Governor Of Ohio Research Articles

Atypical jobs in psychology: An interview with former governor Dr. Ted Strickland.

This article outlines the career of former governor of Ohio, Dr. Theodore "Ted" Strickland, who was trained as a psychologist prior to entering the world of politics. He became increasingly interested in politics while practicing as a psychologist, specifically, in the ability and training of psychologists, which he believes grants them unique skills to guide public policy. As governor, Strickland was able to interact with a diverse group of individuals on the challenges encountered during his term and understand issues from different viewpoints due to his background in psychology. He also maintained the scientist-practitioner approach by keeping himself informed on current issues via publications. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

Of Buggies and Blinkers: An Essay on the 2022 Ohio Buggy Lighting Law

Buggy safety long has been an issue in the state of Ohio and elsewhere. As their population grows, and rural roads become increasingly crowded with cars and trucks, safety will continue to be a concern to the Amish, public officials and the general public. In 2022, the governor of Ohio signed a mandatory lighting law for Amish buggies. Even though a large share of the Amish either already had a blinking light on the back of their buggies or conformed to the new law, some conservative groups, especially conservative Swartzentruber Amish groups, have resisted. This article discusses the history of attempts to increase buggy visibility and road safety and the developments behind the current controversy. It includes a brief statistical summary on the number of buggies in the Greater Holmes County settlement who either display a blinking amber light or do not, plus briefs visits to other Amish and buggy-driving Mennonite groups in Ohio. Also included are selected comments about the new Ohio law from readers on the Amish America website. The article concludes with a brief discussion of the possible outcomes from an issue that will likely extend into 2024 and beyond before a solution is found for all Amish affiliations.

Ways and Means: Lincoln and His Cabinet and the Financing of the Civil War by Roger Lowenstein, and: Bonds of War: How Civil War Financial Agents Sold the World on the Union by David K. Thomson

Reviewed by: Ways and Means: Lincoln and His Cabinet and the Financing of the Civil War by Roger Lowenstein, and: Bonds of War: How Civil War Financial Agents Sold the World on the Union by David K. Thomson Joseph P. Reidy (bio) Ways and Means: Lincoln and His Cabinet and the Financing of the Civil War. Roger Lowenstein. New York: Penguin Press, 2022. ISBN 978-0735223554. 448 pp., cloth, $30.00. Bonds of War: How Civil War Financial Agents Sold the World on the Union. David K. Thomson. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2022. ISBN 978-1-4696-6661-7. 288 pp., paper, $29.95. During the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, European monarchs faced the challenge of identifying reliable sources of revenue to underwrite overseas adventures and defend their far-flung territories from internal and external foes. In the age of revolution, leaders of successful anti-republican movements fared similarly [End Page 112] as they maneuvered to consolidate their power. Whether in the interest of kings or commoners, regimes at war resorted to one or more of the following fiscal strategies: borrowing, taxing, and increasing the money supply. After Fort Sumter, Union and Confederate planners followed suit as they committed their respective societies to all-out warfare in the industrial age. By 1865, federal officials were spending more than $1.3 billion annually, twenty times the prewar level, and the federal deficit of more than $2.6 billion was more than forty times the 1860 total. The Confederate central and state governments amassed $1.5 billion in debt over the course of the war. Though different in certain respects, Roger Lowenstein’s Ways and Means and David K. Thomson’s Bonds of War cover similar ground and, in fact, complement each other. Lowenstein has authored several best-selling books that focus on business and financial topics past and present and that draw largely from secondary works, printed primary sources, and Internet-accessible manuscript collections. With engaging prose, he spins a fast-paced and riveting tale of oversized personalities and dramatic turning points. He explores not only how effective fiscal management supported military operations but also how battlefield setbacks—such as George B. McClellan’s embarrassing Peninsula Campaign of spring 1862—weakened investors’ confidence in the cause. Whereas Lowenstein’s view of Civil War finances is panoramic, Thomson’s is microscopic. Bonds of War, Thomson’s revised doctoral dissertation, mines unpublished archival records in both the United States and European nations stretching from England to Turkey to understand the mechanics of the Union’s successful borrowing campaign. Although Thomson treats the recent historiography of American capitalism somewhat more closely than Lowenstein does, both authors write clearly and with stylistic flourish. Each author briefly surveys prewar national finances to suggest how ill-prepared both Union and Confederate strategists were for what lay ahead. Salmon P. Chase, the Republican former governor of Ohio, emerged as the guiding spirit of the Union’s fiscal planning, notwithstanding his relative inexperience in that area. Lowenstein explains how, following a cool rebuff from New York’s commercial bankers, Chase turned to Congress, which obligingly authorized the national government to issue bonds and print paper money (which became known as green-backs). Supplemental legislation designated the new currency as legal tender and established a network of national banks capitalized by federal bonds and committed to circulating the greenbacks. Despite Chase’s “innate conservatism,” the net effect of these changes was “revolutionary” (163). Additional measures opened Western lands to homesteaders, offered federal support for higher education to each state, and authorized construction of the Pacific railway. These measures not only won the war but also transformed the national political economy, opening [End Page 113] the door for the further westward expansion of European settler-colonialism, the emergence of New York City as the nation’s chief financial center, and the concentration of both political and economic power in the hands of the Northeastern industrial capitalist elite. For all its virtues, Lowenstein’s account falls short in accounting for the Confederacy’s fiscal strategy, casting it as a counterimage of failure against the Union’s model of success. Because the plantation interest and its proslavery ideology all but...

Catholic Medical Association Expresses Thanks to Ohio Governor Mike DeWine for Protecting Conscience Rights.

Catholic Medical Association Expresses Thanks to Ohio Governor Mike DeWine for Protecting Conscience Rights.

The influence of remote learning on sleep patterns of teenagers

A healthy sleep pattern is crucial to the overall health and wellbeing of teenagers, and poor sleep patterns can harm school performance. Due to stay-at-home orders mandated by the governor of Ohio in March 2020, students were converted to remote learning. The purpose of this study was to compare the sleep patterns of teenagers before the stay-at-home orders and during remote learning. Individual chronotypes impact peak productivity, and remote learning imposed by the COVID-19 pandemic provides a unique opportunity to study how teenagers may take advantage of their chronotype for optimal learning. Data was collected using an online survey distributed to teenagers in the Greater Cincinnati area. The survey completed by 141 participants compared teenagers' overall sleep habits and attitude towards school before and during the remote learning period. During the stay-at-home orders, teenagers participating in remote learning extended their sleep duration by 1-2 hours, resulting in 83% of surveyed teenagers receiving healthy sleep amounts and 55% reporting feeling more rested. Sleep patterns of teenagers were also altered by the stay-at-home orders, as seen by the significant shift to later bedtimes and wake times. Later wake times and bedtimes align with the self-reported night owl chronotype reported by a majority of respondents. These results can help create more effective learning periods for adolescents that optimize personal chronotype.

Leviathan in Chains: The Short-Lived Federalization of the Ohio Penitentiary

Leviathan in ChainsThe Short-Lived Federalization of the Ohio Penitentiary Sarah E. Paxton (bio) Erected along the Scioto River in the burgeoning Ohio capital, the Ohio Penitentiary was one of the earliest American prisons. Built to house predominantly men, the Ohio prison hosted thieves, bar brawlers, murderers, and—from July 1863 to March 1864—Confederate prisoners of war (POWs). Captain John Hunt Morgan and his infamous raiders spent the early months of 1863 wreaking havoc through southern Ohio, leaving ransacked businesses, upset railroads, smoldering canal boats, and a horde of livid Ohioans in their wake. Due in no small part to local outrage and Morgan’s infamy, upon their capture, Morgan and many of his raiders were locked away in the Ohio Penitentiary rather than the nearby Camp Chase POW camp. Four months later, in an embarrassing turn of events for both the state of Ohio and the Union Army, Morgan and his men broke out of the Ohio Penitentiary and escaped back to the Confederacy. A great deal of scholarship has been dedicated to John Hunt Morgan, contributing to his renown and status as a Southern folk hero. Yet historians have glossed over the four months he spent incarcerated. While Morgan’s escape may appear to have meant little in the grand scheme of the Civil War, it was a tumultuous time in the history of the Ohio Penitentiary and the evolving relationship between state and federal authorities. Housing POWs, particularly Confederate officers, was an uncommon occurrence with little to no precedent to guide the ill-defined relationship between the military and civilian guards. The presence of POWs in the civilian prison created financial, bureaucratic, and [End Page 67] political conflicts that neither the Ohio Penitentiary nor the Union Army were prepared to handle, leading to several crucial security measures falling through the cracks. Despite what the folk tales told of the rebel prisoners’ cunning, it was the buildup of tension between military and penitentiary staff and a lack of a clearly understood authority within the prison that allowed Morgan to escape. The trepidation with which the federal government approached commandeering the Ohio Penitentiary, and its failure to actuate their control, was demonstrative of the uncertainty surrounding the centralization of the American State. In July 1863, the Ohio Penitentiary took responsibility for the rebel prisoners begrudgingly. When Morgan and his men had been captured following the raids through Ohio and its neighbors, Union general Ambrose Burnside was concerned that the existing POW camps, like Camp Chase, would be unable to hold the raiders. Fearing they would escape, Burnside turned to the governor of Ohio and requested they keep the POWs in the penitentiary, where he was sure they would be more secure. Governor David Tod and Ohio Penitentiary warden Nathanial Merion acquiesced but initially restricted the number of POWs they would accept to 30. Despite this limit, the number housed at the Ohio Penitentiary quickly grew to 70.1 From the beginning, no one was happy with the arrangement. While the military provided some of the supplies for the care of the raiders, most of their needs were to be covered by state funds intended for the criminal convicts. The strain on the institution’s finances was exacerbated further by the fact that the penitentiary was not allowed to use the raiders as contract workers, a common practice with their criminal convicts.2 The federal POWs were therefore a drain on the already tight and heavily scrutinized finances of the state-run penitentiary. There was also the issue of space. The prison had an original maximum capacity of 500 inmates, though the institution was nearly always at or above capacity, perhaps a reason that Merion requested their charges be limited to 30. Prisoner comfort was evidently a nonissue for the prison administration, and, as a result, the penitentiary remained a diseased and brutal warehouse for years. The original wooden cells were perpetually damp and had tiny windows that allowed in little light or air.3 Physicians noted the consequences of [End Page 68] this environment on the physical health of the prisoners, first voicing concerns over the conditions in 1850. The warden agreed with their assessment in 1855...

Opposing Lincoln: Clement L. Vallandigham, Presidential Power, and the Legal Battle over Dissent in Wartime by Thomas C. Mackey

Reviewed by: Opposing Lincoln: Clement L. Vallandigham, Presidential Power, and the Legal Battle over Dissent in Wartime by Thomas C. Mackey Jonathan W. White (bio) Opposing Lincoln: Clement L. Vallandigham, Presidential Power, and the Legal Battle over Dissent in Wartime. By Thomas C. Mackey. (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 2020. Pp. 200. Cloth, $55.00; paper, $24.95.) In his masterful study of party politics in the Civil War era, The Union Divided, historian Mark E. Neely Jr. observes that the "loyal opposition in the North during the Civil War remains to this day in crying need of analysis."1 In the last two decades, a number of scholarly works on the Civil War–era Democrats have appeared, including Neely's own Lincoln and the Democrats: The Politics of Opposition in the Civil War (2017) and J. Matthew Gallman's The Cacophony of Politics: Northern Democrats and the American Civil War (2021). Several excellent works on disloyalty, antiwar dissent, and civil liberties during the Civil War have also appeared, most notably William A. Blair's With Malice toward Some: Treason and Loyalty in the Civil War Era (2014) and Stephen E. Towne's Surveillance and Spies in the Civil War: Exposing Confederate Conspiracies in America's Heartland (2015). Now, with Thomas C. Mackey's Opposing Lincoln, we have an account of the military commission trial of Clement L. Vallandigham. Vallandigham is notorious today as the most prominent antiwar Democrat in the North during the Civil War. In May 1863, the former congressman was arrested by the Union military and charged with disloyal speech. Following a quick military trial, he was sentenced to imprisonment at hard labor for the duration of the war; however, Lincoln instead chose to banish the "wiley agitator" to the Confederacy. From there, Vallandigham escaped to Canada, where he ran for governor of Ohio in absentia. He lost in a landslide. Vallandigham's story is one that every student of the Civil War should know, and it is ably told by Mackey. In several places, Mackey exhibits great storytelling skill, such as the scene when Vallandigham is turned over to Confederate soldiers in Tennessee. Mackey also deftly explains the constitutional and legal issues facing the Lincoln administration during the war years, helping readers understand Lincoln's thinking on these controversial issues. Indeed, Mackey takes constitutionalism seriously, which is essential for understanding the causes and consequences of the Civil War. The heart of Opposing Lincoln is Vallandigham's military trial, as well as discussion of Lincoln's public letters defending his civil liberties policies. Still, Mackey's slender volume touches on several important historiographical debates, including the adequacy of the Constitution to meet the [End Page 579] crisis of the Civil War, whether the Copperheads posed a real threat to the Union, and the extent to which Lincoln's policies violated the Constitution. In the opening two chapters, Mackey places Vallandigham within his historical context, tracing the politics of the 1850s into the war years. Drawing from the flourishing recent literature on the Midwest in the mid-nineteenth century, Mackey rightly describes Vallandigham as a westerner, rather than simply as a northerner. In explaining Lincoln's view of free speech in wartime, Mackey appropriately describes Lincoln "as a man and lawyer of his times and historical context." After quoting one of Lincoln's arguments, Mackey states, "After reading this statement some moderns will raise the issue of the potential 'chilling effect' on speech and press this policy suggests; but those sensitivities lay in a future that Lincoln could not know" (131). This is sound historical analysis. We ought to strive to understand historical figures within the context of their times. And yet there were strong arguments being made during the war years for more robust protection of free speech, free press, and the right to trial by jury. Mackey analyzes a series of public letters that passed between Lincoln and two groups of Democrats (one in Ohio, and one in New York). He presents Lincoln's arguments in great detail, but the Democrats appear only as foils for Lincoln, rather than as constitutional thinkers in their own right. This is a missed opportunity, for the Democrats' arguments anticipated...

Medicaid managed care plans start paying Ohio pharmacists as providers

Medicaid managed care companies are working with the Ohio Department of Medicaid to act on a 2019 law that recognizes pharmacists as providers in Ohio. Since getting wind of what pharmacists are capable of doing for patients, three Medicaid managed care plans in Ohio have launched programs of their own to pay pharmacists as medical providers. Additional plans are expected to make announcements in the coming months. In April 2020, UnitedHealthcare began working with two independent community pharmacies in Ohio to launch a program that uses the expertise of pharmacists to expand access to care for patients and drive better health outcomes for Medicaid beneficiaries. Pharmacists in the program are able to bill and receive reimbursement for providing patient care services using existing CPT codes for evaluation and management, virtual check-ins, and transitional care management. “We feel community pharmacies can do more if we create the right incentives,” said Mike Roaldi, CEO of UnitedHealthcare Community Plan of Ohio. So far, two community pharmacies are participating in the program. UnitedHealthcare selected them based on the high concentration of plan members who frequent the pharmacies. These members also have multiple prescriptions and chronic conditions. Results are being measured both qualitatively and quantitatively. “The first thing we want to do right now is prove the concept works and get outcomes—we want the data,” said Roaldi. They are keeping track of three specific quality metrics: hospital readmissions, unnecessary prescriptions, and the management of chronic conditions. “We also want stories in this early stage about how pharmacists provide better care and [prevent errors for] patients,” said Roaldi. Ohio’s Centene managed care organization, through Buckeye Health Plan, launched its program in June 2020 and during the initial phase, participating pharmacists at a health system and two federally qualified health centers are expected to work with physicians to provide care for patients who have chronic conditions. As this article went to press, another Ohio Medicaid plan, CareSource, announced a provider status program focused on two independent community pharmacies. All programs will reimburse pharmacists for clinical services. When former Ohio governor John Kasich signed SB 265 at the beginning of 2019—a law that formally recognizes pharmacists as providers in Ohio law—the work had only begun for any real change to happen for Ohio pharmacists. “Ohio’s momentum has been based on three factors,” said Stuart Beatty, PharmD, director of strategy and practice transformation at the Ohio Pharmacists Association (OPA) and associate professor of clinical pharmacy at Ohio State University College of Pharmacy. Passing legislation and the overarching changes due to health care transformation have been critical, said Beatty. But so was Ohio’s investigation of the PBM industry. Once the public became aware of the issues for pharmacies, legislators started putting pressure on payers, specifically managed care organizations (MCOs). Beatty said the timing is important to consider. During the spring of 2019, as the provider status law was still waiting to go into effect officially, legislators questioned the MCOs during an April 2019 Ohio Joint Medicaid Oversight Committee meeting that was focused on PBMs. With Ohio legislators aware of the provider status law, they also began asking how the plans were going to implement the new law. According to Beatty, the public questioning opened the door for OPA to have meaningful conversations with payers about how pharmacists are an underutilized resource. “As a result, the plans started to realize what pharmacists can do and a shift happened,” said Beatty. “This combined with a focus toward value-based care got the discussion quickly turned in Ohio about how pharmacists can help patients achieve better health outcomes with an incentive structure in place,” he continued. The Ohio Department of Medicaid announced they will create provider identification numbers for pharmacists in January 2021. Antonio Ciaccia, director of government and public affairs at OPA, said this will put “rocket fuel” in the existing Medicaid managed care plans that are already working collaboratively with pharmacists. The Ohio Department of Medicaid has begun compensating pharmacists to conduct COVID-19 testing as well. After the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services made it clear earlier this year that allowing pharmacists to order and administer FDA-authorized COVID-19 tests supersede state limits on scope of practice, Ohio governor Mike DeWine had to take action, instructing Ohio’s Medicaid program to create codes that allow pharmacies to bill for tests on program beneficiaries.

The Need And Benefit of Implementing Telemedicine in Clinical Practice

The Need And Benefit of Implementing Telemedicine in Clinical Practice

The 1891 McKinley-Campbell Ohio Gubernatorial Debate and the Draw That Still Splits America

The 1891 McKinley-Campbell Ohio Gubernatorial Debate and the Draw That Still Splits America Robert Klotz (bio) Thick smoke from a fifty-gun salute drifted over the heads of the approximately twelve thousand spectators who had gathered for a debate in Ada, Ohio, on October 8, 1891. The smoke was the only thing that muted the sparkle of the day. The previous night's rain had given way to sunshine. The village of Ada was covered in red, white, and blue decorations. As James Campbell began speaking, he was interrupted by the brass band playing as part of a late arriving club. Campbell said, "We will suspend till the rest of the State gets in."1 Everybody wanted in to witness the momentous candidate debate. The outcome would shape American history and more than a century later, the debate still echoes an enduring division in American politics. It was an unlikely year for such a historic event since 1891 was an off, off-year election with no scheduled presidential or congressional races. The governor's race in Ohio was the only real story, but what a story it was. Even if the center of US population had recently drifted a few miles west of Ohio, the center of US politics remained in Ohio. Two rising stars with national political ambitions were participating in the only debate of the campaign. The press coalesced around one historical analogy: "The debate between Campbell and McKinley to-day in Ohio attracts about as much attention as the famous Douglas-Lincoln debates in 1858."2 [End Page 32] competitors The two participants in the debate had parallel careers. Both Republican challenger William McKinley and Democratic incumbent James Campbell fought for the Union in the Civil War. They then proceeded into careers in the law. Both married and became known as devoted husbands. Both were lifelong residents who set themselves up for careers in Ohio politics with McKinley based in Stark County in northeast Ohio and Campbell in Butler County in southwest Ohio. The first elective office for each was serving a two-term stint as elected county prosecutor. When the opportunity presented itself, both made successful runs for Congress. Seen as rising stars, McKinley and Campbell became targets for the perpetual gerrymandering of congressional districts by the Ohio State Legislature. In 1884, the Democratic legislature tried to gerrymander McKinley out of Congress by replacing Republican areas in his district with Democratic ones to make it a majority Democratic district. The race finished in a virtual tie with McKinley initially seated but later removed by a Democratic Congress that threw out enough of his votes to seat the Democrat. In 1886, the now Republican legislature reinstated McKinley's original district and tried to gerrymander Campbell out of Congress by adding Republican areas to his constituency. Campbell managed to win 15,303 to 15,301. In 1888, faced with a difficult district and Republican momentum, Campbell decided to leave Congress and focus on improving his finances.3 In 1890, the Democratic legislature designed a gerrymander to defeat McKinley, who put up a valiant fight but could not overcome his new huge party disadvantage. The battles of McKinley and Campbell with gerrymanders had raised their national profiles. Gerrymandered out of office, McKinley and Campbell plotted their next moves to reach their goal of becoming president of the United States. Choosing an office that would make him immune to gerrymandering, James Campbell decided to run for governor of Ohio in 1889. He defeated Republican incumbent Joe Foraker with 50.7 percent of the two-party vote. Having just won a prominent Republican-leaning electoral battlefield, he was regularly asked about a potential run for president or vice president. Although he dismissed the talk, Campbell traveled to other states and otherwise acted like a potential candidate. He decided to run for another two-year term as governor in 1891. [End Page 33] For his part, McKinley considered running for governor in 1891, running for Congress in a new district in 1892, or just flat-out running for president in 1892. His adviser, Mark Hanna, encouraged him to run for governor to earn his electoral bona fides. McKinley initially resisted. He...

President McKinley: Architect of the American Century by Robert W. Merry

Reviewed by: President McKinley: Architect of the American Century by Robert W. Merry R. William Weisberger President McKinley: Architect of the American Century. By Robert W. Merry. (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2017. 624 pp. Cloth $35.00, ISBN 978-1-4516-2544-8.) This fine biography about William McKinley is persuasive. The journalist William Merry, who has written a convincing study about President James K. Polk, depicts William McKinley as a well-mannered, decisive, and as an effective state and national leader. Consisting of twenty-nine chapters, this biography extensively treats McKinley as a Gilded Age leader whose industrial views and aggressive foreign policy helped especially to bring the nation into the twentieth century. The first seven chapters are devoted to McKinley’s achievements during his early life. He was born on January 29, 1843, in Niles, Ohio, as the seventh son of Nancy and William McKinley. After the family moved to Poland, he attended the town’s academy. Following his father’s passing, he briefly attended Allegheny College in Meadville and then returned to Niles to work as a teacher. McKinley then participated in the Civil War, serving in the 23rd Ohio Infantry under Rutherford B. Hayes; McKinley distinguished himself as a leader at the second Battle of Antietam and during battles in the Shenandoah Valley. Prior to the war’s end, he was promoted to the rank of major and was called Major McKinley throughout his life. Chapters 4 through 7 reveal his legal and early national and political achievements: he studied law briefly in Albany, New York, and then in 1867 went to Canton and practiced law. An ardent Republican, McKinley was elected in 1869 as Stark County’s prosecuting attorney. Two years later, he married Ida [End Page 93] Saxton, a Canton banker’s daughter who had epilepsy, but who was well cared for by her husband. Having served in Congress between 1879 and 1891, he was known for the 1890 McKinley Tariff, which helped American industries and their workers. As Ohio governor between 1892 and 1896, McKinley significantly helped Ohio during the 1893 Panic. Chapters 11 through 23 reveal his role during his first presidential term and his leadership during the “splendid little war” with Spain. With financial help from Marcus Hannah, he became known for his “front-porch” campaign and defeated William Jennings Bryan in 1896.Two years later, he led America in its war against Spain: McKinley succeeded in suppressing Spain in Cuba and sent Commodore George Dewey to capture Manila Bay. By the terms of the 1898 Paris Treaty, America developed a presence in Cuba and annexed the Philippines and Guam. The final chapters focus on McKinley’s second presidential term. During this term, McKinley, who had again defeated the Populist Bryan, was assassinated during Buffalo’s Pan American Exposition by the anarchist Leon Czolgosz and died on September 14, 1901. This biography, which is well documented, is splendid. This lucidly written work, which is superior to the studies of Margaret Leech and H. Wayne Morgan, superbly demonstrates that this Buckeye president succeeded as a Gilded Age leader and more importantly as an American empire builder. R. William Weisberger Butler County Community College Copyright © 2019 The Kent State University Press

School Based Health Care Program Provides Epinephrine Auto Injector Prescription and Training In Schools

PROGRAM: On April 21, 2014, Ohio Governor John Kasich signed House Bill (HB) 296 into law permitting schools to procure non-individual specific Epinephrine Auto Injectors (EAI) for use in emergency anaphylaxis. Participating schools must adopt a policy governing use and maintenance, written in collaboration with a licensed health professional who is authorized to prescribe. Our School Based Health Care Program (SBHC) aims to team up and collaborate with schools to provide a prescription for minimum of two EAI per school with multiple refills for 1 year, assists in developing the …

American Aristocrats: A Family, a Fortune, and the Making of American Capitalism by Harry S. Stout

Reviewed by: American Aristocrats: A Family, a Fortune, and the Making of American Capitalism by Harry S. Stout Brian Luskey American Aristocrats: A Family, a Fortune, and the Making of American Capitalism. Harry S. Stout. New York: Basic Books, 2017. ISBN 978-0-4650-9898-9. 432 pp., cloth, $24.92. Harry Stout's new book is a narrative history of the Anderson family, which established roots near Louisville, Kentucky, after the Revolutionary War and moved far and wide in service of personal and national ambitions in the early United States. The Andersons were representative of an apparent contradiction that Alexis de Tocqueville observed: Americans were "restless in the midst of their prosperity." Beginning with patriarch Richard Sr. and continuing into the next generation that included Robert, the US hero of Fort Sumter, the Andersons threw themselves headlong into an insatiable national quest for land and affluence. Stout introduces a promising concept, "republican capitalism," to describe the Andersons' expectations for conduct in the economic sphere (xii). Those expectations were contradictory, encouraging both ambition and virtue. These contradictions meant that anxiety would accompany prosperity. The Andersons were often "disillusioned" with the results of both democratic politics and economic competition (xiv). They continuously angled for the main chance, built an immense fortune that was never quite large enough for them, and thought others were advancing at their expense while they dutifully served the nation. Richard Anderson Sr. settled in frontier Kentucky on the Virginia land claims won from his service in the Continental Army and started a lucrative surveying business. His eldest son, Richard Jr., maintained and added to the family's wealth through land purchases in the northwest, and represented the hemispheric ambitions of the nation in his diplomatic negotiations with South American republics. Another Anderson son, Robert, fought on behalf of US territorial aggrandizement in Florida, Texas, and Mexico. The land speculations of Charles Anderson should be of particular interest to the readers of this journal, intertwined as they were with the debates about slavery and territorial expansion that produced the Civil War. His political career illuminates the contradictions of a border state conservatism that was at once antislavery and opposed to slave emancipation. Having moved from Dayton, Ohio, to settle a tract on the outskirts of San Antonio, Texas, Charles ran afoul of growing secession sentiment there for his rousing speeches opposing the slave power. Driven from Texas, he received a hero's welcome in New York City in the weeks after his brother Robert received plaudits there for his defense of Fort Sumter. Returning to Ohio, Charles accepted the colonelcy of a Union regiment and was wounded at the Battle of Stones River. After he was elected lieutenant governor of Ohio during the war, he gave an address at Gettysburg on the same day that Abraham Lincoln did, but his sentiments diverged from the president's. He contended cautiously that the nation's [End Page 387] "new birth of freedom" would be worked out in God's own time. In fact, Lincoln's support of emancipation led Charles Anderson to oppose the president's reelection and postbellum efforts to give black men citizenship rights. Charles's brother William doubled down on the family's opposition to emancipation by renouncing his tepid wartime unionism and agreeing to survey land on behalf of Maximilian's Mexico in preparation for the settlement of a colony of former Confederates there. Stout's purpose is to remind readers that land speculation was at the core of capitalist transformation in the nineteenth century. Certainly, that was the case, and speculations about the republican independence that land ownership offered were central to the conflict between white northerners and southerners about the western territories in the decade prior to the Civil War. And yet, Stout does not sustain an argument about republican capitalism through the text. His approach, rather, is to take us through the correspondence between the Andersons and their wives, business partners, legislative friends and rivals, and petitioners for loans and assistance. These letters shape, pace, and structure the narrative. This organizational strategy reveals the significance of capital, credit, and economic connections in the daily lives of citizens in the early American republic. But...

Implications of Ohio's 20-Week Abortion Ban on Prenatal Patients and the Assessment of Fetal Anomalies.

Ohio's governor recently signed into law Senate Bill 127, a bill that makes it a fourth-degree felony for a health care provider to perform an abortion "when the probable post-fertilization age of the unborn child is 20 weeks or greater," joining a series of other states that have enacted such legislation or are moving toward similar legislation. Twenty-week bans have salient implications for women's health, quality of care, and access to services, particularly in the context of the delivery of prenatal care. Because of the timeline of the initiation of prenatal care and assessments of fetal genetic and anatomic anomalies, patients may increasingly find themselves at or near the 20-week postfertilization gestational threshold when they have insufficient information to decide about continuing or ending the pregnancy. This law thus leaves women and families with limited time to obtain a genetic or anatomic diagnosis, restricts access to abortion care at a crucial decision-making time in the pregnancy, and has significant implications for the patient-physician relationship. This law also has ramifications for women and health care providers outside of Ohio, because patients who have made the choice to end a pregnancy will have to cross state lines for abortion care. It is important for obstetric providers to be aware of the ramifications of 20-week bans and take steps to ensure that pregnant women receive high-quality care despite the burdens imposed on the health care decision-making process.

John J. Gilligan: The Politics of Principle by Mark Bernstein

Reviewed by: John J. Gilligan: The Politics of Principle by Mark Bernstein William Russell Coil Mark Bernstein, John J. Gilligan: The Politics of Principle. Kent, Ohio: Kent State University Press, 2013. 516pp. $45.00. In John J. Gilligan: The Politics of Principle, Mark Bernstein provides an accessible, comprehensive, and informative account of the life and career of Ohio Democratic politician John Joyce Gilligan. He was Ohio’s sixty-second [End Page 94] governor, a one-termer who from 1971 to 1975 changed how the state’s government operated, creating a legacy that outlasted his brief tenure. Bernstein argues that Ohio, in the nineteenth century, was a prosperous, inventive, and progressive place which, by the 1920s, had slipped into political fogeyism and economic complacency. Gilligan, witty and intellectual (or arrogant and aloof, his critics would say), challenged the hidebound leaders of the state and persuaded Ohioans to create the government they actually needed rather than continue to suffer a government that served only the few. Bernstein then counterintuitively suggests that despite serving only one term as governor and despite running campaigns better known for losing rather than winning, Gilligan nevertheless was the most important governor of Ohio during the twentieth century. Gilligan changed Ohio government in several ways. He increased its power to regulate the environment by establishing the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, improved services at long neglected state mental health facilities and correctional institutions, and attempted to make educating and training Ohio’s citizens a key part of its economic development strategy, which the Gilligan team suggested was a contrast to the bombastic sloganeering favored by his predecessor and successor, Republican James Rhodes. To help pay for these and other programs that tried to improve the social safety net and increase economic opportunity for all, Gilligan persuaded Ohioans to accept the state’s first income tax. Gilligan signed it into law in 1971 and beat back a repeal effort in 1972. Bernstein helps readers understand why Gilligan attempted this politically risky, yet transformative agenda. Gilligan was both a devout Catholic and a courageous man. In December of 1941 he planned to withdraw from Notre Dame before graduating. His plan? To train for the priesthood. World War Two intervened and Gilligan instead joined the US Navy, finished college, and then served in the war. He saw action at both D-Day and at Okinawa, earning a Silver Star. After the war, the calling and the courage persisted, though finding new outlets, as Gilligan turned to politics to serve the community. In 1953, he became a Cincinnati councilman. He defended a city employee against politically motivated charges of communist affiliations, advocated an income tax to rebuild Cincinnati’s woeful finances even though union allies opposed it, and unsuccessfully pushed for a local commission to investigate and punish racially discriminatory hiring. In 1955 he nearly lost reelection. In 1964, Gilligan won election to the US House of Representatives from a heavily Republican district (Lyndon Johnson’s coattails [End Page 95] were critical), voted for liberal initiatives then pouring from Johnson’s White House, and promptly lost his seat in 1966, in part because of his liberal record. In these Cincinnati campaigns Gilligan was admirable, saying clearly what he believed and acting on those beliefs regardless of the political cost. Bernstein presents the pieces of Gilligan’s career clearly, so the reader can pull together two tenets of the “Politics of Principle.” First, grasping for individual wealth was natural and useful. After all, Gilligan’s father and grandfather had built a thriving funeral business, allowing the family to summer in Michigan at their cottage (during the Great Depression, no less), to afford tuition at Catholic schools, and to finance most of John’s first campaign. But capitalist endeavors were morally just only to the extent that pursuers of profit tended to the commonweal. Second, to sacrifice nothing was to do nothing. Gilligan rejected the family business. He chose instead the academy, disappointing his father by teaching English at Xavier University. His father, however, still influenced him. Active in civic affairs, including charitable drives and local politics, Gilligan’s father modeled the kind of citizen his son wanted to be: intelligent and principled for sure...

"Tell Us Something about State Rights": Northern Republicans, States' Rights, and the Coming of the Civil War

"Tell Us Something about State Rights"Northern Republicans, States' Rights, and the Coming of the Civil War Michael E. Woods (bio) In August 1857, Ohio governor Salmon P. Chase visited Cincinnati, ostensibly to discuss a state treasury scandal. His main purpose was to stump for reelection. Chase was chosen as Ohio's first Republican governor in 1855, but his two-year term would soon expire, and he came to Cincinnati to solicit votes. Like other Republicans, Chase wasted no opportunity to discuss slavery; before finishing his late-summer speech, he examined that "great question that constantly absorbs our thoughts, and demands our continual attention and enlists our feeling." Alluding to the slave power theory he had long expounded, Chase warned that "the Federal Government is reduced to be the despotism of a slave oligarchy." The evidence was plain: the Fugitive Slave Act, the Kansas-Nebraska Act, the Dred Scott decision—all reflected slaveholders' insidious influence on federal policy. Suddenly, a voice from the crowd shouted: "Tell us something about State Rights." Chase, having planned to do precisely that, was unfazed. "I am bringing you to that question," he promised. "I will show that these aggressions of Slavery encroach upon State Rights; that they have invaded the sovereignty of Ohio." Exploring an issue that had shaped his career since he defended fugitive slaves as a young Cincinnati attorney, Chase blasted proslavery federal policy as overbearing and unconstitutional. He charged southern slave-catchers and federal officers with violating Ohio's laws and sovereignty. He affirmed, "I believe with Jefferson, that the cardinal principles of our Union is the preservation of the reserved rights of the States; and … if we wish to maintain our liberties, we must have our laws obeyed." The alternative was degradation to a status "worse than the veriest slaves of European despotisms." Chase closed with paeans to frugal government, free soil, defeat of the slave power, and civil rights for free blacks, and "retired amid hearty applause."1 He won a second term. Historians should ask antebellum Republicans to "tell us something about state rights," too. The exchange between Chase and his eager constituent reveals much about Republicans' rise to power and recasts the [End Page 242] relationship between states' rights and Civil War causation, a topic plagued by threadbare clichés. Despite historians' best efforts, the notion that conflict over states' rights, rather than slavery, triggered secession and war remains widespread.2 Neo-Confederates make it a tenet of political faith. But it also permeates mainstream discussions, from college essays to the Huffington Post.3 Narratives of Civil War causation that supplant slavery with states' rights rest on two equally weak assumptions: that the subjects can be compartmentalized and that states' rights was a southern doctrine. Scholars have demolished the first postulate far more thoroughly than the second. Excellent studies, old and new, demonstrate slavery's pervasive influence in debates over everything from tariffs to territorial expansion.4 Slavery was a brutal part of the context in which theorists wrote, orators spoke, and voters cast ballots. Excise slavery, and American political history becomes unintelligible. White southerners would have been fools indeed to ignore the millions of enslaved people living around them. They were not fools. "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery," declared Mississippi secessionists. "We must either submit to degradation, and to the loss of property worth four billions of money, or we must secede."5 But the association of states' rights with the South remains resilient and can distort our view of sectional politics. Even the argument that states' rights was merely a shabby cover for proslavery interests lends a sliver of credibility to narratives that pit southern secessionists against Yankee centralizers. This essay challenges both assumptions by exploring why and how antebellum Republicans, members of a primarily northern antislavery party, employed states' rights. They used states' rights in two ways: as a practical strategy and a rhetorical resource. Pragmatically, Republicans deployed the doctrine against specific proslavery policies, particularly as slaveholders demanded increasing federal support during the 1850s. Republicans believed fidelity to states' rights would thwart the slave power, denationalize slavery, and hasten its demise. States' rights would preserve free soil and protect...

The Business Subsidy Industry In Ohio

This paper critically examines Ohio Governor Kasich’s signature economic development program, the JobsOhio corporation, in light of the intellectual foundations for constitutional government and a market economy. In 2011, at Gov. Kasich’s behest, the Ohio General Assembly created the JobsOhio corporation. JobsOhio is, in essence, a quasi-private entity with a public fund that it uses to provide government subsidies for business. In some ways JobsOhio is an Enron scheme for government; “off-balance sheet” diversion of public funds to private businesses. JobsOhio operates outside the purview of public records laws, open meetings laws, ethics laws, and, after a 2014 Ohio Supreme Court decision, without regard for constitutional fiscal constraint under the Ohio Constitution. Governor Kasich promotes the non-transparent JobsOhio corporation as necessary to attract and create jobs with a development agency that “moves at the speed of business.” But the joinder of the public and private spheres is cause for concern. The character of government is at stake when the sphere of politicizable activity is unlimited and government may invest in private enterprise without limitation. Politicians promoting government subsidies for business may be rewarded with campaign contributions or worse, bribes. Businesses too may look at their bottom line and find it more profitable to invest in socially wasteful political conflict rather than the research and development that fosters economic growth and drives the economy. By chronicling the history of the Ohio Constitution, this paper provides context for Nobel Laureate in Economics James Buchanan’s “constitutional generality principle,” as an institutional safeguard to promote stability in government and foster innovation. The 1851 Ohio Constitution contains a package of at least a dozen constitutional constraints that are designed to promote generality, or fairness, in government; a balanced budget provision, debt limits, appropriation limits, constraints on public-private partnerships, and others. Ohioans adopted these provisions after a broadly reaching administrative state in 19th Century became wildly corrupt while constructing the Ohio Canal System. Not unlike JobsOhio, 19th Century legislators simply delegated decisions regarding public investment in private enterprise to administrative agencies as political cronyism grew out of hand. This paper details the ideas, persons, and events that shaped the deterioration of the package of constitutional fiscal constraints in the 1851 Ohio Constitution. The story is still unfolding on Gov. Kasich’s watch. In 2014, after a series of JobsOhio-related scandals including “sham” litigation, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled that challengers to the JobsOhio subsidy program did not have “standing” to argue that JobsOhio violates the Ohio Constitution. The Court did not identify anyone who did have standing though. Further, the Court so held despite provisions in the Ohio Constitution that forbid the lending of aid or credit from governmental entities to private businesses. Ironically, JobsOhio itself is now in charge of the constitutional revision process, as a State-created commission created to study the Ohio Constitution has a finance and taxation committee headed up by JobsOhio’s outside legal counsel. Today, the deterioration of the Ohio Constitution has given rise to a widely reaching “business subsidy industry” of, well, just about everyone: politicians, interest groups, the media, lawyers, lobbyists, accountants, bureaucrats, private industry, and, yes, voters. The situation provides context to present the roles of the players in the business subsidy industry, and to study constitutional fiscal constraint, law, economics, and politics.This paper was finished in early 2015, so it is slightly out-of-date as of its posting through the Social Science Research Network in March 2016. But the paper does provide timely context for Gov. Kasich’s time as Ohio Governor, as he finds himself on the national stage in a race for the White House.

Ohio governor signs bill that expands pharmacists’ patient care services

Ohio governor signs bill that expands pharmacists’ patient care services

Press Coverage and Its Impact on Attitudes Toward a Black Republican for High-Profile Statewide Office: The 2006 Ohio Governor's Election

This article studies the 2006 Ohio gubernatorial election and attempts to determine a connection between newspaper content emphasizing the race of the Black Republican J. Kenneth Blackwell and the positive or negative attitudes of Ohioans toward this counter-stereotypical candidate. Through a content analysis of both rural and urban Ohio newspapers, it was determined that the race of the Black candidate was emphasized more often than the race of his White opponent. Most surprising is the impact that the press coverage had on White Republicans’ opinions of the candidate versus its impact on the opinions of Black Democrats. This study encourages additional research examining the use of race mentions and party identification cues and the role both play while voters form opinions of different counter-stereotypical candidates.

George Crook: From the Redwoods to Appomattox by Paul Magid (review)

Reviewed by: George Crook: From the Redwoods to Appomattox by Paul Magid Tom Kirker George Crook: From the Redwoods to Appomattox. Paul Magid. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 2011. ISBN 978-0-8061-4207-4, 408 pp., cloth, $39.95. Author Paul Magid, a retired attorney, wanted to write a book on George Crook to “discern the inner man and his motivations” and “paint a more complete picture of his multifaceted and complex character and of his role in American history” (10). The author is planning a second volume on Crook’s life, covering his post–Civil War career to his death in 1890. To improve his writing skills, Paul Magid completed course work in nonfiction writing; this paid dividends. George Crook was born outside of Dayton, Ohio. His father was a farmer. Instead of picking up the plow, Crook went to the U.S. Military Academy at West Point (Class of 1852). There he developed important relationships, including one with Philip Sheridan. Crook’s first army assignments took him to small posts in northern California. There, he learned hard campaigning, mule handling, and maintaining relationships with hostile adversaries. He also learned the rudiments of irregular, or guerrilla, warfare in the antebellum Indian Wars of California. He was not a typical young army officer; he helped draft a Klamath Indian vocabulary, which was submitted to the Smithsonian Institution. While in California, Crook developed a disdain for volunteer and militia units. Ironically, however, when war erupted in 1861, he requested a command in the Ohio State Volunteers. Ohio governor William Denison granted his request, and he took command of the 36th Ohio. Crook, always an advocate for training, drilled and trained the men of the 36th. Western Virginia and the tough guerilla fighting in the hills and valleys of the region were Crook’s first testing ground. Crook and the 36th Ohio did well. He “had set the Thirty-Sixth Ohio on a path that would make it one of the most effective volunteer units in the war, one that regular officers often compared to their own units in terms of soldiers’ professionalism in the field” (121). Growing confidence, skill, and reputation earned Crook more responsibilities. At the Battle of South Mountain, he commanded a brigade in the Ninth Corps, Army of the Potomac. Two days later, fighting at Rohrbach Bridge on Antietam battlefield, he poorly handled his unit and responsibilities. Magid wrote, “More telling than his mistakes on the field was his lack of forthrightness in reporting the events of that day” (149). In early 1863, Crook and his command were transferred from western Virginia to the Army of the Cumberland in Tennessee. During the Chattanooga campaign, he was promoted to command of a cavalry division where he developed “a skill essential to his future in the Indian Wars” (157). Out of military necessity, Crook was transferred back to western Virginia in February 1864. His assignment “was to quell the guerrilla war that continued to rage in the mountains of the southern part of the region” (174). His efforts were notable. His reputation was solid. Then he ran into Confederate general Jubal Early at the Second Battle of Kernstown, July 24, 1864. The war was in its third year. The Union needed victories. Crook was defeated. At [End Page 260] Kernstown, another failing of Crook’s reappeared: his inability to acknowledge his own mistakes and his tendency to blame subordinates and troops for his errors. In the Shenandoah Valley campaigns of August and September 1864, General Crook performed well at the battles of Winchester and Fisher’s Hill. His efforts, however, were often over shadowed by his more exuberant commanding officer and self-promoting friend Gen. Philip Sheridan, who commanded the Army of the Shenandoah. Five months after his defeat at Kernstown, Crook was captured by Confederate raiders, and he was briefly held in Libby Prison. The event nearly ruined his career. U. S. secretary of war Edwin Stanton wanted Crook sacked. Only with the intervention of fellow Ohioan and longtime acquaintance Gen. Ulysses Grant was Crook’s career salvaged. He was given a cavalry division command in the Army of the Potomac. He would serve out the war the...