Civil Rights Act of 1866


Also found in: Wikipedia.

Civil Rights Act of 1866

Passed after the Civil War, this Act declared that all persons born in the

United States were citizens of the United States without regard to race,color,or previous condition of servitude.All citizens were entitled to enter into and enforce contracts,and to buy,sell,lease,inherit, and pass by inheritance real and personal property. It prohibited discrimination in housing, but provided no enforcement mechanism other than private lawsuits. It was not until 102 years later, with the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, that antidiscrimination laws could be truly enforced through federal actions.

References in periodicals archive ?
The first section of the amendment was an effort to place into the Constitution the provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, designed to combat the notorious Black Codes that had been enacted in several southern states.
on Friday, February 20, 2015, filed a $20 billion lawsuit against Comcast Corporation, Time Warner Cable, Reverend Al Sharpton, Reverend Al Sharpton's National Action Network, former FCC commissioner Meredith Attwell Baker, NAACP, and The National Urban League for conspiring to and engaging in racial discrimination in contracting against 100% African American-owned media in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, 42 U.
It is in this light that the Civil Rights Act of 1866 was enacted.
AT&T Mobility LLC and DirecTV for race discrimination in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1866.
After the Civil Rights Act of 1866, black Americans were able to become citizens and become homesteaders, and many did so.
Those inquiries reveal that when the three Amendments and the Civil Rights Act of 1866 were enacted between 1865 and 1870, there was no widespread consensus about the content of "civil rights," nor about which institutions of government were to enforce those rights.
Those rights, which were listed in various documents, such as the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and Justice Washington's opinion in Corfield v.
Similar sentiments were expressed frequently in the debates over the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which protected the rights of "citizens of every race and color" to make contracts, to own and convey real and personal property, and generally "to full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and property," and which eventually became the basis for the Fourteenth Amendment.
This would be a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, of Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and of most states' equal employment opportunity laws.
The Joint Committee on Reconstruction, established to investigate conditions in the South and to recommend legislation, proposed "an Act to protect all Persons in the United States in their Civil Rights, and furnish the Means of their Vindication "This Civil Rights Act of 1866 received near-unanimous support from Republicans and passed both houses of Congress.
Such was the political climate when Congress debated the application of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the Fourteenth Amendment toward Native Americans.
In Musikiwamba v ESSI, Inc, 760 F2d 740 (7th Cir 1985) the court held that because there is an over riding federal policy against unfair and arbitrary employment practices, the question is not whether the successor doctrine may be applied in claims for discrimination arising under the Civil Rights Act of 1866 (5) but when.