第一部分从何而来?第十四修正案的废奴主义起源

IF 3 1区 社会学 Q1 LAW
Randy E. Barnett
{"title":"第一部分从何而来?第十四修正案的废奴主义起源","authors":"Randy E. Barnett","doi":"10.1093/JLA/3.1.165","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The contribution of abolitionist constitutionalism to the original public meaning of Section One of the Fourteenth Amendment was long obscured by a revisionist history that disparaged abolitionism, the “radical” Republicans, and their effort to establish democracy over Southern terrorism during Reconstruction. As a result, more Americans know about “carpetbaggers” than they do the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment. Despite a brief revival of interest stimulated by the writings of Howard Jay Graham and Jacobus tenBroek, in the 1970s and 1980s abolitionist constitutionalism remains obscure to law professors and even to historians of abolitionism. This study provides important evidence of the original public meaning of Section One. All the components of Section One were employed by a wide variety abolitionist lawyers and activists throughout the North, many of whom were instrumental in the formation of the Liberty, Free Soil, and Republican parties. To advance their case against slavery, they needed to appeal to the then-extant public meaning of the terms already in the Constitution. Moreover, their widely-circulated invocations of national citizenship, privileges and immunities, the due process of law, and equal protection made their own contribution to the public meaning in 1866 of the language that became Section One. The more one reads the forgotten writings of these “constitutional abolitionists,” the better their arguments look when compared with the opinions of the antebellum Supreme Court. But even if the Taney Court was right and the abolitionists wrong about the original meaning of the Constitution, the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments were enacted to reverse the Court’s rulings. To appreciate fully the public meaning of these Amendments, therefore, we need to know whence they came. The Fourteenth Amendment is universally presumed to be the outcome of the organized antislavery movement in the United States, yet its modern history continues to be written without reference to the abolitionists. Judges and historians seek an understanding of phrases admittedly designed to secure the ‘‘freedom of the slave race’’ without first examining the tenets of the group which fought longest and hardest to establish that freedom. [T]he fight for liberty in this land was begun by the Radical Abolitionists long before the final battle..They were followed, however, by a class known as Constitutional Abolitionists; equally bold and brave, but more practical. It was the labor of the latter that accomplished glorious results; fought the good battle to a finish and destroyed the slave power. They were among the organizers of the Republican Party.","PeriodicalId":45189,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Legal Analysis","volume":"292 1","pages":"165-263"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2011-03-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"9","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Whence Comes Section One? The Abolitionist Origins of the Fourteenth Amendment\",\"authors\":\"Randy E. Barnett\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/JLA/3.1.165\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The contribution of abolitionist constitutionalism to the original public meaning of Section One of the Fourteenth Amendment was long obscured by a revisionist history that disparaged abolitionism, the “radical” Republicans, and their effort to establish democracy over Southern terrorism during Reconstruction. As a result, more Americans know about “carpetbaggers” than they do the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment. Despite a brief revival of interest stimulated by the writings of Howard Jay Graham and Jacobus tenBroek, in the 1970s and 1980s abolitionist constitutionalism remains obscure to law professors and even to historians of abolitionism. This study provides important evidence of the original public meaning of Section One. All the components of Section One were employed by a wide variety abolitionist lawyers and activists throughout the North, many of whom were instrumental in the formation of the Liberty, Free Soil, and Republican parties. To advance their case against slavery, they needed to appeal to the then-extant public meaning of the terms already in the Constitution. Moreover, their widely-circulated invocations of national citizenship, privileges and immunities, the due process of law, and equal protection made their own contribution to the public meaning in 1866 of the language that became Section One. The more one reads the forgotten writings of these “constitutional abolitionists,” the better their arguments look when compared with the opinions of the antebellum Supreme Court. But even if the Taney Court was right and the abolitionists wrong about the original meaning of the Constitution, the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments were enacted to reverse the Court’s rulings. To appreciate fully the public meaning of these Amendments, therefore, we need to know whence they came. The Fourteenth Amendment is universally presumed to be the outcome of the organized antislavery movement in the United States, yet its modern history continues to be written without reference to the abolitionists. Judges and historians seek an understanding of phrases admittedly designed to secure the ‘‘freedom of the slave race’’ without first examining the tenets of the group which fought longest and hardest to establish that freedom. [T]he fight for liberty in this land was begun by the Radical Abolitionists long before the final battle..They were followed, however, by a class known as Constitutional Abolitionists; equally bold and brave, but more practical. It was the labor of the latter that accomplished glorious results; fought the good battle to a finish and destroyed the slave power. They were among the organizers of the Republican Party.\",\"PeriodicalId\":45189,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Legal Analysis\",\"volume\":\"292 1\",\"pages\":\"165-263\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2011-03-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"9\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Legal Analysis\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/JLA/3.1.165\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Legal Analysis","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/JLA/3.1.165","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 9

摘要

废奴主义宪政对第十四条修正案第一款最初的公共意义的贡献长期被修正主义历史所掩盖,这些修正主义历史贬低废奴主义、“激进的”共和党人,以及他们在重建期间为建立民主而对抗南方恐怖主义所做的努力。结果,更多的美国人知道“地毯冒险家”,而不是第十四条修正案的制定者。尽管在霍华德·杰伊·格雷厄姆和雅各布斯·滕布鲁克的著作刺激下,人们对废奴主义宪政的兴趣短暂复苏,但在20世纪70年代和80年代,废奴主义宪政对法学教授甚至废奴主义历史学家来说仍然是模糊的。本研究为第一节的原始公共意义提供了重要证据。第一分部的所有成员都为北方各地的废奴主义律师和活动家所雇用,其中许多人在自由、自由土地和共和党的形成中发挥了重要作用。为了推进他们反对奴隶制的案件,他们需要诉诸宪法中已经存在的术语的公共含义。此外,他们广泛流传的对国家公民权、特权和豁免、正当法律程序和平等保护的呼吁,对1866年成为第一部分的语言的公共意义作出了自己的贡献。人们越是阅读这些被遗忘的“宪法废奴主义者”的著作,他们的论点就越能与南北战争前最高法院的观点相比较。但是,即使特尼法院是正确的,废奴主义者对宪法原意的理解是错误的,第十三和第十四修正案的颁布也是为了推翻最高法院的裁决。因此,为了充分理解这些修正案对公众的意义,我们需要知道它们从何而来。第十四修正案被普遍认为是美国有组织的反奴隶制运动的结果,但其现代史仍然没有提到废奴主义者。法官和历史学家在寻求理解那些公认是为了确保“奴隶种族的自由”而设计的词句时,却没有首先考察为建立这种自由而进行了最长时间和最艰苦斗争的群体的信条。在这片土地上为自由而战的斗争早在最后一战之前就由激进的废奴主义者开始了,然而,紧随他们之后的是一个被称为宪法废奴主义者的阶级;同样大胆和勇敢,但更实际。正是后者的劳动取得了辉煌的成果;完成了这场美好的战斗,摧毁了奴隶的力量。他们是共和党的组织者之一。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Whence Comes Section One? The Abolitionist Origins of the Fourteenth Amendment
The contribution of abolitionist constitutionalism to the original public meaning of Section One of the Fourteenth Amendment was long obscured by a revisionist history that disparaged abolitionism, the “radical” Republicans, and their effort to establish democracy over Southern terrorism during Reconstruction. As a result, more Americans know about “carpetbaggers” than they do the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment. Despite a brief revival of interest stimulated by the writings of Howard Jay Graham and Jacobus tenBroek, in the 1970s and 1980s abolitionist constitutionalism remains obscure to law professors and even to historians of abolitionism. This study provides important evidence of the original public meaning of Section One. All the components of Section One were employed by a wide variety abolitionist lawyers and activists throughout the North, many of whom were instrumental in the formation of the Liberty, Free Soil, and Republican parties. To advance their case against slavery, they needed to appeal to the then-extant public meaning of the terms already in the Constitution. Moreover, their widely-circulated invocations of national citizenship, privileges and immunities, the due process of law, and equal protection made their own contribution to the public meaning in 1866 of the language that became Section One. The more one reads the forgotten writings of these “constitutional abolitionists,” the better their arguments look when compared with the opinions of the antebellum Supreme Court. But even if the Taney Court was right and the abolitionists wrong about the original meaning of the Constitution, the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments were enacted to reverse the Court’s rulings. To appreciate fully the public meaning of these Amendments, therefore, we need to know whence they came. The Fourteenth Amendment is universally presumed to be the outcome of the organized antislavery movement in the United States, yet its modern history continues to be written without reference to the abolitionists. Judges and historians seek an understanding of phrases admittedly designed to secure the ‘‘freedom of the slave race’’ without first examining the tenets of the group which fought longest and hardest to establish that freedom. [T]he fight for liberty in this land was begun by the Radical Abolitionists long before the final battle..They were followed, however, by a class known as Constitutional Abolitionists; equally bold and brave, but more practical. It was the labor of the latter that accomplished glorious results; fought the good battle to a finish and destroyed the slave power. They were among the organizers of the Republican Party.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
3
审稿时长
16 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信