Event name: The 14th Amendment
Event time and place: 9/17/2025 at 12pm, Stamp Student Union, Prince George’s room
Summary
The roots of the 14th Amendment trace back to the post–Civil War years, when Lincoln championed the 13th Amendment and supported extending suffrage to formerly enslaved people. After Lincoln’s assassination, however, President Andrew Johnson did not share those commitments, and the promise of the 13th Amendment went largely unfulfilled. When Congress returned to session, lawmakers pushed for the adoption of the 14th Amendment as a way to secure voting rights for African Americans. Over time, though, the amendment’s meaning broadened far beyond its initial purpose. Today, the Birthright Citizenship Clause has become a point of political controversy, with some leaders advocating for a narrower interpretation of who qualifies as a citizen. The Due Process Clause has also taken on a major role, particularly as corporations have invoked the idea of “liberty of contract” to challenge state regulations like minimum-wage or maximum-hours laws. In addition, courts have expanded the 14th Amendment’s protection of fundamental rights to include privacy interests, such as those involved in abortion and same-sex marriage. More broadly, modern debates center on the distinction between procedural due process and substantive due process, which is the idea that laws restricting a person’s liberty or property must not only follow proper procedures but must also be inherently fair and just.
Context
The Civil War began as a conflict over whether slavery would be allowed to expand into the western territories, and after the Union’s victory, Lincoln introduced his Reconstruction agenda, which included the 13th Amendment and limited suffrage for Black veterans and a small group of “very intelligent” African Americans. When Lincoln was assassinated by John Wilkes Booth, Vice President Andrew Johnson became president. Johnson had been politically elevated because he was the only Southern senator who did not support slavery, but he quickly proved to be the wrong person to lead Reconstruction. After meeting him, Frederick Douglass concluded that Johnson still held pro-slavery views and had no intention of continuing Lincoln’s goals. Johnson’s Reconstruction plan required Southern states to ratify the 13th Amendment, but he also extended sweeping amnesty to most former Confederates. Only high-ranking civil, military, and judicial officers, war criminals, and wealthy landowners with more than $20,000 in taxable property were excluded. Johnson resented these groups on a personal level because many had snubbed him before the war, and he granted pardons only when planters personally apologized to him. He issued more than 13,500 individual pardons, which allowed prewar Southern elites to regain power. At the same time, Southern legislatures enacted Black Codes that gave African Americans a few civil rights, such as the ability to sue, marry, and own property, but also restricted them in many ways. They could not possess firearms, sell alcohol, gather in groups larger than six after dark, testify in legal cases involving two white people, or use insulting language toward whites without being fined. Vagrancy laws and annual labor contracts further controlled their lives. The leniency of Johnson’s policies became evident when Alexander Stephens, the former vice president of the Confederacy, returned to his old seat in Congress. When Congress reconvened, it refused to seat Southern representatives and senators, reevaluated the conditions in the South, recognized that secession had not truly been renounced, and saw that the lives of Black leaders and Northern allies were in danger. In response, Congress passed the Fourteenth Amendment in an effort to correct the failures of Johnson’s Reconstruction.
14th Amendment
The Birthright Citizenship Clause was introduced to overturn the ruling in Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), which declared that African Americans were not and could not be citizens of the United States. The traditional understanding of the clause held that it did not apply to children of foreign ambassadors, foreign ministers, government officials, or to the children of “alien enemies” such as members of an invading army. The issue of birthright citizenship later resurfaced in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which unfolded against the backdrop of the Chinese Exclusion Acts of 1882 that prohibited Chinese immigrants from becoming naturalized citizens. Wong Kim Ark was born in San Francisco in 1873 to Chinese parents who were not U.S. citizens. His parents returned to China in 1890, while Wong remained in the United States. When he traveled to visit them in 1894, he was denied reentry upon his return because federal officials argued that he was not a citizen due to his parents' foreign status. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled that Wong Kim Ark was a citizen by virtue of being born on U.S. soil. Earlier cases also shaped the interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment, such as the Slaughterhouse Cases of 1873, in which the Court determined that the amendment’s privileges or immunities clause protected rights like habeas corpus and the right to petition. The broader Reconstruction context included the Military Reconstruction Act of 1867, which helped pave the way for the eventual adoption of the Fifteenth Amendment.
15th Amendment
The adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment ultimately led to a radical shift in Congress, a period often described as radical reconstruction, but the amendment’s broad wording also opened the door to interpretations far removed from its original purpose. Because the amendment does not explicitly mention race, attorney John Archibald Campbell argued in the Slaughterhouse Cases that it actually harmed white citizens by treating them unequally and infringing on their property rights, which sparked an ongoing debate about original intent versus evolving interpretation. Congress attempted to expand civil rights protections through the Civil Rights Act of 1875, which guaranteed that all persons in the United States, regardless of race, were entitled to full and equal access to inns, transportation, theaters, and other public accommodations. However, the Supreme Court struck down much of this effort in the Civil Rights Cases of 1883 by ruling that the Fourteenth Amendment only restricted state action, not discrimination by private businesses, which weakened the force of the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments. This judicial retreat continued in Plessy v. Ferguson in 1896, which upheld racial segregation. At the same time, the Fourteenth Amendment began shaping legal education and corporate law, because courts increasingly recognized businesses as “persons” under the amendment. As a result, its protections were invoked more often to defend corporations than African Americans. The meaning of the due process clause also evolved during the Gilded Age and Progressive Era. While procedural due process originally guaranteed that no person could lose liberty or property without fair legal procedures, lawyers began to argue that the clause also protected businesses from state regulations such as minimum wage and maximum hours laws, an idea known as “liberty of contract.” This shift contributed to the development of substantive due process, which requires that the substance of laws affecting liberty or property must be fair and just. By 1905, liberty of contract was treated as a fundamental right, and by the 1960s, essential liberty expanded to include a right to privacy, which became central in cases such as Roe v. Wade. Taken together, these developments illustrate how far the Fourteenth Amendment’s modern applications have moved from the original intentions of Reconstruction lawmakers.
Overall Thoughts
After attending the Constitution Day events, I realized that I learned far more about the Fourteenth Amendment than I expected, especially the historical details that shape how it functions today. I had not anticipated gaining so much context about Reconstruction and the political dynamics of the period, and it was interesting to see how the amendment has taken on new meanings over time. Many of the arguments presented were persuasive; for instance, I was struck by how deeply the amendment was tied to the major issues of the era, including expanding voting rights for Black Americans and redefining citizenship in a way that placed the needs of the people at the forefront. At the same time, some aspects did not resonate with me as strongly, such as Lincoln’s claim that suffrage should be limited to “intelligent” Black individuals rather than offered broadly, although I can understand why he may have adopted that view given the political tensions of his time. Dr. Ross also discussed the difference between procedural and substantive due process, which helped clarify how courts examine not only the fairness of legal procedures but also the fairness of the laws themselves. Substantive due process evaluates whether a law that affects life, liberty, or property is just and forces the government to show a strong reason for restricting individual rights, and this concept has become central in recent debates because judicial interpretation now often depends on the ideology of the judges who hear the case. I did feel that the presentation could have included more discussion of modern issues, such as ongoing arguments surrounding the Birthright Citizenship Clause and the Due Process Clause, as well as a deeper exploration of which fundamental rights are protected today and why those rights remain so contested. Much of the talk focused on historical material, which is important, but the impact would have been stronger if the past had been tied more directly to contemporary conflicts, especially through examples of how Supreme Court precedents are created and overturned. For example, connecting substantive due process to the recent reversal of Roe v. Wade in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization would have highlighted how these doctrines continue to shape national politics. Despite these gaps, the event was still engaging and informative, and I appreciated the chance to revisit constitutional history and learn more about the ways the Fourteenth Amendment continues to influence legal and political debates today.