Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 9.djvu/338

310 3 1 HAR VARD LA W RE VIE W. of the history of those times, that the period is frequently spoken of as the Reconstruction Period. But it is not, I venture to say, even now, after a lapse of over twenty-five years, fully realized that there was during the same period a Reconstruction also of the National Government. By Reconstruction I mean a radical departure from the original theory which the founders of the government had clearly in mind when in 1787 they framed the Constitution and in 1789 added the first ten Amendments thereto. When in 1865, 1866, and 1869 the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments were proposed by Congress, and submitted to the people, it was commonly understood that their purpose was to finally do away with slavery, and secure to the negro his per- sonal and political rights. Speaking of these three Amendments, Mr. Bryce says (Vol. i. p. 357): ''These three amendments are the outcome of the War of Secession, and were needed in order to confirm and secure for the future its results." In the so called Slaughter-House Cases in the Supreme Court of the United States, reported in 16 Wall. 36 (1873), Mr. Justice Miller, in delivering the opinion of the court (p. 71), says: — "We repeat, then, in the light of this recapitulation of events almost too recent to be called history, but which are familiar to us all, — and on the most casual examination of the language of these amendments no one can fail to be impressed with the one pervading purpose found in them all, lying at the foundation of each, and without which none of them would have been even suggested, — we mean the freedom of the slave race, the security and firm establishment of that freedom, and the protection of the newly made freeman and citizen from the op- pressions of those who had formerly exercised unlimited dominion over him." Again (at page 81) : — "We doubt very much whether any action of a State not directed by way of discrimination against the negroes as a class or on account of their race will ever be held to come within the purview of this provision. [The provision referred to is, ' Nor shall any State deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.'] It is so clearly a provision for that race and that emergency, that a strong case would be necessary for its application to any other." But even as early as 1873, there were those who saw in these Amendments a broader meaning and a wider application. Four