Signed Document by Johnson Andrew, Signed (4 results)

Condition: Very good. [Washington, D.C.], May 5, 1866., 1866. Very good. - Over 85 words penned in a secretarial hand on 2 pages of a 9-7/8 inch high by 7-3/4 inch wide "Treasury Department" stationery with an integral attached leaf. Hartley replies to Senator John Sherman of Ohio who has recommended Thomas Murdock Esq. for the position of Local Inspector of Steamboats at Cincinnati, Ohio that "there is no vacancy in the District you desire Mr. Murdock to be appointed." Signed "John F. Hartley" as Assistant Secretary of the Treasury. Folded for mailing, the document is docketed by Senator Sherman on the verso. There is a stain from a seal at the top inner corner of the integral leaf with a very small chip. Very good. John F. Hartley (1809-1897) served as Assistant Secretary of the Treasury from 1865 to 1875 under Presidents Andrew Johnson and Ulysses S. Grant.

framed. Condition: very good. Document signed by President Andrew Johnson in 1868, authorizing Henry M. Watts "to treat with the government of Austria". Through the appointment Watts became the 6th United States Minister to Austria-Hungary. Document is mounted in a large frame 22 1/2 x 15 1/2" along side a etched reproduction of Johnson. Andrew Johnson was the 17th president of the United States, serving from 1865 to 1869. The 16th vice president, he assumed the presidency following the assassination of Abraham Lincoln. Johnson was a War Democrat who ran with Lincoln on the National Union Party ticket in the 1864 presidential election, coming to office as the American Civil War concluded. Johnson favored quick restoration of the seceded states to the Union without protection for the newly freed people who were formerly enslaved, as well as pardoning ex-Confederates. This led to conflict with the Republican Party-dominated U.S. Congress, culminating in his impeachment by the House of Representatives in 1868. He was acquitted in the Senate by one vote.

Document signed, Washington, July 25, 1868, naming H. Burnham ?Assessor of Internal Revenue for the Second District of California.? Just two months earlier, Johnson had been acquitted in his famous impeachment trial.

The state?s action is cited as ?Relating to withdrawing the assent of the State of Ohio from the proposed XIV constitutional amendment?; the ratification of Ohio is then ?withdrawn and refused.??We've never seen anything like this on the market, in which a state withdraws its ratification of an amendment to the U.S. ConstitutionThe proposed Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution would add four separate provisions to it. First, the amendment declared that all people born or naturalized in the United States were citizens of the nation and individual states could not deny U.S. citizens their "life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." States also had to provide all citizens with "equal protection of the laws." Second, population within a state, excluding Native Americans and any male citizens who had participated in the rebellion against the United States government, would determine a state's representation in the United States House of Representatives. Third, no members of the Confederate government, the Confederate armed forces, or any person who had served in a state government that had seceded from the United States of America would be permitted to hold political office in either the federal or the individual state governments. Finally, the amendment stated that the United States government would not honor any debts or obligations entered into by seceded states during the Civil War.Granting citizenship to ?All persons born or naturalized in the United States? granted citizenship to formerly enslaved people. This caused outrage among the opponents of enfranchising African Americans. The important provision ?nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws? would also prove antithetical to the desires of the same opponents. The right to due process of law and equal protection of the law would, if ratified, now apply not only to the federal government but also state governments, restricting the ability of states to avoid granting rights to ex-slaves and their descendants. The 14th Amendment would in time be used to decide such civil rights cases such as Brown vs. Board of Education and Roe vs. Wade, so opponents of equal rights had reason for fighting its ratification. These opponents of the amendment worked hard to make sure it was not ratified.As the Civil War ended, the U.S. government was undecided as to how the seceded Confederate states were to return to the Union. President Abraham Lincoln favored a lenient policy, and hoped to reunify the country in a meaningful manner. John Wilkes Booth assassinated Lincoln in April 1865 and the responsibility for reunifying the country passed to Andrew Johnson, Lincoln's former vice-president. Johnson initially favored a much harsher plan, but he later changed his mind and proposed a more lenient plan. Radical Republicans serving in the United States Congress did not agree with Johnson?s light touch; they wanted the South to be punished for the war. As a condition for re-admittance to the Union, the Congress proposed forcing the former Confederate states to ratify the Fourteenth Amendment.The United States Congress submitted the Fourteenth Amendment to the states for approval in June 1866. For the amendment to be added to the United States Constitution, three-fourths of the states had to approve it. On July 28, 1868, the final state necessary for ratification of the amendment agreed to it.Many white Ohioans initially approved of the Fourteenth Amendment. Members of the Union Party, a group of Ohio's Republican Party and pro-war Democrats, strongly supported the amendment. Former Peace Democrats usually objected to parts of it. The Peace Democrats claimed that the amendment empowered African Americans, while it denied former white Confederates constitutional guarantees. However, on January 4, 1867, the Ohio General Assembly approved the Fourteenth Amendment.In the state elections of 1867, the Union Party lost control of the General Assembly. The Democrats quickly moved to rescind Ohio's ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment. On January 15, 1868, the Ohio legislature voted to reverse its earlier decision. The principal reason for this was a fear among a substantial number of white Ohioans that African Americans were receiving too many rights. Many whites feared that their positions in society would decline if African Americans gained true equality with them.Despite the Ohio legislature's action, the federal government continued to count Ohio as one of the three-fourths of the states necessary for the amendment's final approval. Ohio ratified the Fourteenth Amendment a second time on September 17, 2003.The act stipulated that a copy be sent to the President of the United States, the OH delegation, and each Governor.This is the original repeal of Ohio?s ratification of the 14th Amendment, sent to one of the required parties. Document signed, Columbus, Ohio, January 15, 1868. The first page recites the text of the amendment, and states that this action is ?Relating to withdrawing the assent of the State of Ohio from the proposed XIV constitutional amendment.? The ratification of Ohio is then ?withdrawn and refused.? Ohio House Speaker John Follett has signed the repeal, as has Senate president Lee.The second page is the certification, which reads: ?I, John Russell, Secretary of State of the State of Ohio, do hereby certify that the annexed is a true copy of a Joint Resolution of the General Assembly of the State of Ohio, Relating to withdrawing the assent of the state of Ohio from the proposed 14 constitutional amendment, adopted January 15, 1868, as taken from the original rolls on file in this office.? Russell has signed the certification.?Needless to say, this move to block the 14th Amendment failed. But this document is evidence of the struggle for its passage and the opposition to the am.