1. Welcome to the CivilWarTalk, a forum for questions and discussions about the American Civil War! Become a member today for full access to all of our resources, it's fast, simple, and absolutely free!
Dismiss Notice
Join and Become a Patron at CivilWarTalk!
Support this site with a monthly or yearly subscription! Active Patrons get to browse the site Ad free!
START BY JOINING NOW!

Jan. 11, 1867 Ohio Ratifies 14th Amendment Reconstruction150

Discussion in 'Post Civil War History, The Reconstruction Period' started by Pat Young, Jan 11, 2017.

  1. Pat Young

    Pat Young Colonel Forum Host

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2013
    Messages:
    17,103
    Location:
    Long Island, NY
    On January 11, 1867 Ohio became the 8th state to ratify the 14th Amendment. Ohio attempted to rescind ratification on January 13, 1868.
     
    James_tiberous likes this.

  2. (Membership has it privileges! To remove this ad: Register NOW!)
  3. Pat Young

    Pat Young Colonel Forum Host

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2013
    Messages:
    17,103
    Location:
    Long Island, NY
    Democrats gained control of the Ohio legislature in the fall of 1867 leading to a vote rescinding ratification.
     
  4. Will Carry

    Will Carry Corporal

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2015
    Messages:
    413
    Location:
    The Tar Heel State.
    When did they start allowing black people into their state? Please don't take the question wrong. I am curious.
     
  5. Pat Young

    Pat Young Colonel Forum Host

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2013
    Messages:
    17,103
    Location:
    Long Island, NY
    Will Carry likes this.
  6. Pat Young

    Pat Young Colonel Forum Host

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2013
    Messages:
    17,103
    Location:
    Long Island, NY
    My understanding is that Ohio never had an outright ban on black emigration, however it did require that blacks prove they were free and post a large bond of $500 shortly after entering Ohio. The Black Laws were largely repealed in 1849.

    I note that I am not an expert on this matter and may be suject to correction.

    Here is more:

    http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=12171
     
  7. SharonS

    SharonS Private

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2014
    Messages:
    217
    Location:
    Connecticut
    If I remember correctly, Ohio did successfully rescind ratification and didn't actually re-ratify until about 15 years ago.
     
    Andersonh1 likes this.
  8. Pat Young

    Pat Young Colonel Forum Host

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2013
    Messages:
    17,103
    Location:
    Long Island, NY
    They did not legally rescind. They are counted as ratifiers per Congressional mandate.
     
  9. Yulie

    Yulie Corporal

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2008
    Messages:
    265
    Location:
    Directly North of the Canadian Border
    Ohio became a free state during the founding years of the United States of America.

    The "Northwest Ordinance" of 1787 prohibited slavery in Ohio. The language in the 13th Amendment was borrowed directly from the NWO. See https://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=8

    Art. 6. There shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in the said territory, otherwise than in the punishment of crimes whereof the party shall have been duly convicted: Provided, always, That any person escaping into the same, from whom labor or service is lawfully claimed in any one of the original States, such fugitive may be lawfully reclaimed and conveyed to the person claiming his or her labor or service as aforesaid.

    Also, the Ohio 1802 Constitution, Article VIII, Sec. 2:
    There shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in this State, otherwise than for the punishment of crimes, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted; nor shall any male person, arrived at the age of twenty-one years, or female person arrived at the age of eighteen years, be held to serve any person as a servant, under the pretense of indenture or otherwise, unless such person shall enter into such indenture while in a state of perfect freedom, and on a condition of a bona fide consideration, received or to be received, for their service, except as before excepted. Nor shall any indenture of any negro or mulatto, hereafter made and executed out of the State, or if made in the State, where the term of service exceeds one year, be of the least validity, except those given in the case of apprenticeships.

    Also, a see a cited article at: http://slavenorth.com/ohio.htm

    -Yulie
     
    Pat Young likes this.
  10. Pat Young

    Pat Young Colonel Forum Host

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2013
    Messages:
    17,103
    Location:
    Long Island, NY
    Thanks for the added info.
     
  11. Pat Young

    Pat Young Colonel Forum Host

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2013
    Messages:
    17,103
    Location:
    Long Island, NY
  12. Pat Young

    Pat Young Colonel Forum Host

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2013
    Messages:
    17,103
    Location:
    Long Island, NY
    Clement Vallandingham explained the Democrats' reason for opposing the 14th Amendment in an October 1866 speech in Rossville, Ohio:

    If it is not a white's man Government, then it is either totally black or it is mixed. [Applause.] I was taught - it was the doctrine of the fathers; it was the idea of the Constitution, the fundamental theory of all parties; that this was a white man's Government, "made by white men for the Government of white men." That is the doctrine of the President today, and of the whole Democratic party of the United States, and by that doctrine we must stand or fall. If this is to be a black man's government - no; if it is to be a mulatto government, part black and part white - than I renounce it forever. (Cries of "So do we.") http://digitalcommons.law.seattleu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1326&context=faculty p. 442
     
    James_tiberous likes this.
  13. Pat Young

    Pat Young Colonel Forum Host

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2013
    Messages:
    17,103
    Location:
    Long Island, NY
    General George Morgan, a Democratic candidate for Congress in Ohio, said in August 1866 that:

    *.. the object of this proposed amendment, then, is to create negro judges, jurors, and legislators, and if you refuse to make negroes your political equals, then you are to be partially disfranchised. I ask you, Ohioans, are you prepared for this? If you are, then vote for Mr. Delano, [the incumbent and Morgan's opponent] and if elected, he will aid you in placing yourselves, your wives, sons and daughters, on a level with the negroes."

    p. 450 http://digitalcommons.law.seattleu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1326&context=faculty
     
  14. Pat Young

    Pat Young Colonel Forum Host

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2013
    Messages:
    17,103
    Location:
    Long Island, NY
    Republicans mocked the Democrats for their trumped up fears of racial equality:

    If you propose any measures that looks like protecting the black man in his freedom to labor and receive the just rewards of it, why he comes running up to you with alarm in his face and says: "Look here - are you for negro equality." [Laughteri Or as they generally put it, "Are you in favor of your daughter marrying a big buck ******?" [Laughter] For although it is not very much to the credit of the sister sex, they are precisely the ones that these gentlemen think our sons are in the greatest danger. They never seem to think our sons are in the slightest peril from associations of that kind, but our daughters are. [Great laughing and cheers.[ Well now, gentlemen, you laugh derisively. If you did not know that the thing is true, and if you had not heard it again and again, (and seen it) by men who pretended to be men of sense, pretent to be public teacher and the light of the world, you would not sit there tamely and even listen to my suggesting such an idea as that. [A voice - That's a fact.j Gentlemen, that vile insinuation is thrust into our teeth again and again, and so often until we have come to pass it with scorn without thought or second consideration. Those of us, my friends, who have daughters would not probably relish the idea of their marrying big bucks of any kind, [Laughteri and I do not suppose we have any apprehension of the sort. [A voice - None at all.] For my part, I should burn with shame and mortified indignation, if I supposed that any legislation, any Constitutional enactment was required to be thrown around my daughters to shield their purity, and the integrity and high sublimity of their personal virtue. [Good and Applause.] Shame, shame upon those men who will, in this vile way, attempt to make a little capital of such a contemplible piece of sophistry. Ironton Register (Ohio), July 12, 1866
    http://digitalcommons.law.seattleu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1326&context=faculty p. 457
     
  15. Pat Young

    Pat Young Colonel Forum Host

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2013
    Messages:
    17,103
    Location:
    Long Island, NY
  16. Pat Young

    Pat Young Colonel Forum Host

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2013
    Messages:
    17,103
    Location:
    Long Island, NY
    It is not always easy to find much info on each state's ratification.
     
  17. Pat Young

    Pat Young Colonel Forum Host

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2013
    Messages:
    17,103
    Location:
    Long Island, NY
  18. Pat Young

    Pat Young Colonel Forum Host

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2013
    Messages:
    17,103
    Location:
    Long Island, NY
    Here are materials relating to the "wihdrawal" of Ohio's ratification.
     
  19. Andersonh1

    Andersonh1 1st Lieutenant

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2016
    Messages:
    3,546
    Location:
    South Carolina
    The Republican-controlled Congress at the time pretty much did as they pleased, legal and/or Constitutional or not. Even if the state's rescinding of ratification was legal, I doubt the Congress would have accepted it.
     
    Last edited: Jan 13, 2017
  20. Pat Young

    Pat Young Colonel Forum Host

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2013
    Messages:
    17,103
    Location:
    Long Island, NY
  21. Pat Young

    Pat Young Colonel Forum Host

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2013
    Messages:
    17,103
    Location:
    Long Island, NY
    According to the law review article:

    In 1867, under Republican leadership, the Ohio General Assembly passed two important proposals to extend suffrage and other civil rights to African Americans. First, the General Assembly ratified the Fourteenth Amendment.23 Second, the General Assembly authorized a referendum to allow non-whites to vote by removing the word "white" from the suffrage provision of Ohio's Constitution.24 This change, if passed by voters, would have extended to African Americans the same political rights that whites enjoyed.25 The election of 1867 proved both of these proposals unpopular. For the first time in more than a decade, Democrats swept both houses of the legislature after campaigning on a platform opposing the Fourteenth Amendment (which had not yet been ratified by the required three-fourths of the states) as well as the proposed expansion of the right to vote to African Americans. The electorate refused to extend the franchise to African Americans by a margin of more than 50,000 votes. p. 189
     

(Membership has it privileges! To remove this ad: Register NOW!)
Loading...

Share This Page


(Membership has it privileges! To remove this ad: Register NOW!)