Disfranchisement After Reconstruction Era - Congressional Response

Congressional Response

The North had heard the South's version of Reconstruction abuses, such as financial corruption, high taxes, and incompetent freedmen. Industry wanted to invest in the South and not worry about political problems. Reconciliation between white veterans of the North and South reached a peak in the early 20th century. As historian David Blight demonstrated in Race and Reunion: The Civil War in American Memory, reconciliation meant the pushing aside by whites of the major issues of race and suffrage. Southern whites were effective for many years at having their version of history accepted, especially as it was confirmed in ensuing decades by influential historians of the Dunning School at Columbia University and other institutions.

Disfranchisement of black Americans in the South was covered by national newspapers and magazines as new constitutions were created, and many Northerners were outraged and alarmed. In 1900 as the Committee of Census of Congress considered proposals for adding more seats to the House of Representatives because of increased population, Edgar D. Crumpacker (R-IN) proposed stripping Southern states of seats to reflect the numbers of people they had disfranchised. The Committee and House failed to agree on this proposal. Supporters of black suffrage worked to secure Congressional investigation of disfranchisement, but concerted opposition of the Southern Democratic block was aroused, and the efforts failed.

From 1896-1900, the House of Representatives had acted in over 30 cases to set aside election results from Southern states where the House Elections Committee had concluded that "black voters had been excluded due to fraud, violence, or intimidation." In the late 1890s, however, it began to back off from its enforcement of the Fifteenth Amendment and suggested that state and Federal courts should exercise oversight of this issue.

In 1904 Congress administered a coup de grâce to efforts to investigate disfranchisement in its decision in the 1904 South Carolina election challenge of Dantzler v. Lever. Despite its earlier actions in overturning flawed state elections, the House Committee on Elections upheld Lever's victory. Further, it suggested that citizens of South Carolina who felt their rights were denied should appropriately take their cases to the state courts, and ultimately, the Supreme Court. Despite that decision, in later sessions, members continued to raise the issue of disfranchisement and apportionment. On December 6, 1920, Representative George H. Tinkham from Massachusetts offered a resolution for the Committee of Census to investigate alleged disfranchisement of blacks. His intention was to enforce the provisions of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth amendments. In addition, he believed there should be reapportionment in the House related to the voting population of southern states, rather than the general population as enumerated in the census. Tinkham detailed how outsized the South's representation was related to its total voters:

• States with 10 representatives:

Alabama, with total vote of 62,345.

Minnesota, with total vote of 299,127.

Iowa, with total vote of 316,377.

California, with 11 representatives, had a total vote of 644,790.

• States with 12 representatives:

Georgia, with vote of 59,196.

New Jersey, with vote of 338,461.

Indiana, with 13 seats and total vote of 565,216.

• States with 8 representatives:

Louisiana, with total vote of 44,794.

Kansas, with vote of 425,641.

• States with four representatives:

Florida, with total vote of 31,613.

Colorado, with vote of 208,855.

Maine, with vote of 121,836.

• States with six or seven representatives:

South Carolina, 7, with total vote of 25,433.

Nebraska, 6, with vote of 216,014.

West Virginia, 6, with vote of 211,643.