Ohio History Journal

  • 1
  •  
  • 2
  •  
  • 3
  •  
  • 4
  •  
  • 5
  •  
  • 6
  •  
  • 7
  •  
  • 8
  •  
  • 9
  •  
  • 10
  •  
  • 11
  •  
  • 12
  •  
  • 13
  •  
  • 14
  •  
  • 15
  •  
  • 16
  •  
  • 17
  •  
  • 18
  •  
  • 19
  •  
  • 20
  •  
  • 21
  •  
  • 22
  •  
  • 23
  •  
  • 24
  •  
  • 25
  •  
  • 26
  •  
  • 27
  •  
  • 28
  •  
  • 29
  •  

MARK V

MARK V. KWASNY

 

A Test for the Ohio National Guard:

The Cincinnati Riot of 1884

 

Riots have been a part of our history since the colonial days. Crowds

clashing with civil and military authorities, violence in the streets, and

the deaths of citizens at the hands of law enforcement agencies-these

are not unknown in the history of the United States. The Cincinnati

Riot, March 28-30, 1884, contained all of these elements. For three

days citizens, police, and soldiers of the Ohio National Guard (ONG)

fought in the streets of Cincinnati, leaving more than forty people dead

and well over one hundred injured. This riot was remarkable, though

not unique, for the intense anger and hostility exhibited by the crowd,

and the willingness of the police and militia to meet these emotions

with all necessary force.

The Cincinnati Riot was a severe test for both the ONG and the

entire state command system, from the governor down to the regimen-

tal commanders. National Guard organizations were relatively new

then, having replaced the state militia units which had died out after the

Civil War. The 1877 Railroad Strike impressed upon the states the need

for an effective internal police force, and in that same year some states

began to hold summer camps for their Guard units. Ohio held its first

in 1879.1 The riot in 1884 challenged how much the ONG had improved

during these five years.

Domestic disturbances such as riots have always posed a severe

problem for civilian and military authorities. Civilian leaders often wait

too long before calling for military assistance, usually because of an

unwillingness to admit they have lost control of the situation, as well as

from a desire to avoid the costs involved. At the same time, military

leaders are hesitant to involve themselves in civilian affairs, preferring

 

 

 

 

Mark V. Kwasny is a Ph.D. candidate in history at The Ohio State University.

 

1. Robin Higham, ed., Bayonets in the Streets: The Use of Troops in Civil

Disturbances (Lawrence, Kansas, 1969), p. 27; William H. Riker, Soldiers of the State

(New York, 1979), pp. 51, 56; John K. Mahon, History of the Militia and the National

Guard (New York, 1983), p. 113.