The XIVth Amendment and the Civil Rights Bill

The XIVth Amendment and the Civil Rights Bill

Explaining the Fourteenth Amendment and the Civil Rights Bill

In this brief article, Myra Bradwell discusses the Fourteenth Amendment and the Civil Rights Bill with specific focus on Justice Bradley’s opinion and decisions on such legislation. An important feature of this article is how Bradwell defines the intent of these two Civil War legislations. She states that the laws were not meant exclusively for the protection of African Americans, but rather should be expanded to protect the occupations of all American citizens.
Bradwell ends her article with the speculation and hope that since Justice Bradley so clearly favors an expansive view of the Fourteenth Amendment to goes beyond the rights of freedmen, that he will apply the same logic to her case.
This article demonstrates Bradwell’s political strategy against the court’s obstruction of women’s rights. By pointing out the potential logical follies with Justice Bradley’s judicial record if he does not rule in favor of her case, Bradwell is warning courts against expanding the Fourteenth Amendment for some groups and not all. Printing her opinion in the newspaper also gains the support of her readers for her legal activism.

Myra Bradwell

Chicago : Chicago Legal News Co., 1869-1925, Vol III, pg. 20

University of Minnesota - https://hdl.handle.net/2027/umn.31951d02617796x

October 15, 1870

Hathi Trust: Digital Library

Online resource through Hathi Trust: Digital Library

Digital copy of physical volumes: Volume 3, pg 20

English

Newspaper

The XIVTH AMENDMENT AND THE CIVIL RIGHTS BILL.—We call the special attention of our readers to the opinion of JUDGE BRADLEY, of the Supreme Court of the United States, delivered in the Circuit Court at New Orleans, and printed on the first page of this issue, construing the XIVth amendment and the Civil Rights Bill. It is one of the most important opinions ever delivered in this country, and strikes a death blow at a certain class of monopolies which, under State laws, claim to have an exclusive right to follow certain industrial pursuits. The learned judge very properly, we think, holds that the XIVth amendment and the Civil Rights Bill were not made exclusively for the benefit of the negro, that, although they were not intended to enlarge the privileges and immunities of white citizens,they must be construed as furnishing additional guarantees and remedies to secure theen joyment of the rights of every individual citizen of the United States; that there is no more sacred right of citizenship than the right to pursue unmolested, a lawful employment in a lawful manner;that this is nothing more nor less than thes acred right of labor,that the great right of liberty of pursuit is one of the fundamental principles of a free government as well as one of the fundamental privileges of an American citizen. We claimed in our argument, in the Supreme Court of Illinois, on our application for admission to the bar, that under the XIVth amendment and the Civil Rights Bill every citizen had guaranteed the right to follow any professional pursuit under laws that should operate equally upon every other citizen of the State. This seems to be the principle upon which Judge Bradley bases his opinion.

Newspaper