This provision prevents anyone from holding office who swore a loyalty oath to the Constitution and subsequently engaged in "insurrection or rebellion” or gave "aid or comfort" to enemies of the United States. A key Reconstruction measure, the removal of the right to hold office — deemed a “political disability” — was designed to prevent disloyal former Confederates from controlling post-war southern governments.
However - there was a loophole. The Amendment also says that if 2/3rds of both houses of Congress approve, a person’s “political disabilities” can be removed. Although the clause was intended for exceptional situations, between 1868 and 1872, four to six thousand former Confederates used congressional petitions to forge a pathway back to power.
This paper argues that in these petitions, formerly disloyal Confederate men (and at least one woman) sought to demonstrate they could safely govern. Through their language, arguments, and claims, these Southerners justified their past actions during the war, explained their feelings about their connection to the nation (sometimes noting the internal contradictions between the two), and generally sought to persuade sufficient numbers of Congressmen to support their requests. Using this petition process, former Confederates redefined themselves as loyal and, therefore, legitimate American citizens of the reconstructed post-war democracy. Simultaneously, they grappled with the meaning of loyalty, shared their perspectives on what rights all citizens should have, and signaled their intentions to behave as "good," loyal Americans in the future. By the mid-1870s, enough former Confederates had had their “political disabilities” removed that they could regain control over the southern governments after Reconstruction’s end.
Ultimately, understanding how former “insurrectionists” defined loyal citizenship can provide a critical context for thinking about the newly relevant third section of the Fourteenth Amendment.
See more of: AHA Sessions