But the state outside of Cincinnati had enough of the right element to enforce, if necessary, at all times, the fifth paragraph of the eighth article of the state constitution, which affirmed, “That the people shall be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and possessions, from all unwarrantable searches and seizures; and that the general warrants whereby an officer may be commanded to search suspected places, without probable evidence of the fact committed, or to seize any person or persons not named whose offenses are not particularly described, and without oath or affirmation, are dangerous to liberty, and shall not be granted.” Still in matters of legislation Cincinnati managed to secure her influence against the negro.
Notwithstanding the plain wording of the Constitution of the State, laws were enacted to keep the black and mulatto people out of Ohio. These were the much discussed “black laws”—
First. A black or mulatto person was prohibited settlement unless he could show a certificate of freedom and the names of two freeholders as security for his good behavior and maintenance, in the event of becoming a public charge; and unless the certificate of freedom was duly recorded and produced, it was a penal offense to give employment to a black or mulatto.
Second. Colored and mulattoes were excluded from the schools; and,
Third. No black or mulatto could testify in court in any case where a white person was concerned.
In 1848, Dr. N. S. Townshend, of Lorain county, and Dr. John F. Morse, of Lake county, were elected members of the legislature as “abolitionists.” To these two members, fortunately, holding the balance of power between the Whigs and Democrats, are due the repeal of the odious “black laws,” and the election of an “abolition” United States Senator—S. P. Chase.
To these men, in combination with the Democrats, is not only due the repeal of existing laws, but, also, provisions for schools for black and mulatto children. And Ohio became reclaimed in favor of freedom, and all was bright and lovely and prosperous—but not all happy; for there still remained a black, disgraceful, disfiguring spot on the face of the Goddess of Liberty—a spot that was causing millions to mourn.
Early in the Union of the States, slavery caste began to isolate itself from every thing denominated “Yankee North,” and, at the same time, disseminated a race hatred against the “nigger” among the ignorant white and poor people of the South. And, in the line of emigration, Ohio received a larger share of immigrants who had been taught to despise the “nigger,” and honestly believed a colored man was an inferior animal, “destitute of a soul;” and lecturers were often traveling over the state entertaining large audiences with such crude material as that—“A nigger is not human—the bones in the hands and feet are entirely different; and he is nothing more or less than an improved Orang-outang, and made to be a slave to the human race as much as a horse or cow.” By lowering the natural status of the colored man, such audiences became elevated and the space between man and the monkey widened by comparison making room for increased hatred. At all times, but most especially so, previous to the odious amendments of the “Fugitive Slave Law,” in 1850, it was no uncommon thing to see calls signed by numerous citizens inserted in popular newspapers, asking all persons in favor of “law and order” to assemble at the time and place specified to put down abolitionism, and to let their “southern brethren” know the people of Ohio were in favor of the constitution and preservation of the Union of the States.
A call for a meeting of this kind in a central county of the state, and announced in the official political paper of the time, dated October 3, 1835, is headed in large type—
“Anti-Abolition Meeting.
“A meeting of those opposed to the wild projects of abolitionists is proposed to be held at the court-house in Circleville, on Saturday, the 10th day of October next, at 1 o’clock P. M.
“All those who love their country and are willing to maintain her constitution—
“All who are friends to order and would avert the horrors of a servile war—
“All who know slavery to be an evil, but believe a dissolution of our National Union a greater evil—
“All who deprecate ecclesiastical influence in political affairs, are respectfully and earnestly invited to attend the proposed meeting, when a number of addresses will be delivered.”
This call is signed by four hundred and seventy-three names, citizens of a town having less than two thousand inhabitants. The next issue of the paper publishing the call, and previous to the time of meeting, contained an anonymous, but scathing criticism of such movements, in which the author of the article says: “It has been shown what is the real state of the anti-slavery question, and the unreasonableness and utter groundlessness of the outcry against Abolitionists.” “Further we would state for the serious consideration of our opponents that we are persuaded that the ‘Union will be dissolved,’ not if this subject be discussed, but if it be not. If it be true that the social compact was formed on the condition of slavery being tolerated by the free states, then it is such an Union as must sooner or later be dissolved.”... “Admitting the existence of a God, and that God is a being of perfect equity, can it be believed that He will suffer such a combination against the happiness of man to exist forever? And has it not already existed too long for that unity of counsel in this great republic which should ever mark the doings of a nation? And can we calculate on a much longer forbearance?” The editors of the paper, after offering an apology for publishing the article, of which the above quotations are but a small part, say: “Will some Abolitionist be so kind as to refer us to the passage in our Constitution or Declaration of Independence which asserts that all men are created free and equally; we have not seen it.”
The meeting came off as advertised, and the chairman said: “Deeply sympathizing with our ‘Southern brethren,’ we have assembled to express our most unqualified opposition to emancipation and disapprobation of the course pursued by its advocates; and to assure our fellow-citizens in the Southern States that we regard their constitutional rights as our own, and that we will to the utmost aid them in the defense of those rights.” “Therefore, Resolved,” was followed by ten long resolutions in praise of fidelity to the South and opposition to emancipation, winding up with the following: