In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

president AndreW JoHnson freedmen’s bureAu veto messAge, July 16, 1866 James D. Richardson, comp., A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents, 1789-1897 (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing office, 1897), 6:422–26. After President Andrew Johnson vetoed and sent back to the Senate and the House of Representatives Congress’ first bill to extend the Freedmen’s Bureau, the Congress went back to work on the legislation . In July 1866, they sent Johnson a new bill, which he again vetoed on several grounds. Johnson argued that with the war over, Congress lacked the power to establish or extend an agency such as the Freedmen’s Bureau because the crises had passed. He argued that the local, state, and federal district courts were now open and thus this legislation was unnecessary. Johnson conceded that the nation was experiencing a wave of violence, but he denied that it was located only in the South; the problem was a national one that the Freedmen’s Bureau did not address. He feared that individual agents of the Freedmen’s Bureau had abused their power and authority (and some undoubtedly had) and that rightful owners of land in certain parishes of South Carolina had been excluded from reclaiming their land. But, Johnson’s primary concern was that the Freedmen’sBureaubillconstituted“classlegislation,”agovernmentprovided advantage to one group of people over the general population . Class legislation meant support of that class of person regardless of their own actions, own responsibilities, own choices to labor or not to labor. Congress was not impressed and was growing weary of Johnson’s opposition to their plans for Reconstruction; as a result , Congress overrode Johnson’s veto of their bill that same day. Washington, D.C., July 16, 1866 To the House of Representatives: A careful examination of the bill passed by the two Houses of Congress entitled, “An act to continue in force and to amend ‘An act to establish a bureau for the relief of freedmen and refugees, and for other purposes’” has convinced Documentary History of the American Civil War era 180 me that the legislation which it proposes would not be consistent with the welfare of the country, and that it falls clearly within the reasons assigned in my message of the 19th of February last, returning, without my signature, a similar measure which originated in the Senate. It is not my purpose to repeat the objections which I then urged. They are yet fresh in your recollection, and can be readily examined as a part of the records of one branch of the National legislature. Adhering to the principles set forth in that message, I now reaffirm them and the line of policy therein indicted. The only ground upon which this kind of legislation can be justified is that of the war-making power. The act of which this bill is intended as amendatory was passed during the existence of the war. By its own provisions it is to terminate within one year from the cessation of hostilities and the declaration of peace. It is therefore yet in existence, and it is likely that it will continue in force as long as the freedmen may require the benefit of its provisions. It will certainly remain in operation as a law until some months subsequent to the meeting of the next session of Congress, when, if experience shall make evident the necessity of additional legislation, the two Houses will have ample time to mature and pass the requisite measures. In the meantime the questions arise, Why should this war measure be continued beyond the period designated in the original act, and why in time of peace should military tribunals be created to continue until each “State shall be fully restored in its constitutional relations to the Government and shall be duly represented in the Congress of the united States”? It was manifest, with respect to the act approved march 3, 1865, that prudence and wisdom alike required that jurisdiction over all cases concerning the free enjoyment of the immunities and rights of citizenship, as well as the protection of person and property, should be conferred upon some tribunal in every State or district where the ordinary course of judicial proceedings was interrupted by the rebellion, and until the same should be fully restored. At that time, therefore , an urgent necessity existed for the passage of some such law. Now, however, war has substantially ceased; the ordinary course of judicial proceedings is no longer...

Share