Some had to do with how the Southern states were "counted' and influenced, but losing the war probably had some effect as to how this was worked out.
Of course losing the war had everything to do with it. Yankees took over, and they modified the US Constitution by force, because they could.
NJ and Ohio were told they couldn't change their votes. Since there is nothing in Art. V that talks about this it could have been proper to tell them this.
I don't think so ... how can it be proper to tell the Northern States that voted "yes" that they CANNOT change their votes, while telling Southern States that voted "no" that they MUST change their votes or remain under military rule?
It wasn't just Congress. The President and the Supreme Court also went along with the 14th. I am not aware of any cases where they said it was invalid due to the ratification process.
The President was opposed to the 14th and he advised the States to not ratify it. President Johnson was so opposed to what Congress was doing that they tried to impeach him and get him out of the way. And when the 14th came to the SCOTUS in the Slaughterhouse cases they didn't "go along with it" but rather they cut it down to size. So I wouldn't say that the President and the SCOTUS went along with the 14th, but it's true that the US treats the 14th as if it was ratified. I think it demonstrates a lack of integrity and credibility.
This may be somewhat of a moot point, though. All states have ratified the 14th.
I don't think that's true, or at least we're back to pretending that it was properly ratified when it was ratified by force. For instance, when did my State of Virginia ratify the 14th, and under what conditions? My understanding is that we would be held under military rule until we agreed to it. So yeah, Virginia ratified the 14th, with a gun to our heads. If parties sign a contract because they have a gun to their head, do you consider that to be a valid contract, and would you say that all parties signed it, as if it was legitimate?
It's not moot to me. Folks like to pretend that the 14th was properly ratified, and pretend that it means things that it was never intended to mean. My point is that, even if we pretend that it was properly ratified, there was no intent to force homosexual marriage upon the States. You asked why we have to pretend that the 14th was ratified, and I think I have answered that question well enough.