History Podcasts

Lyman Trumbull

Lyman Trumbull

Lyman Trumbull was born in Colchester, Connecticut on 12th October, 1813. After attending Bacon Academy he worked as a school teacher in Connecticut (1829-1833).

Trumbull studied law and after being admitted to the bar worked as a lawyer in Belleville, Illinois. A member of the Democratic Party, Trumbull served in the state legislature (1840-41), secretary of State of Illinois (1841-43) and a justice of the supreme court of Illinois (1848-53).

An opponent of slavery Trumbull joined the Republican Party before being elected to Congress in 1854. During the presidency of Andrew Johnson Trumbull was associated with the Radical Republicans.

After the outbreak of the American Civil War Trumbull introduced a Confiscation Act that was passed by Congress that enabled the Union Army to free slaves in Confederate territory. However, the law provided no enforcement mechanism and was ineffective.

In July, 1861, Trumbull was a member of a group of politicians, including Benjamin Wade, James Grimes, and Zachariah Chandler, who witnessed the Battle of Bull Run. The battle was a disaster for the Union forces and at one stage Trumbull came close to being captured by the Confederate Army. After arriving back in Washington, Trumbull was one of those who led the attack on the incompetence of the leadership of the Union Army.

Trumbull was a leading supporter of the Civil Rights Bill that was designed to protect freed slaves from Southern Black Codes (laws that placed severe restrictions on freed slaves such as prohibiting their right to vote, forbidding them to sit on juries, limiting their right to testify against white men, carrying weapons in public places and working in certain occupations).

When Andrew Johnson vetoed the Civil Rights Bill in March, 1866, Trumbull made an impassioned speech against the president. However, he doubted the legality of trying to impeach Johnson and voted against the measure.

In 1872 Trumbull supported the more radical Horace Greeley against the official Republican Party candidate, Ulysses S. Grant. After leaving the Senate in March, 1873 Trumbull returned to work as a lawyer in Chicago. He remained active in politics and in 1880 was unsuccessful bid for the post of Governor of Illinois. Lyman Trumbull died in Chicago on 25th June, 1896.

Hundreds of Republicans who believed that their sons and relatives were being sacrificed to the incompetency, indisposition or treason of pro-slavery Democratic generals, were unwilling to sustain the administration which allowed this. I felt myself that it was an uphill business to attempt to sustain the administration.

The bill in effect proposes a discrimination against large numbers of intelligent, worthy, and patriotic foreigners, and in favor of the Negro, to whom, after long years of bondage, the avenues to freedom and intelligence have just now been suddenly opened. He must, of necessity, from his previous unfortunate condition of servitude, be less informed as to the nature and character of our institutions than he who, coming from abroad, has to some extent at least, familiarized himself with the principles of a government to which he voluntarily entrusts "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

The bill neither confers nor abridges the rights of anyone but simply declares that in civil rights there shall be equality among all classes of citizens and that all alike shall be subject to the same punishment. Each state, so that it does not abridge the great fundamental rights belonging, under the Constitution, to all citizens, may grant or withhold such civil rights as it pleases; all that is required is that, in this respect, its laws shall be impartial. And yet this is the bill now returned with the President's objections.

Whatever may have been the opinion of the President at one time as to "good faith requiring the security of the freemen in their liberty and their property," it is now manifest from the character of his objections to this bill that he will approve no measures that will accomplish the object.


Lyman Trumbull Elementary School Celebrates 100 years

One hundred years ago, Chicago&rsquos rapid population growth necessitated the construction of additional schools. In the Edgewater section of Lakeview, the Andersonville school had seriously deteriorated and residents were calling for something to be done for the education of their children. This was the progressive era, when concerned social and civic activists worked to improve living conditions for the city&rsquos residents. Public schools were to be designed to provide an appealing physical environment that would promote learning. Chicago&rsquos Board of Education was in tune with the times and, in 1905, the board members appointed Dwight H. Perkins as its chief architect.

Mr. Perkins had been associated with the firm of Burnham and Root during the construction of the World&rsquos Columbian Exposition. He also designed the Steinway Building in the Loop and set up offices there. This became a gathering place for what was to become the Chicago Architectural Club. This group articulated what was to become modern American architecture in the twentieth century.

As chief architect for the Chicago schools, Perkins and his associates presented planning innovations and designs that were incorporated into the schools that were built between 1907 and 1910. Trumbull School is one of those. Trumbull was constructed in 1908 and the cornerstone laid, but the building did not open for students until 1909.

The school was named for Lyman Trumbull, a Senator and statesman from Illinois who served the people of Illinois in various capacities from 1840 until 1873. In the period of the Civil War he was associated with Abraham Lincoln and campaigned for him. Later, as a Senator and Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, he introduced the resolution that was to become the 13th Amendment to the Constitution, which abolished slavery. After his retirement from the Senate in 1873, he continued to practice law in Chicago. He became a public figure again in 1894 when he spoke out against the privileges of the rich and the exploitation of the poor.

The School building is distinctive because of the strong massing of it design. The façade facing Foster Avenue shows this in the massive column shapes on either side of the entrance. The recessed entrance and vertical windows above are crossed by the massive entablature at the roof line. The massing and vertical design is contrasted by the bands of light and dark brick which alternate on the sides of the building above the single colored brick base. The building shows the influence of the Prairie School of design and it is interesting to note that Dwight Perkins was related to Marion Mahoney, who worked with Frank Lloyd Wright.

Trumbull&rsquos internal structure is designed around a central core &ndash its auditorium. While a beautiful geometric pattern presently adorns the three story ceiling, the original design incorporated a glass paneled dome to allow for natural light in both the auditorium and third and fourth floor classrooms. This was altered in the 1950s when maintenance became an issue. The interior renovation of the school began in 2001. The exterior renovation of the school began in 2003 under the direction of Principal Robert Wilkin. The school has been prepared to complete its 100th year and begin its second century.

The first Principal of Trumbull was Miss Helen Ryan. She had served as the first Principal of Drummond School. She was in charge when the plan for Trumbull had to be expanded because of the rapid increase in families in the area after the first building was opened in 1909. The addition, which is in the same style as the original building, added nine classrooms to the site in 1912.

Miss Ryan retired in 1926 to her home in Lake Forest. Mr. Bache, her successor, paid her a compliment when he took over saying &ldquoI have never seen a school so perfectly organized, in fact there seems to be nothing left for me to do.&rdquo His stay at Trumbull was short &ndash only three years. He left to become the head of Vocational schools for the Board and later a district Superintendent.

Mr. Bache was replaced by &ldquoa dainty little lady,&rdquo Miss Carrie Patterson, who came from the Bancroft School. She was a graduate of Vassar and a member of Phi Beta Kappa. Miss Patterson retired in 1935 and passed away in 1939. Her replacement was Mr. Ross Herr. He had come from Chicago Normal School, a teacher preparation school where he had been employed since 1923. He directed the school until 1949.

In 1949, Mr. Frank Culhane took the helm and, by all accounts, ran a wonderful school. In his years the school was known for a strong interest in the arts and the halls and classroom were full of art work. In 1959 Arthur Fitzgerald replace Mr. Culhane. He served until 1970.

The next principal was Yakia Korey, who is well remembered for a long period of service from 1970 to 1987. In 1987 Merle Davis took the helm of Trumbull and served until 1989. Peggy Little followed from 1990 until her retirement in 1998.

The current Principal, Robert Wilkin, was named to that position in 2001. During his years of service the school has had many physical facilities improvements. Wilkin has also been actively seeking new programs at the school to further science education.

Trumbull School and its students have had many benefits over the 100 years as a Chicago Public School. If you are an alum we encourage you to stop by exhibit.

The Trumbull School Exhibit at the Edgewater Historical Society Museum could not have been put together without the help of Richard Seidel of the Archive Department of the Chicago Public Schools. Thanks also to Larry Rosen, Marty Schaffrath, Cynthia Coca, Judy Ring Kinker, Vivian Haberkom and Leroy Blommaert. In addition to photos and report cards, the exhibit also includes old text books from Florence Johnson, who attended Trumbull, and old publications from the Frances Posner archive.


Lyman Trumbull papers

The papers of Lyman Trumbull consist of microfilm containing letters received, with a few drafts or copies of replies. Organized chronologically, the collection is dated 1843-1894, but only two documents fall outside the period of his service in the U.S. Senate. The years 1868-1871 are scantily represented.

A few documents are related to Trumbull’s law practice and business ventures, but the papers are essentially political in nature. There is much material concerning the elections of 1856, 1860, 1866, and 1872. While Illinois state politics is a dominant theme and the majority of correspondents are from that state, many of the papers are related to national issues. Among the subjects with which the correspondence is concerned are appointments and patronage, the Kansas-Nebraska bill, secession, the Civil War, Reconstruction and the Civil Rights bill, and the Liberal Republican movement of 1872. There is little material relating to the impeachment of Andrew Johnson.

Among the corespondents are William H. Bissell, Montgomery Blair, Orville Hickman Browning, John Dean Caton, Zachariah Chandler, Salmon P. Chase, Shelby M. Cullom, David Davis, Mark W. Delahay, Jesse Kilgore Dubois, Jesse W. Fell, David Dudley Field, James W. Grimes, Hannibal Hamlin, James Harlan, Ozias M. Hatch, William Henry Herndon, Stephen Augustus Hurlbut, Norman B. Judd, Gustave Phillip Koerner, John A. McClernand, Joseph Medill, Richard J. Oglesby, John M. Palmer, Charles Henry Ray, Horace White, and Richard Yates.


Lyman Trumbull

A native of Connecticut, Trumbull arrived in Belleville in 1837 to practice law. He successfully challenged the last legal justification for slavery in Illinois. Before moving from town in 1848, he entered politics, serving a term in the Illinois House and twice becoming Secretary of State. Subsequently he would serve on the Illinois Supreme Court before becoming a US Senator, defeating, among others, Abraham Lincoln. He was a founder of the Illinois Republican Party. When in the US Senate he was a major force behind the adoption of the 13th Amendment to the Constitution, which abolished slavery in the United States.

Erected 2014 by Belleville Historical Society.

Topics. This historical marker is listed in this topic list: Abolition & Underground RR.

Location. 38° 30.828′ N, 89° 59.068′ W. Marker is in Belleville, Illinois, in St. Clair County. Marker is at the intersection of West Main Street and North Illinois Street (Illinois Route 159), on the right when traveling west on West Main Street. Marker is in front of the St. Clair Annex building, with other Belleville Walk of Fame plaques at the northwest quadrant of Belleville Public Square. Touch for map. Marker is at or near this postal address: 23 Public Square, Belleville IL 62220, United States of America. Touch for directions.

Other nearby markers. At least 8 other markers are within walking

distance of this marker. Gustavus P. Koerner/Sophia Engelmann Koerner (here, next to this marker) Edward A. Daley (here, next to this marker) Ninian Edwards (here, next to this marker) Les Mueller (here, next to this marker) George Blair (here, next to this marker) Julius Liese (here, next to this marker) Robert "Bob" Goalby (here, next to this marker) Theodor Erasmus Hilgard (here, next to this marker). Touch for a list and map of all markers in Belleville.

More about this marker. Trumbull was one of five inaugural inductees into Belleville's Walk of Fame. 2014 was the year the city of Belleville celebrated its bicentennial, and the local historical society decided to start a Walk of Fame at the northwest quadrant of Belleville Public Square. (The other inaugural inductees were Bob Goalby, Ninian Edwards, George Blair and Christian "Buddy" Ebsen.)

Also see . . . Lyman Trumbull on Wikipedia. Gives a much detailed look at his career in law, especially as a judge. However, very little about his life in Belleville is told. (Submitted on July 21, 2020, by Jason Voigt of Glen Carbon, Illinois.)


Contents

The author of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 was United States Senator Lyman Trumbull. [3] Congressman James F. Wilson summarized what he considered to be the purpose of the act as follows, when he introduced the legislation in the House of Representatives: [4]

It provides for the equality of citizens of the United States in the enjoyment of "civil rights and immunities." What do these terms mean? Do they mean that in all things civil, social, political, all citizens, without distinction of race or color, shall be equal? By no means can they be so construed. Do they mean that all citizens shall vote in the several States? No for suffrage is a political right which has been left under the control of the several States, subject to the action of Congress only when it becomes necessary to enforce the guarantee of a republican form of government (protection against a monarchy). Nor do they mean that all citizens shall sit on the juries, or that their children shall attend the same schools. The definition given to the term "civil rights" in Bouvier's Law Dictionary is very concise, and is supported by the best authority. It is this: "Civil rights are those which have no relation to the establishment, support, or management of government."

During the subsequent legislative process, the following key provision was deleted: "there shall be no discrimination in civil rights or immunities among the inhabitants of any State or Territory of the United States on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude." John Bingham was an influential supporter of this deletion, on the ground that courts might construe the term "civil rights" more broadly than people like Wilson intended. [5] Weeks later, Senator Trumbull described the bill's intended scope: [6]

This bill in no manner interferes with the municipal regulations of any State which protects all alike in their rights of person and property. It could have no operation in Massachusetts, New York, Illinois, or most of the States of the Union.

On April 5, 1866, the Senate overrode President Andrew Johnson's veto. This marked the first time that the U.S. Congress ever overrode a presidential veto for a major piece of legislation. [7]

With an incipit of "An Act to protect all Persons in the United States in their Civil Rights, and furnish the Means of their vindication", the act declared that all people born in the United States who are not subject to any foreign power are entitled to be citizens, without regard to race, color, or previous condition of slavery or involuntary servitude. [2] A similar provision (called the Citizenship Clause) was written a few months later into the proposed Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. [ citation needed ]

The Civil Rights Act of 1866 also said that any citizen has the same right that a white citizen has to make and enforce contracts, sue and be sued, give evidence in court, and inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property. Additionally, the act guaranteed to all citizens the "full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and property, as is enjoyed by white citizens, and . like punishment, pains, and penalties. " Persons who denied these rights on account of race or previous enslavement were guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction faced a fine not exceeding $1,000, or imprisonment not exceeding one year, or both. [ citation needed ]

The act used language very similar to that of the Equal Protection Clause in the newly proposed Fourteenth Amendment. In particular, the act discussed the need to provide "reasonable protection to all persons in their constitutional rights of equality before the law, without distinction of race or color, or previous condition of slavery or involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted. . " [2]

This statute was a major part of general federal policy during Reconstruction, and was closely related to the Second Freedmen's Bureau Act of 1866. According to Congressman John Bingham, "the seventh and eighth sections of the Freedmen's Bureau bill enumerate the same rights and all the rights and privileges that are enumerated in the first section of this [the Civil Rights] bill." [8]

Parts of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 are enforceable into the 21st century, [9] according to the United States Code: [10]

All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exactions of every kind, and to no other.

One section of the United States Code (42 U.S.C. §1981), is §1 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 as revised and amended by subsequent Acts of Congress. The Civil Rights Act of 1866 was reenacted by the Enforcement Act of 1870, ch. 114, § 18, 16 Stat. 144, codified as sections 1977 and 1978 of the Revised Statutes of 1874, and appears now as 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981–82 (1970). Section 2 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, as subsequently revised and amended, appears in the US Code at 18 U.S.C. §242. After the fourteenth amendment became effective, the 1866 Act was reenacted as an addendum to the Enforcement Act of 1870 in order to dispel any possible doubt as to its constitutionality. Act of May 31, 1870, ch. 114, § 18, 16 Stat. 144. [11]

Senator Lyman Trumbull was the Senate sponsor of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, and he argued that Congress had power to enact it in order to eliminate a discriminatory "badge of servitude" prohibited by the Thirteenth Amendment. [12] Congressman John Bingham, principal author of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment, was one of several Republicans who believed (prior to that Amendment) that Congress lacked power to pass the 1866 Act. [13] In the 20th century, the U.S. Supreme Court ultimately adopted Trumbull's Thirteenth Amendment rationale for congressional power to ban racial discrimination by states and by private parties, in view of the fact that the Thirteenth Amendment does not require a state actor. [12]

To the extent that the Civil Rights Act of 1866 may have been intended to go beyond preventing discrimination, by conferring particular rights on all citizens, the constitutional power of Congress to do that was more questionable. For example, Representative William Lawrence argued that Congress had power to enact the statute because of the Privileges and Immunities Clause in Article IV of the original unamended Constitution, even though courts had suggested otherwise. [14]

In any event, there is currently no consensus that the language of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 actually purports to confer any legal benefits upon white citizens. [15] Representative Samuel Shellabarger said that it did not. [16] [17]

After enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 by overriding a presidential veto, [18] [19] some members of Congress supported the Fourteenth Amendment in order to eliminate doubts about the constitutionality of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, [20] or to ensure that no subsequent Congress could later repeal or alter the main provisions of that Act. [21] Thus, the Citizenship Clause in the Fourteenth Amendment parallels citizenship language in the Civil Rights Act of 1866, and likewise the Equal Protection Clause parallels nondiscrimination language in the 1866 Act the extent to which other clauses in the Fourteenth Amendment may have incorporated elements of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 is a matter of continuing debate. [22]

Ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment was completed in 1868, 2 years after, the 1866 Act was reenacted, as Section 18 of the Enforcement Act of 1870. [ citation needed ]

The activities of groups such as the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) undermined the act, meaning that it failed to immediately secure the civil rights of African Americans. [ citation needed ]

While it has been de jure illegal in the U.S. to discriminate in employment and housing on the basis of race since 1866, federal penalties were not provided for until the second half of the 20th century (with the passage of related civil rights legislation), which meant remedies were left to the individuals involved: because those being discriminated against had limited or no access to legal assistance, this often left many victims of discrimination without recourse. [ citation needed ]

There have been an increasing number of remedies provided under this act since the second half of the 20th century, including the landmark Jones v. Mayer and Sullivan v. Little Hunting Park, Inc. decisions in 1968. [23]


Lyman Trumbull - History

Lyman Trumbull was born in Colchester, Connecticut, on October 12, 1813. His parents were Benjamin Trumbull and Elizabeth Mather, and Lyman had at least two brothers: Benjamin, Jr., and George. After receiving his education at the local Bacon Academy, Trumbull went to Georgia to seek employment as a schoolteacher. During this time, he began to study law and after moving to Belleville, Illinois, in 1837, he began his work in the legal profession. By 1840, Trumbull had established his own local practice. He was elected that year to the Illinois state legislature as a Democrat, though he soon moved on, replacing Stephen Douglas as Illinois secretary of state he served in that capacity from 1841 until his resignation in 1843. In 1848, after an unsuccessful run for the United States House of Representatives in the election of 1846, Trumbull became a judge for the Illinois Supreme Court, where he served until 1855.

In 1855 Trumbull began his congressional career, using his outrage over the Kansas-Nebraska act to gain the support of a faction of the split Democratic Party, and winning the election for United States senator for the state of Illinois, besting a group of challengers that included Abraham Lincoln. During his time in congress, Trumbull became an outspoken opponent of slavery, and in 1857 left the Democratic Party for the nascent Republican Party. He gained notoriety as a fervent opponent of Stephen A. Douglas on the in Kansas-Nebraska issue, and supported the efforts of Abraham Lincoln and the Union cause during the Civil War. After the war, Trumbull continued to be a prominent voice in the government, authoring the final draft of the Thirteenth Amendment, but began to drift away from prevailing sentiments within the Republican Party. Trumbull was one of a handful of Republican senators who voted to acquit Andrew Johnson during his impeachment trial, and briefly considered, but ultimately abandoned, a run for the Presidency in 1872. In 1873, on the expiration of his term, Trumbull left the Senate and returned to Illinois to practice law in Chicago, where his family had remained throughout the war. Trumbull died on June 25, 1896.

Lyman Trumbull had two wives, the first of which was Julia M. Jayne (1824-1868) of Springfield, Illinois, whom he married on June 21, 1843. Julia, whose ancestors were from Massachusetts, had been a bridesmaid for the wedding of Abraham and Mary Todd Lincoln. She died in 1868. The couple had three surviving sons: Walter (1846-1891), Perry (c. 1841-1902), and Henry. Walter married Hannah Mather Slater in 1876, and had two surviving sons: Walter S. (b. 1879) and Charles L. (b. 1884). Perry married Mary Caroline Peck in 1879 they had four children: Julia, Edward, Charles, and Selden.

In 1877, Trumbull married his cousin, Mary Jane Ingraham (1843-1914), the daughter of Almira Mather Ingraham and John D. Ingraham of Saybrook, Connecticut. Lyman and Mary also had two daughters, neither of whom survived to adulthood: Mae (1878-1884) and Alma (1883-1894).

Mary's mother, Almira W. Mather (1823-1908), was descended from the New York Mather family, and had at least one brother, Samuel Rogers Selden Mather. Her husband, John Dickinson Ingraham, was a sailor the couple had four children: John Dickinson Ingraham, Jr. (1839-1875), Mary Jane (who married Lyman Trumbull), Annie Elizabeth (1847-1865), and Julia Trumbull (1853-1918). John D. Ingraham, Jr., was a sailor like his father, and served in the navy during the Civil War. Julia married George S. Rankin (1845-1892), who was also a mariner, and the two had at least one daughter Annie, who died in childhood. The couple lived in Saybrook, Connecticut.

  • Trumbull Family Letters
    • Lyman Trumbull Miscellaneous letters (1838-1895)
    • Lyman Trumbull to Julia Trumbull (1844-1855)
    • Julia Trumbull to Lyman Trumbull (1860-1866)
    • Lyman Trumbull to Mary Ingraham Trumbull (1869-1884)
    • Letters to Mary Ingraham Trumbull (1859-1914)
    • Miscellaneous Trumbull family letters (1850-1903)
    • Julia Ingraham and George Rankin letters (1868-1899)
    • Miscellaneous Ingraham family letters (1824-1913)
    • The Annie Ingraham school report book (1860-1864) of various reports from the author's time at school, with a number of personal inscriptions and reminiscences in the back.
    • The John D. and Annie Ingraham journal (1853 1859) is 2 pages of journal writing from John D. Ingraham and one page of journal writing by his daughter Annie.
    • The Mrs. John D. Ingraham diary (1900) has entries for the first half of 1900, which focus primarily on family visits and daily life in Saybrook, Connecticut. The diary also includes a page of accounts, several loose pages of additional entries, and letters addressed to the author.
    • The Julia Ingraham autograph book (1866-1892) contains autographs from various acquaintances around Saybrook Sound, Connecticut.
    • The Julia Ingraham Rankin journal and commonplace book (1883-1890) primarily documents family life in Saybrook, Connecticut, and includes entries on poetry, copied excerpts, and inserted clippings.
    • The Mary J. Trumbull diary (1887-1890) documents daily life and has approximately 17 items inserted, including several letters, newspaper clippings, and ephemera.
    • The Julia Ingraham Rankin notes on Shakespeare (1892) consists of various personal notes and thoughts compiled from various works of Shakespeare, including some of his most famous plays, such as "Romeo and Juliet."
    • The [Julia Rankin] notebook (1911-1914) contents primarily consist of academic essays on a variety of topics, readings, and lectures. Laid in the book were a large number of manuscript poems, many attributed to other authors, and four newspaper clippings. One clipping contains a poem dedicated to "La Grippe," written by John Howard, M. D.
    • Several people in front of Vose & Co. Hardware Store
    • A portrait of two girls
    • Two small, individual photographs of babies
    • Three children waving American flags
    • A woman in a garden
    • A woman accompanied by a dog
    • William W. Patton photograph album
    • Astrology--History.
    • Chicago (Ill.)--History.
    • Deep River (Conn. : Town)
    • Families--United States--History.
    • Illinois--History--1865-.
    • Shakespeare, William, 1564-1616--Study and teaching.
    • United States. Congress--History--19th century.
    • United States--History--1865-1898.
    • United States--History--Civil War, 1861-1865--Social aspects.
    • Women--Education--United States.
    • Alps Region.
    • Christian art.
    • Egyptians.
    • Landscapes.
    • Statues.
    • Switzerland.
    • Turks.
    • Ingraham, Almira Mather.
    • Ingraham, Annie Elizabeth, 1847-1865.
    • Ingraham, John Dickinson, Jr., 1839-1875.
    • Ingraham, Julia, 1853-1918.
    • Lincoln, Robert Todd, 1843-1926.
    • Mather, Samuel Rogers Selden.
    • Rankin, George, 1845-1892.
    • Trumbull, Julia Jayne, 1824-1868.
    • Trumbull, Lyman, 1813-1896.
    • Trumbull, Walter.
    • Uhlhorn, John Frederick.
    • Autograph albums.
    • Billfolds.
    • Card photographs.
    • Cartes-de-visite (card photographs)
    • Diaries.
    • Flowers (plants)
    • Invitations.
    • Letters (correspondence)
    • Photograph albums.
    • Photographs.
    • Poems.
    • Powers of attorney.
    • Prints (visual works)
    • Recipes.
    • Receipts (financial records)
    • Speeches.
    • Studio portraits.
    • Visiting cards.
    • Watercolors (paintings)
    Correspondence [series]

    The Correspondence series is arranged into series and subseries based on family and author/recipient, respectively.

    Alternate Locations

    A photograph album is housed in the Graphics Division.

    Related Materials

    The William Dickson papers include two items about Lyman Trumbull.

    The Handy papers contain an item addressed to Lyman Trumbull.

    The Library of Congress holds a substantial collection of Lyman Trumbull's official correspondence.

    Bibliography

    White, Horace. The Life of Lyman Trumbull. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1913.

    Whittlesey, Charles Barney. Genealogy of the Whittlesey-Whittelsey Family. 2nd Ed. McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1941.

    Contact Us

    William L. Clements Library
    909 S. University Ave
    Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1190

    Hours and Directions

    To report technical errors, please contact Library Information Technology


    Birthright Citizenship: Who Gets to Be an American

    On January 5, 1866, Trumbull introduced S-61, a bill to grant citizenship to all freed slaves born in the United States. He expected Congress to pass this bill, formally known as “An Act to protect all Persons in the United States in their Civil Rights, and furnish the Means of their Vindication,” and President Andrew Johnson to sign it into law.

    However, citizenship proved a more divisive issue than Trumbull had envisioned, and in a controversy with echoes into the present, Congress spent months heatedly debating who deserves to be an American.

    Initially, the concept of American citizenship was unsettled. Foreign-born immigrants became citizens by naturalization, a process the first Congress codified in 1790 that was limited to white persons and activated only after a five-year wait. Immigrants’ children born in

    Supreme Court Chief Justice Roger B. Taney called blacks “an inferior order” with “no rights a white man was bound to respect.”

    the United States, however, enjoyed citizenship by virtue of jus soli, “right of the soil,” regardless of parental nationality. Jus soli, also called birthright citizenship, had originated in England and had emigrated to the colonies with the first settlers from that nation. Still, the issue was not clear-cut, since neither the Constitution nor any statute expressly recognized or defined birthright citizenship. Jus soli was assumed to be the law, its theoretical and practical contours vague.

    The United States was a nation of immigrants, and in the early 1800s its borders were open, with entry unrestricted. America needed hands to farm, backs to toil in factories, and pioneers to settle the West. By 1860, the population was 31.4 million, including 4.1 million foreign-born residents. Since Day One, European immigrants had come mostly by choice—except those Britain had transported as punishment. Most Americans of African descent had had no choice, arriving as they or their antecedents had in shackles as chattel. By 1860, the slave population of the United States of America had reached 3.9 million, mostly native-born.

    Between 1820 and 1860 tentative streams from Ireland and other European countries began what would become an immigrant tide, causing xenophobia among so-called nativists to surge. These descendants of immigrants formed the anti-immigrant American Party, or Know-Nothings—if queried about the party, members were instructed to say they knew nothing—whose 1856 platform proclaimed that “Americans must rule America.” That year, the party’s presidential candidate, former chief executive Millard Fillmore, won 21.5 percent of the popular vote. Xenophobia was not universal. As of 1861, five states—Indiana, Kansas, Michigan, Oregon, and Wisconsin—allowed non-citizens to vote. In 1862, the Homestead Act, implemented to settle portions of the West, allowed foreigners stating their intent to become citizens to take possession of publicly offered land.

    The issue of birthright citizenship had reached the Supreme Court in 1857. Dred Scott, a slave born in Virginia, had sued his owner for his freedom in federal court after the planter brought Scott to a non-slave state. The owner, a U.S. Army surgeon, had taken Scott for several

    When Dred Scott sued for his freedom, central to his case was the principle that a citizen of one state could sue a citizen of another state in federal court. Taney’s ruling denied Scott, and all African Americans, citizenship. (Granger, NYC)

    years to the free state of Illinois and the free territory of Wisconsin before returning the slave and his family to the South. Scott needed to establish jurisdiction before the courts would consider his case he invoked diversity jurisdiction, which allows a citizen of one state to sue a citizen of another in federal court. Citizenship seemed to be a given for the American-born Scott, but the Supreme Court disagreed, closing the courthouse door by holding that African-Americans were not citizens. Writing for the seven-justice majority, Chief Justice Roger B. Taney called blacks “beings of an inferior order” with “no rights which the white man was bound to respect.” Advocates of slavery rejoiced. Foes mourned. Enmity between North and South deepened.

    During the Civil War, immigrants and African-Americans rallied to the flag. More than 500,000 foreign-born men—some naturalized, some non-citizens—and nearly 200,000 African-Americans fought for the Union. After the war, the 39th Congress faced the task of reunifying the country and eradicating bondage and its vestiges. On December 6, 1865, Georgia became the 27th state to ratify the 13th Amendment, and slavery was outlawed. The next step was establishing citizenship for the formerly enslaved. Importation of slaves had ended in 1807 most freedmen of the day had been born in the United States. The Scott decision flatly denied them citizenship. Nullifying that ruling would be politically astute for the Republicans controlling Congress. Citizenship begat suffrage and GOP leaders expected that African-Americans would embrace the political party that had freed them.

    Trumbull, 52, was point man on the citizenship drive. A moderate elected to the Senate in 1854, he had chaired the powerful Senate Judiciary Committee since 1861.

    The Illinois Republican was well-respected but aloof, lacking “the warmth of temperament calculated to win personal friendship,” a contemporary noted. The slim, 5’10’ Trumbull bore “a cast of countenance which marks the man of thought” and was a “clear and cogent reasoner” but not “gifted with personal ‘magnetism.’”

    Trumbull may have seen citizenship for freed slaves as a matter of fairness, but he was a white man of his age. “Among the strongest anti-slavery champions in the West” and known in his lawyering days for representing slaves suing for freedom, he had as a senator drafted the 13th Amendment. Even so, in an 1858 speech, he had declared, “I want to have nothing to do either with the free negro or the slave negro.”

    Introduced on January 5, 1866, Trumbull’s bill, now known as the Civil Rights Act of 1866, initially sought to make birthright citizens of “persons of African descent born in the United States.” Trumbull soon realized his bill’s language was too restrictive, implying as it did that only African-Americans qualified for jus soli. On January 30, 1866, he submitted a rewrite to cover “(a)ll persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign Power.”

    Trumbull’s revised bill codified the long-held belief that children born in the United States were American citizens. “As a matter of law, does anyone deny here or anywhere that the native born is a citizen, and a citizen by virtue of his birth alone?” asked Senator Lot M. Morrill (R-Maine). Officially recognizing that principle, however, had wider implications, and officials worried about the bill’s reach.

    Would enactment of the bill make citizens of “the children of Chinese and Gypsies born in this country?” asked Senator Edgar Cowan (R-Pennsylvania). “Undoubtedly,” Trumbull replied. Cowan angrily predicted that “the day may not be very far distant when California, instead of belonging to the Indo-European race, may belong to the Mongolian…” The very idea of granting non-whites citizenship outraged Senator Garrett Davis, a Unionist from Kentucky. Defining the American nation as a “Government and a political organization of white people,” Davis asserted that when “a negro or Chinaman is attempted to be obtruded into it, the sufficient cause to repel him is that he is a negro or Chinaman.” Senator Peter G. Van Winkle, a West Virginia Unionist, feared immigrants “whose mixture with our race…could only tend to the deterioration of the mass.” Van Winkle worried that the bill’s language was broad enough to cover “a future immigration to this country of which we have no conception.”

    Representative James F. Wilson (R-Iowa) insisted the bill’s reach was not unlimited. According to Wilson, that reach excluded “children born on our soil to temporary sojourners,” a remote issue, since owing to travel cost and time, most who came to America came to stay.

    The outcome was never in doubt. Republicans enjoyed a healthy majority in both houses, and the former Confederate states had not yet regained representation in Congress. On February 2, 1866, the Senate passed the bill 33-12. On March 13, 1866, the House approved 111-38. The Civil Rights Bill of 1866 went to President Johnson for his signature.

    Trumbull, who had met with the president while the bill was pending, believed he had Johnson’s support. He felt betrayed on March 27, 1866, when the president vetoed the bill. Johnson claimed that since a European immigrant had to undergo a five-year wait to seek citizenship but a former slave would not, the bill discriminated “against large numbers of intelligent, worthy, and patriotic foreigners, and in

    In this 1896 cartoon, a judge points to immigrants as a source of Uncle Sam’s woes. (Bettmann/Getty Images)

    favor of the Negro.” Reaction to Johnson’s veto was mixed. The Nation attacked its logic as “that of a stump speech, and its law would hardly pass current in a college moot court.” The New York Times praised Johnson for rejecting the bill’s favoritism for the “black freedman” over the “white immigrant.”

    Counterattacking on April 6, 1866, the Senate overrode Johnson’s veto 33-15. The vote drew applause in galleries that included “some hundreds of men of color…whose dusky but earnest faces were bent upon the fate of the bill.” Three days later, the House overrode the veto 122-41, with the ensuing applause “especially strong from the ‘colored galleries.’”

    Birthright citizenship was now the law, but supporters were uneasy. If one Congress could adopt jus soli by legislation, a later Congress could reverse that action just as easily. A constitutional amendment, Republican leaders felt, would give greater permanence. They tacked citizenship onto the 14th Amendment, pending in the Senate.

    On May 30, 1866, Senator Jacob M. Howard (R-Michigan) added language to the amendment granting citizenship to “all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” This provision was, Howard said, “simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already.” Making that change, he said, would remove “all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States,” an issue Howard called “a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.” The “subject to” clause, he explained, would exclude children born to foreign ambassadors in America and those born to members of Indian tribes Congress treated as sovereign. Neither foreign diplomats nor these Native American tribes were considered subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Native Americans had to wait until 1924 for citizenship.

    Pennsylvania Senator Cowan, jus soli’s most vocal foe, trotted out the bogeymen of the day: Gypsies and the Chinese. The Republican said he opposed citizenship for Gypsies, who, he said, “wander in gangs in my State…(and) followno ostensible pursuit for a livelihood.” This was too much for Senator John Conness (R-California), who knew firsthand about immigration and bigotry. Born in Ireland in 1821, he had come to America in 1836 and had lived through the Know-Nothing era. “I have heard more about Gypsies within the last two or three months than I have heard before in my life,” Conness quipped, accusing Cowan of conjuring imaginary Gypsy hordes “so that hereafter the negro alone shall not claim our entire attention.”

    Cowan, who claimed to be “as liberal as anybody toward the rights of all people,” saved his strongest acid for the Chinese. “[I]s it proposed that the people of California are to remain quiescent while they are overrun by a flood of immigration of the Mongol race?” he asked. “Are they to be immigrated out of house and home by Chinese?” Conness mocked Cowan’s argument. “It may be very good capital in an electioneering campaign to declaim against the Chinese,” the California senator told his colleague, adding that Cowan should “give himself no further trouble on account of the Chinese in California.”

    Cowan had a loud voice but few votes. On June 8, 1866, the Senate passed the 14th Amendment 33-11, well exceeding the required two-thirds majority. On June 13, the House approved 120-32. The president’s signature was not needed to amend the Constitution, and the 14th Amendment went to the states for ratification. Ratification required approval by three quarters of the states. The amendment’s contentiousness rendered the process rough. Besides recognizing birthright citizenship, the instrument guaranteed due process and equal protection for all, meanwhile permanently barring certain former Confederate officials from federal office. The 11 former Confederate states, still not back in Congress, did count for ratification purposes, meaning for the amendment to become law, 28 of the 37 states had to approve. When the former rebel states balked, Congress threatened to withhold readmission to Congress. On July 9, 1868, South Carolina, the first state to secede from the Union, became the 28th to ratify the amendment.

    However, there was a bump. After ratifying the amendment, New Jersey and Ohio had rescinded their ratifications in formal votes by their legislatures. No one was sure what rescission meant, except to rattle the amendment’s backers. Ratification by Alabama and Georgia removed any doubt, bringing the total of state ratifications again to 28, and on July 28, 1868, Secretary of State William H. Seward certified the 14th Amendment as adopted.

    It had taken Lyman Trumbull two years, but he had succeeded in his quest for birthright citizenship. Trumbull’s conscience, which had told him that people deserved certain basic rights, was his undoing. Seeing radical Republicans’ impeachment of Andrew Johnson as a partisan vendetta, in May 1868 he attacked his own party’s “intemperate zealots” for seeking Johnson’s removal. When impeachment came to a vote in the Senate, Trumbull voted to acquit, effectively ending his political career. He retired from the Senate when his term ended in 1873.

    Over the next two decades, immigration policy began to acquire its modern form by means of a rolling drumbeat of restrictions for entry. In 1875, Congress barred entry by prostitutes and foreign convicts, though providing no mechanism to determine who was a prostitute or convict. The 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act barred laborers from that country and denied naturalization to Chinese immigrants

    Chinese immigration was a political hot potato in the 1800s. Opponents of jus soli argued that children of Chinese immigrants should not be granted automatic citizenship. (California State Parks)

    already living in the United States. The same year, Congress prohibited entry by any “lunatic, idiot, or any person unable to take care of himself or herself without becoming a public charge.” In 1891, Congress excluded “persons suffering from a loathsome or a dangerous contagious disease” and polygamists. Imposition of these restrictions created a category for individuals coming to America in violation of these restrictions. Today they are called illegal aliens or undocumented immigrants, phrases unknown to the 39th Congress because in 1866 anyone could enter, and not until the 20th century did Congress begin setting country by country quotas for admission. Deportation also entered the picture, with Congress in 1891 ordering that anyone caught trying to enter illegally “be immediately sent back on the vessel Co. by which they were brought in.” Any forbidden immigrant found to have sneaked in was to be “returned as by law provided.”

    Executive agencies imposed particular limits on birthright citizenship. In 1884, Ludwig Hausding, raised in Germany, sought an American passport, claiming to be a U.S. citizen because he had been born here. On January 15, 1885, however, Secretary of State Frederick T. Frelinghuysen refused to issue the passport, finding that Ludwig was not a citizen because his German parents were not immigrants but only temporary visitors when their son was born. Later that year, the State Department came to the same conclusion regarding Richard Greisser, whose German father and Swiss mother had been visiting the United States at the time of his birth.

    Customs officials had their own restrictions. In August 1895, California native Wong Kim Ark, 22, visited relatives in China and returned to San Francisco. Customs collector John H. Wise refused to let Wong land. Born in San Francisco in 1873, Wong was as American as Wise, but the customs man, a self-proclaimed “zealous opponent of Chinese immigration,” could not see beyond Wong’s “race, language, color, and dress.” Wong was imprisoned aboard ship in San Francisco Bay when attorney Thomas D. Riordan, known for his work on behalf of Chinese-Americans, came to his aid. Wong went to court. His case set the contours of birthright citizenship when the U.S. Supreme Court sided with him in a landmark 1898 decision. Writing on behalf of the six-member majority, Justice Horace Gray described Wong’s ancestry as irrelevant and found him to be as American as the Fourth of July. Gray wrote that except for the children of foreign ambassadors and Native Americans, “[e]very person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization.”

    To hold otherwise, Gray noted, “would be to deny citizenship to thousands of persons of English, Scotch, Irish, German, or other European parentage, who have always been considered and treated as citizens of the United States.” Two justices disagreed. Dissenting Chief Justice Melville Fuller saw peril in jus soli for parents in the country unlawfully. The parents could be deported, he wrote, but as citizens, their children could stay. He decried as “cruel and unusual punishments” any move to “tear up parental relations by the roots.”

    Wong Kim Ark, still in effect today, seemed to settle the issue of birthright citizenship. However, the decision may have left open the question of jus soli for the temporary visitors’ issue and for children of those in the country unlawfully. The Supreme Court did not explicitly address either scenario because Wong’s parents were neither temporary visitors nor illegal aliens. They had emigrated before 1882 to settle and to run a business.

    Birthright citizenship remains a flash point, and full resolution of the issue’s disputatious aspects may require another Supreme Court ruling, perhaps equal in significance to the Court’s 1857 citizenship ruling. “Stay tuned,” legal scholar James C. Ho, now a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals, wrote in a 2006 law journal article. “Dred Scott II could be coming soon to a federal court near you.”

    Still Making Headlines

    The American argument over birthright citizenship continues, with unexpected twists and a profound constant—the nation is still one of immigrants. The 2010 census counted some 40 million residents—13 percent of the population—were born elsewhere. Rules on lawful entry and stay are strict, but some estimates have more than 20 million people living illegally in the United States.

    Jus soli reverberates far beyond anything members of the 39th Congress could have imagined. In 1866, the country had no curbs on entry today, birthright citizenship can legitimize the status of immigrants who entered illegally. In 2017, nearly 150,000 people became permanent residents based on sponsorship by their children, the Department of Homeland Security states.


    Lyman Trumbull - History

    One hundred years ago, Chicago&rsquos rapid population growth necessitated the construction of additional schools. In the Edgewater section of Lakeview, the Andersonville school had seriously deteriorated and residents were calling for something to be done for the education of their children. This was the progressive era, when concerned social and civic activists worked to improve living conditions for the city&rsquos residents. Public schools were to be designed to provide an appealing physical environment that would promote learning. Chicago&rsquos Board of Education was in tune with the times and, in 1905, the board members appointed Dwight H. Perkins as its chief architect.

    Mr. Perkins had been associated with the firm of Burnham and Root during the construction of the World&rsquos Columbian Exposition. He also designed the Steinway Building in the Loop and set up offices there. This became a gathering place for what was to become the Chicago Architectural Club. This group articulated what was to become modern American architecture in the 20th century.

    As chief architect for the Chicago schools, Perkins and his associates presented planning innovations and designs that were incorporated into the schools that were built between 1907 and 1910. Trumbull School is one of those. Trumbull was constructed in 1908 and the cornerstone laid, but the building opened for students in 1909.

    The school was named for Lyman Trumbull, a Senator and statesman from Illinois who served the people of Illinois in various capacities from 1840 until 1873. In the period of the Civil War, he was associated with Abraham Lincoln and campaigned for him. Later, as a Senator and Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, he introduced the resolution to abolish slavery that was to become the 13th Amendment to the Constitution. After his retirement from the Senate in 1873, he continued to practice law in Chicago. He became a public figure again in 1894 when he spoke out against the privileges of the rich and the exploitation of the poor.

    The School building is distinctive because of the strong massing of its design. The façade facing Foster Avenue shows this in the massive column shapes on either side of the entrance. The recessed entrance and vertical windows above are crossed by the massive entablature at the roof line. The massing and vertical design is contrasted by the bands of light and dark brick which alternate on the sides of the building above the single colored brick base.

    Trumbull&rsquos internal structure is designed around a central core &ndash its auditorium. While a beautiful geometric pattern presently adorns the three story ceiling, the original design incorporated a glass paneled dome to allow for natural light in both the auditorium and third and fourth floor classrooms. This was altered in the 1950s when maintenance became an issue. The interior renovation of the school began in 2001. The exterior renovation of the school began in 2003 under the direction of Principal Robert Wilkin. The school has been prepared to complete its 100th year and begin its second century.


    --> Trumbull, Lyman, 1813-1896

    Lawyer from Belleville, Illinois United States Senator (1855-1873) State Supreme Court Justice (1848-1853) State Representative, St. Clair County (1840-1842) Illinois Secretary of State (1841-1843) unsuccessful candidate for Governor (1880).

    From the description of Letter, September 29, 1842. (Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library). WorldCat record id: 71275513

    Lawyer from Belleville, Illinois United States Senator (1855-1873) State Supreme Court Justice (1848-1853) State Representative, St. Clair County (1840-1842), Illinois Secretary of State (1841-1843) unsuccessful candidate for Governor (1880).

    From the description of Family papers, 1821-1917. (Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library). WorldCat record id: 23124664

    Lawyer from Belleville, Illinois United States Senator (1855-1873) State Supreme Court Justice (1848-1853) State Representative, St. Clair County (1840-1842) Illinois Secretary of State (1841-1843): unsuccessful candidate for governor (1880).

    From the description of Papers, 1841-1870. (Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library). WorldCat record id: 60858865

    From the description of Papers of Lyman Trumbull, 1843-1894 (bulk 1855-1872). (Unknown). WorldCat record id: 71063832

    From the description of Autograph letter signed : Washington, to an unidentified recipient, 1856 Dec. 13. (Unknown). WorldCat record id: 270573391

    From the description of Autograph letter signed : [n.p.], to the Hon. Isaac Newton, Supt. of the Agriculture Dept., [n.d.]. (Unknown). WorldCat record id: 270573386

    Lyman Trumball (1813-1896), U.S. Senator from Illinois (1855-1873), aligned with Radical Republicans in Congress. He sponsored the 13th Ammendment and the Civil Rights bill (1865-1867).

    From the description of Lyman Trumbull Papers 1843-1894 1855-1867. (Unknown). WorldCat record id: 122387708

    • 1813, Oct. 12 : Born, Colchester, Conn
    • 1836 : Admitted to the bar
    • 1837 : Began law practice, Bellevue, Ill.
    • 1840 - 1842 : Democratic member of the state legislature
    • 1842 - 1843 : Secretary of state, Illinois
    • 1843 : Married Julia Maria Jayne
    • 1848 - 1855 : Justice, supreme court of Illinois
    • 1855 - 1873 : United States senator
    • 1854 : Opposed the Kansas-Nebraska bill
    • 1864 : Introduced resolution that led to the Thirteenth Amendment
    • 1865 - 1867 : Aligned with Radicals in Congress sponsored Civil Rights bill
    • 1868 : Voted against the impeachment of President Andrew Johnson
    • 1872 : Prominent in the Liberal Republican movement
    • 1873 : Resumed law practice, Chicago, Ill.
    • 1876 : Counsel for Samuel Tilden in disputed presidential election
    • 1880 : Unsuccessful Democratic candidate for governor of Illinois
    • 1896, June 25 : Died, Chicago, Ill.

    From the guide to the Lyman Trumbull Correspondence, 1843-1894, (bulk 1855-1872), (Manuscript Division Library of Congress)


    Watch the video: Lyman Trumbull House (December 2021).