Reconstruction: the new amendments and what they changed
Grade 11 Social Studies Worksheet
Circle the best answer.
Read this first
The 13th Amendment, Section 1
Who made it: Congress, in a federal law or resolution. When: February 1, 1865. Where: Washington. For whom: the state legislatures and the public. Why: to propose a change to the Constitution. Excerpt (Article XIII, Section 1, Joint Resolution of Congress, February 1, 1865; Statutes at Large, vol. 13, 1865, 13 Stat. 567 (Res. No. 11); checked against Robert Desty, p. 36): "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction." Source card "The Vagrant Act, Section 5, in brief". Who made it: historians and textbooks writing today. When: today. Where: the United States. For whom: readers today. Why: to sum up what is known. Summary in our words, not a quotation: Section 5 of the Mississippi Vagrant Act says that a freedman who could not pay a fine within five days was to be hired out by the sheriff to anyone who would pay the fine and costs for the shortest period of service. An employer he already had came first and could take the amount out of his wages. If no one hired him, he could be treated as a pauper. Mississippi's law was one of several Black Codes; other Southern legislatures passed laws of their own in 1865 and 1866.
Jun reads the 13th Amendment's exception beside Section 5 of the Vagrant Act. How could a state defend hiring out a freedman who could not pay his fine?
- By treating the fine as a wage, so the labor was voluntary and paid
- By calling vagrancy a crime, so hiring out counted as punishment after conviction
- By pointing to Section 2, which lets the states enforce the ban in their courts
- By claiming the 13th Amendment did not reach the state courts of Mississippi
The Mississippi Vagrant Act, Section 2
Who made it: the Mississippi legislature, in a state law. When: November 24, 1865. Where: Mississippi. For whom: Mississippi's courts and officials. Why: to set the law on vagrancy. Note: Free negroes and mulattoes are the law's own words of 1865. Excerpt (Mississippi, the Vagrant Act, November 24, 1865, Section 2; Fleming, Documentary History of Reconstruction, vol. 1, 1906, vol. 1, pp. 284-285; checked against Albert Bushnell Hart, No. 151, pp. 479-480): "all freedmen, free negroes and mulattoes in this State, over the age of eighteen years, found on the second Monday in January, 1866, or thereafter, with no lawful employment or business, or found unlawfully assembling themselves together, either in the day or night time … shall be deemed vagrants, and on conviction thereof shall be fined … fifty dollars … and imprisoned … at the discretion of the court … not exceeding ten days" Source card "The 14th Amendment, equal protection". Who made it: Congress, in a federal law or resolution. When: June 1866. Where: Washington. For whom: the state legislatures and the public. Why: to propose a change to the Constitution. Excerpt (Article XIV, Section 1 (second sentence), Joint Resolution of Congress, June 1866; Statutes at Large, vol. 14, 1868, 14 Stat. 358 (Res. No. 48); checked against Robert Desty, p. 37): "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
After July 1868, Pia asks which clause a challenger could cite against the Vagrant Act's naming of freedmen, free negroes and mulattoes.
- The 15th Amendment, since the Act limits who may vote
- The citizenship sentence, since the Act takes away citizenship
- The equal protection clause, since the Act singles out one group of people
- No clause, since the Act was passed before the amendment and cannot be reached
Elliott on the amendments, 1874
Who made it: Robert B. Elliott, a Representative from South Carolina, speaking in the House. When: January 6, 1874. Where: Washington. For whom: the House and the public. Why: to argue for a civil rights bill. Excerpt (Speech on the Civil Rights Bill, Representative Robert B. Elliott, January 6, 1874; Congressional Record, vol. 2, 1874, p. 407 ff. (speech begins on p. 407); checked against Alice Moore Dunbar, pp. 67-89 and a third edition): "The constitution of a free government ought always to be construed in favor of human rights. Indeed, the thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth amendments, in positive words, invest Congress with the power to protect the citizen in his civil and political rights." Source card "The 13th Amendment, Section 2". Who made it: Congress, in a federal law or resolution. When: February 1, 1865. Where: Washington. For whom: the state legislatures and the public. Why: to propose a change to the Constitution. Excerpt (Article XIII, Section 2, Joint Resolution of Congress, February 1, 1865; Statutes at Large, vol. 13, 1865, 13 Stat. 567 (Res. No. 11); checked against Robert Desty, p. 37): "Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation." Source card "The 15th Amendment, Section 2". Who made it: Congress, in a federal law or resolution. When: February 1869. Where: Washington. For whom: the state legislatures and the public. Why: to propose a change to the Constitution. Excerpt (Article XV, Section 2, Joint Resolution of Congress, February 1869; Statutes at Large, vol. 15, 15 Stat. 346; checked against Robert Desty, p. 38): "The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."
Elliott says the amendments give Congress power to protect citizens. Milo checks the cards. Which words support him?
- The Reconstruction Acts, which are not amendments but laws of Congress
- Elliott's own words in the House, which settle what the amendments mean
- Section 1 of each amendment, which names the rights but gives Congress no power to act
- Their enforcement clauses, such as Section 2 of the 13th and 15th, let Congress enforce them by law
Lynch on public rights, 1875
Who made it: John R. Lynch, a Representative from Mississippi, speaking in the House. When: February 3, 1875. Where: Washington. For whom: the House and the public. Why: to argue for a civil rights bill. Excerpt (Speech on the Civil Rights Bill, Representative John R. Lynch, February 3, 1875; Congressional Record, vol. 3, 1875, February 3, 1875; checked against Alice Moore Dunbar, pp. 89-92 and a third edition): "No, Mr. Speaker, it is not social rights that we desire. We have enough of that already. What we ask is protection in the enjoyment of public rights. Rights which are or should be accorded to every citizen alike." Source card "The Civil Rights Act of 1875". Who made it: historians and textbooks writing today. When: today. Where: the United States. For whom: readers today. Why: to sum up what is known. Summary in our words, not a quotation: Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1875 on March 1, 1875, less than a month after Lynch spoke. According to the House historians, the law barred discrimination in juries, travel, and public places, but it lacked effective enforcement power. Supreme Court decisions between 1873 and 1883 steadily weakened the legal gains of Reconstruction.
Zee puts Lynch's speech of February 3, 1875 beside the Civil Rights Act of March 1. Which statement do they support?
- Lynch opposed the bill, and the Act shows that his side lost the vote
- The Act passed before Lynch spoke, and Congress wrote it to answer his speech
- Lynch asked for social rights, and the Act opened private homes to guests
- Lynch asked for public rights, and the Act barred discrimination in public places
Hiram Revels in the Senate, 1870
Who made it: historians and textbooks writing today. When: today. Where: the United States. For whom: readers today. Why: to sum up what is known. Summary in our words, not a quotation: On January 20, 1870, the Mississippi legislature elected Hiram Revels to the US Senate. Mississippi rejoined the Union on February 23, 1870. That day senators debated whether Revels had been a citizen for the nine years the Constitution asks of a senator. The Senate voted to seat him on February 25, 1870, and he became the first Black member of Congress. Source card "Citizenship before 1868, in brief". Who made it: historians and textbooks writing today. When: today. Where: the United States. For whom: readers today. Why: to sum up what is known. Summary in our words, not a quotation: In 1857 the Supreme Court ruled in the Dred Scott case that people of African descent whose ancestors were brought to the country and sold as slaves could not be citizens. The 14th Amendment, ratified on July 9, 1868, made everyone born or naturalized in the United States a citizen.
Luz reads why the Senate debated whether Revels had been a citizen for nine years. Which context explains the debate?
- The Senate wanted to bar any senator who had been chosen by a Southern legislature
- The Constitution requires nine years of residence in the state a senator represents
- Dred Scott (1857) denied Black citizenship; the 14th Amendment granted it in 1868
- The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1870, a few weeks before he was seated
Du Bois on croppers, 1903
Who made it: W. E. B. Du Bois, a historian and sociologist, writing in a book of essays. When: 1903. Where: Chicago, about Dougherty County, Georgia. For whom: general readers. Why: to describe, from his own study, how Black farmers lived. Excerpt (The Souls of Black Folk, chapter 8, "Of the Quest of the Golden Fleece"; Du Bois, The Souls of Black Folk, 1903, p. 157; checked against W. E. B. Du Bois, p. 157 and a third edition): "The croppers are entirely without capital, even in the limited sense of food or money to keep them from seed-time to harvest. All they furnish is their labor; the land-owner furnishes land, stock, tools, seed, and house; and at the end of the year the laborer gets from a third to a half of the crop. Out of his share, however, comes pay and interest for food and clothing advanced him during the year. Thus we have a laborer without capital and without wages, and an employer whose capital is largely his employees’ wages."
Noah reads Du Bois's description of croppers. What does the card's place line mean for how far it applies?
- It describes the Georgia Black Belt as a whole, since Dougherty County lay inside it
- It describes the year 1903 alone and says nothing about the years before
- He studied Dougherty County, Georgia, so it cannot speak for the whole South
- It describes Southern farm families in 1903 in general, since he wrote a whole book
The Vagrant Act, Section 5, in brief
Who made it: historians and textbooks writing today. When: today. Where: the United States. For whom: readers today. Why: to sum up what is known. Summary in our words, not a quotation: Section 5 of the Mississippi Vagrant Act says that a freedman who could not pay a fine within five days was to be hired out by the sheriff to anyone who would pay the fine and costs for the shortest period of service. An employer he already had came first and could take the amount out of his wages. If no one hired him, he could be treated as a pauper. Mississippi's law was one of several Black Codes; other Southern legislatures passed laws of their own in 1865 and 1866.
A freedman fined under the Vagrant Act cannot pay in five days, but he already has an employer. Ren reads Section 5. Who has first claim?
- The court, which releases him at once and cancels the fine without payment
- Whoever offers to pay the fine and costs for the longest period of service
- The sheriff, who hires him out to the highest bidder for the longest term
- The employer he already had, who could take the amount out of his wages
The Reconstruction Acts, in brief
Who made it: historians and textbooks writing today. When: today. Where: the United States. For whom: readers today. Why: to sum up what is known. Summary in our words, not a quotation: The First Reconstruction Act passed over President Johnson's veto on March 2, 1867. It divided ten former Confederate states into five military districts, each under an army officer. Under the Reconstruction Acts, a state that wanted its seats in Congress back had to ratify the 14th Amendment, approve a new state constitution, and ensure Black men could vote. Who gained: Black men, who won the vote. Who lost: the state governments set up under Johnson's plan, which the Act called not legal. Data card "Black members of Congress, 41st to 43rd Congresses". Columns: Congress (years); Representatives; Senators. 41st (1869-1871): 2 Representatives, 1 Senators. 42nd (1871-1873): 5 Representatives, 0 Senators. 43rd (1873-1875): 7 Representatives, 0 Senators. Data: US House of Representatives, History, Art and Archives, Black Americans in Congress, "Black-American Representatives and Senators by Congress" (read Nov 11, 2026). A Member who served part of a Congress is counted.
The Reconstruction Acts required states to let Black men vote. Tala reads the congress table. Which conclusion do the cards support?
- White voters accepted Black voting, since Black members were elected in each of the three Congresses
- Black members won most of the House seats by 1875, as the table plainly shows
- Black representation grew after the Acts, but the table does not show the cause
- The Acts clearly caused the growth shown, since the growth came after them
The end of Reconstruction, in brief
Who made it: historians and textbooks writing today. When: today. Where: the United States. For whom: readers today. Why: to sum up what is known. Summary in our words, not a quotation: After the 1876 election, Congress set up a special commission, which gave the disputed electoral votes to Rutherford B. Hayes, who won by a single electoral vote. Hayes reduced the number of federal troops in the South and did little to protect Black Americans' rights. By 1877 Democrats had regained control of Southern state governments. Who gained: Southern officials who opposed Reconstruction. Who lost: Black voters and the Republican officeholders they had elected.
Esme reads the card on the end of Reconstruction. Which statement goes beyond what the card says?
- A special commission gave the disputed electoral votes to Hayes, who won by one vote
- Hayes struck a bargain with Democrats to pull out troops in return for the presidency
- By 1877 Democrats had regained control of Southern state governments, the card says
- Hayes reduced the number of federal troops in the South and did little to protect Black rights
The Civil Rights Act of 1875
Who made it: historians and textbooks writing today. When: today. Where: the United States. For whom: readers today. Why: to sum up what is known. Summary in our words, not a quotation: Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1875 on March 1, 1875, less than a month after Lynch spoke. According to the House historians, the law barred discrimination in juries, travel, and public places, but it lacked effective enforcement power. Supreme Court decisions between 1873 and 1883 steadily weakened the legal gains of Reconstruction.
The card says the Civil Rights Act of 1875 lacked effective enforcement power. What does that suggest Ari should check about any law?
- Whether the law gives anyone the means to enforce it, not just whether it passed
- Whether the president signed it, since signing guarantees enforcement
- Whether the law passed by a large majority, since that decides its force
- Whether the law is long, since a longer law is enforced more widely