The line which divides these precedents is generally found to be the same which separates the early from the later days of the Republic.

The farther the Republic drifted from the old moorings of the equality of human rights, the more numerous became the judicial and legislative utterances in conflict with some of the leading features sought to be re-established by this bill." The debate was continued by Mr.Rogers of New Jersey, in the opposition, by Mr.Russell Thayer of Pennsylvania, who made an uncommonly able speech in its favor, and by Mr.Eldridge of Wisconsin, who tersely presented the objections entertained by the Democratic party to such legislation.

There were some apprehensions in the minds of the members on both sides of the House that the broad character of the bill might include the right of suffrage, but to prevent that result Mr.Wilson moved to add a new section declaring that "nothing in this Act shall be so construed as to affect the laws of any State concerning the right of suffrage." Mr.Wilson said that the amendment he proposed did not change his own construction of the bill; he did not believe the term "civil rights" included the right of suffrage; he offered it simply from excessive caution, because certain gentlemen feared trouble might arise from the language of the bill.
The amendment was unanimously agreed to, not one voice on either side of the House being raised against it.

Mr.Bingham, Mr.Raymond and other prominent members of the House, to the number of forty in all, debated the bill exhaustively.

It was passed by 111 _yeas_ to 38 _nays_.
The bill reached the President on the 18th of March (1866), and on the 27th he sent to the Senate a message regretting that it contained provisions which he could not approve.