Anthony, I believe you are reading the narrow interpretation Bradley mentioned too narrowly. There’s no reason to assume a limitation to physical damages. You are right that McConnell supplies some evidence that some supporters of the amendments believed in colorblindness, which I am happy to concede is evidence (albeit weak evidence) that the amendments mandated it. I wonder, though, why the background political-philosophy assumptions of the ratifiers or drafters or both should be relevant to our interpretation, as you have argued, but their background assumptions about the scope of judicial power should not be. McConnell adduces no evidence that anyone in the late 1860s conceived of the Reconstruction Amendments as an expansion of judicial power (let alone primarily as such).