the fugitive slave clause.
In assessing the scope of protection offered by this constitutional provision, the Supreme Court laid down a rule of constitutional interpretation:
How, then, are we to interpret the language of this clause? The true answer is,
in such a manner, as, consistently with the words, shall fully and completely
effectuate the whole objects of it. If by one mode of interpretation the right
must become shadowy and unsubstantial, and without any remedial power
adequate to the end, and by another mode it will attain its just end and secure
its manifest purpose, it would seem, upon principles of reasoning, absolutely
irresistible, that the latter ought to prevail.
No Court of justice can be authorized so to construe any clause of the Constitution as to defeat its obvious ends, when another construction, equally accordant with the words and sense thereof, will enforce and protect them.
So as we can see the Civil Rights Act was  interpreted for Black American Slaves and Slaves Owners! Enforced in the 13th, 14th, 15th Amendment! So is U.S. Congress, Senate, U.S. Supreme Courts, and numerous States in violation of 1866 Civil Rights Act implemented for Black born American Citizens of U.S. (Descendants of Slaves)!
This will need to legally look upon for further possible U.S. Constitution Civil Rights Act Violations…..Have Black Americans been shafted while Foreign Newcomers hijack their U.S. Constitutional Amendments imposed for Black American families..
Enfor cement Provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1866: A Legislative History in Light of Run yon v . McCrary, The Review Essay and Comments: Reconstructing Reconstruction
CABIRI – Consumer Advocacy Business Industry Research & Investigations
by: Kaila Truths