Its in the archives. Steve's question mirrors yours George... it is at the bottom.
1. By:David Upton
Date: 12/31/2006, 11:31 pm
"Dear Mrs. Davis... "It seems clear that General Lee was in fact pardoned by President Johnson, if not by the proclamation of July 4, 1868, then certainly by that of December 25, 1868, and that any politcal limitations to which he was subject by the Fourteenth Amendment were removed by the act of June 6, 1898....It is the opinion of the War Department that full and complete amnesty was accorded to General Lee by the several proclamations and acts of Congress above referred to, and that there remains no disability with respect to him upon which a further act of the Executive or of Congress could be operative even if he were still living."
The Adjutant General
James Alexander Ulio, Major-General (1882 � 1958)
Amnesty is different than a pardon. Amnesty sets his status back to the day before he joined the Confederacy.
2. By:David Upton
Date: 1/1/2007, 10:07 pm
Act of June 6, 1898, ch. 389, 30 Stat. 432, 55th Congress removed the parts of the 14th Amendment that kept ex-Confederates as non-citizens and gave them complete amnesty. Along with Johnson's December 25, 1868 universal pardon and amnesty that restored complete rights to all who participated in the rebellion including General Lee so he has been a full citizen since 1898.
"The 14th amendment to the Constitution, ratified in July 1868, provided that no person could hold any civil or military office under State or Federal Government who had previously taken an oath to support the Constitution while holding such a position and hen had engaged in rebellion against the United States. The amendment provided that the Congress, by a two-thirds vote in both Houses, could remove this disability, and between 1868 and 1872 a number of ex-Confederates, were granted congressional amnesty. The General Amnesty Act of May 22, 1872 (17 Stat. 142), left only a few hundred under the disabilities imposed by the 14th amendment, but it was not until June 6, 1898 (30 Stat. 432), that general amnesty was made universal. Also important in restoring former Confederates to full rights of citizenship was an act of May 13, 1884 (23 Stat. 21), which provided that prospective Federal jurors and civil officers no longer had to swear that they had never engaged in rebellion against the United States."
3. By:David Upton
Date: 9/6/2007, 12:02 am
Act of June 6, 1898, ch. 389, 30 Stat. 432. Legislation by Congress providing for removal was necessary to give effect to the prohibition of Sec. 3, and until removed in pursuance of such legislation persons in office before promulgation of the Fourteenth Amendment continued to exercise their functions lawfully. Griffin's Case, 11 Fed. Cas. 7 (C.C.D.Va. 1869) (No. 5815). Nor were persons who had taken part in the Civil War and had been pardoned by the President before the adoption of this Amendment precluded by this section from again holding office under the United States. 18 Op. Att'y Gen. 149 (1885). On the construction of ''engaged in rebellion,'' see United States v. Powell, 27 Fed. Cas. 605 (C.C.D.N.C. 1871) (No. 16,079).
4. By:David Upton
Date: 9/6/2007, 8:52 am
"But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, REMOVE such disability."
"In 1872, the disabilities were removed, by a blanket act, from all persons "except Senators and Representatives of the Thirty-sixth and Thirty-seventh Congresses, officers in the judicial, military and naval service of the United States, heads of departments, and foreign ministers of the United States." Twenty-six years later, Congress enacted that "the disability imposed by section 3 . . . incurred heretofore, is hereby REMOVED."
5. By:David Upton
Date: 9/6/2007, 9:25 pm
As orginally submitted and passed on May 12, 1898 it read...
"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That all disabilities imposed by the fourteenth amendment of the Constitution of the United States upon persons on account of having engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the United States and on account of having given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof are hereby removed."
On June 1, it was amended with some changes one of them being "heretofore incurred is hereby removed".
It didn't matter which was written in the law the 14th Amendment gave them power to do as they pleased for that section. I took a look around and this section is debated a lot. The Utah Supreme Court wrote...
IN THE SUPREME COURT FOR THE STATE OF UTAH (Dyett v. Turner, 439 P2d 266 @ 269, 20 U2d 403 ) THE NON-RATIFICATION OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT(Judge A.H. Ellett)
"It is well known that the Constitution for the United States of America may not be amended by statute. [Article V, Constitution for the United States of America]. It is presumable that Congress fully understands this fact. "An Act of Congress" Approved June 6, 1898, /73 provides:
". . . that the disability imposed by Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution heretofore incurred is hereby removed."
According to Marbury v. Madison, /74 either the Constitution is the supreme and paramount law, unchangeable by mere legislative enactment, or it is a futile attempt by the people to control their government. Either the Fourteenth Amendment has no more standing than a statute or it violates the principles of government proposed by the original Constitution by allowing Congress to change its provisions by its own legislative authority. [See Rogers v. Bellei /75 (Dissenting Opinion), as to Congress changing the intent of the Fourteenth Amendment by mere legislation]. This being the case, the Fourteenth Amendment must be something less than organic law.
Ironically enough, Madison (the Defendant in Marbury v. Madison [supra.]) in the Constitutional Convention (while moving for the ratification of the Constitution by the people rather than the State legislatures) agreed that a legislature could not amend the organic law that put it into existence.
So with all of that, when I used the termed "removed" I was using their term. I also stated it was "removed" in 1898. I later stated the original text, that stated that it "removed" the law covering all those who came under it prior to the date inacted or "heretofore incurred". On this I do agree with you. But it seems it has problems in the courts from what I've found, since then. Its not a very good law.
My original point.
"The Removal of Disability- The good feeling between the North and South, brought about by the war with Spain, was manifested in many ways during the session through individual action; but the passage of an act removing the disability imposed in section 3 of Amendment XIV to the Constitution seemed to brush aside the last shadow of a grievance left by the Civil War."
Appletons' Annual Cyclopaedia and Register of Important Events of the Year 1898.
Would anybody know the official status after the war of babies who were born in Confederate states after secession and before surrender?
Ground rule #1: Please don't insult our mutual intelligences by saying that the Confederate States were always a part of the United States. It will make you look like an idiot, and I'll have to try to be polite and act like I don't realize it. Thanks.
What I'm trying to get at is, I understand that people born in the South before the War had been native-born US citizens, and most got their citizenship back after the War through specific legal actions (paroles, oaths of allegiance, and such). Babies born after the War were born in the US, so they were native-born citizens. But babies born in that late 1861 - early 1865 period, especially in areas not under US control, were born in the CSA, so they were not native-born US citizens. Was there any law passed after the war to change their status, or did they just sort of become US citizens by default, ie, did everyone just ignore the fact that they weren't US born and they just registered to vote, ran for office, etc, without anything ever being done?
This is a serious question. I am not asking it to make any kind of clever political point. I'd really like to know if there were any legal actions taken concerning these relatively few individuals, or if they just slipped through the cracks.
Date: 3/21/2009, 6:08 pm
...No one gave me any kind of hard, solid answer, but I think the true answer was mentioned - that the problem probably never came up, and if it had, it would have opened up questions that no one was really in the mood to try to answer. So everyone just ignored the situation, it never created a problem, and everyone was happy to leave it at that. ...