CHAPTER TWO-JOHN MARSHALL’S CONSTITUTION
Bruce Ackerman, The Failure of the Founding Fathers: Jefferson, Marshall, and the Rise of Presidential Democracy (Belknap Press, 2005).
Dean Alfange, Jr., “Marbury v Madison and Original Understandings of Judicial Review: In Defense of Traditional Wisdom,” Supreme Court Review, vol. 1993 (1993), pp. 329-446.
Leonard Baker, John Marshall: A Life in Law (Macmillan, 1974).
Albert J. Beveridge, The Life of John Marshall, 4 vols. (Houghton Mifflin, 1916-19).
Everett S. Brown, ed., William Plumer’s Memorandum of Proceedings in the United States Senate, 1803-1807 (Macmillan, 1923).
Robert L. Clinton, Marbury v. Madison and Judicial Review (University Press of Kansas, 1989).
George Dangerfield, The Era of Good Feelings (Harcourt, Brace, 1952).
Richard E. Ellis, The Jeffersonian Crisis: Courts and Politics in the Young Republic (Oxford University Press, 1971).
Robert Kenneth Faulkner, The Jurisprudence of John Marshall (Princeton University Press, 1968).
Leon Friedman and Fred L. Israel, eds., The Justices of the United States Supreme Court, 1789-1969 (Chelsea House, 1969-78), vol. 1.
Mark A. Graber and Michael Perhac, eds., Marbury versus Madison (CQ Press, 2002).
Gerald Gunther, ed., John Marshall’s Defense of McCulloch v. Maryland (Stanford University Press, 1969).
Charles Grove Haines, The American Doctrine of Judicial Supremacy, 2nd ed. (University of California Press, 1932).
Charles Grove Haines, The Role of the Supreme Court in American Government and Politics, 1789-1835 (University of California Press, 1944).
George Lee Haskins and Herbert A. Johnson, Foundations of Power: John Marshall, 1801- 1815, vol. 2 of History of the Supreme Court of the United States (Macmillan, 1981).
James Haw et al., Stormy Patriot: The Life of Samuel Chase (Maryland Historical Society, 1980).
Charles F. Hobson, The Great Chief Justice: John Marshall and the Rule of Law (University Press of Kansas, 1996).
Herbert A. Johnson, The Chief Justiceship of John Marshall, 1801-1835 (University of South Carolina Press, 1997).
Samuel J. Konefsky, John Marshall and Alexander Hamilton: Architects of the American Constitution (Macmillan, 1964).
Larry D. Kramer, The People Themselves: Popular Constitutionalism and Judicial Review (Oxford University Press, 2004).
Richard P. Longaker, “Andrew Jackson and the Judiciary,” Political Science Quarterly, vol. 71, no. 3 (September 1956), pp. 341-64.
John Marshall, An Autobiographical Sketch, John Stokes Adams, ed. (University of Michigan Press, 1937).
David N. Mayer, The Constitutional Thought of Thomas Jefferson (University Press of Virginia, 1994), esp. ch. 9.
Donald G. Morgan, Justice William Johnson, the First Dissenter (University of South Carolina Press, 1954).
R. Kent Newmyer, John Marshall and the Heroic Age of the Supreme Court (Louisiana State University Press, 2001).
R. Kent Newmyer, Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story: Statesman of the Old Republic (University of North Carolina Press, 1985).
R. Kent Newmyer, “Thomas Jefferson and the Rise of the Supreme Court,” Journal of Supreme Court History, vol. 31, no. 2 (July 2006), pp. 126-40.
Robert V. Remini, Andrew Jackson (Harper & Row, 1977-84), vols. 2-3.
Joel H. Silbey, The American Political Nation, 1838-1893 (Stanford University Press, 1991).
James F. Simon, What Kind of Nation: Thomas Jefferson, John Marshall, and the Epic Struggle to Create a United States (Simon & Schuster, 2002).
Jean Edward Smith, John Marshall: Definer of a Nation (Henry Holt, 1996).
Robert Steamer, “Congress and the Supreme Court During the Marshall Era,” Review of Politics, vol. 27, no. 3 ( July 1965), pp. 364-85.
Melvin I. Urofsky, “Thomas Jefferson and John Marshall: What Kind of Constitution Shall We Have?,” Journal of Supreme Court History, vol. 31, no. 2 (July 2006), pp. 109-25.
Sandra F. VanBurkleo, “In Defense of ‘Public Reason’: Supreme Court Justice William Johnson,” Journal of Supreme Court History, vol. 32, no. 2 (August 2007), pp. 115-32.
G. Edward White, The Marshall Court and Cultural Change, 1815-1835, vol. 3 of History of the Supreme Court of the United States (Macmillan, 1988).
Christopher Wolfe, The Rise of Modern Judicial Review: From Constitutional Interpretation to Judge-Made Law, rev. ed. (Littlefield Adams, 1994).
25 [“all republicans”] : “First Inaugural Address,” March 4, 1801, in Jefferson, Papers, Julian P. Boyd, ed. (Princeton University Press, 1950- ), vol. 33, pp. 148-52, quoted at pp. 149, 150.
26 [“Who shall I nominate”] : Marshall, Autobiographical Sketch, p. 30.
26 [“pride of my life”] : Adams to Marshall, letter of August 17, 1825, in Marshall, Papers, Herbert A. Johnson, ed. (University of North Carolina Press, 1974-2006), vol. 10, p. 197.
27 [“rock of our political salvation”] : “To a Freeholder,” Virginia Herald (Fredericksburg), October 2, 1798, in ibid., vol. 3, pp. 503-6, quoted at p. 504.
27 [“greatest Man”] : Marshall to James Monroe, letter of January 3, 1784, in ibid., vol. 1, pp. 113-14, quoted at p. 113.
27 [“confirmed in the habit”] : Marshall, Autobiographical Sketch, pp. 9-10.
27 [“no safe”] : ibid., p. 10.
28 [“well regulated Democracy”] : speech, June 10, 1788, in Marshall, Papers, vol. 1, pp. 256-70, quoted at p. 256.
28 [“considered by the Judges”] : speech, June 20, 1788, in ibid., vol. 1, pp. 275-86, quoted at p. 277.
28 [“good old school”] : Justice Joseph Story, A Discourse Upon the Life, Character, and Services of the Honorable John Marshall, LL.D (James Munroe and Co., 1835), p. 57.
28 [“stronghold”] : Jefferson to John Dickinson, letter of December 19, 1801, in Jefferson, Works, H. A. Washington, ed. (Townsend Mac Coun, 1884), vol. 4, pp. 424-25, quoted at p. 424.
28 [“only check”] : Giles to Jefferson, letter of March 16, 1801, in Jefferson, Papers, vol. 33, pp. 310-12, quoted at p. 311.
29 [“equal right”] : Annals of Congress, 7th Congress, 1st session, February 3, 1802, p. 179; for the omitted paragraph, see Beveridge, vol. 3, pp. 505-6 (Appendix A).
29 [“there are no words”] : 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 299 (1803), quoted at 309.
29 [“certainly gone”] : Lee to Levin Powell, letter of July 11, 1802, quoted in Haskins and Johnson, p. 166.
31 [“appears not to be warranted”] : 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803), quoted at 176, 178, 177, 178, respectively.
32 [“gratuitous interference”] : Jefferson to Justice William Johnson, letter of June 12, 1823, in Jefferson, Writings, Merrill D. Peterson, ed. (Library of America, 1984), pp. 1469-77, quoted at p. 1474.
32 [“despotic branch”] : Jefferson to Abigail Adams, letter of September 11, 1804, in Jefferson, Works, vol. 4, pp. 560-62, quoted at p. 561.
32 [“travelling out”] : Jefferson to Johnson, June 12, 1823, in Jefferson, Writings, p. 1474.
33 [“general purgation”] : Giles to Jefferson, March 16, 1801, in Jefferson, Papers, vol. 33, p. 311.
33 [“fraudulent use”] : Jefferson to Dickinson, December 19, 1801, in Jefferson, Works, vol. 4, p. 425.
33 [“business of removing”] : entry of January 4, 1804, in Smith, William Plumer’s Memorandum, p. 101.
33 [“the President, on application”] : entry of January 7, 1804, in ibid., p. 102.
33 [Chase’s Baltimore jury charge] : quoted in Haskins and Johnson, p. 218.
34 [“mere scare-crow”] : Jefferson to Thomas Ritchie, letter of December 25, 1820, in Jefferson, Writings, pp. 1445-47, quoted at p. 1446.
34 [“appellate jurisdiction”] : letter of January 23, [1805], in Marshall, Papers, vol. 6, pp. 347-48, quoted at p. 347.
35 [“zealous democrat”] : Donald Morgan, “William Johnson,” in Friedman and Israel, vol. 1, pp. 355-72, quoted at p. 358.
35 [“rest of the se
ssion”] : Johnson to Thomas Jefferson, letter of December 10, 1822, quoted in Morgan, Justice William Johnson, p. 182.
35 [“have a chance”] : Jefferson to Albert Gallatin, letter of September 27, 1810, in Jefferson, Papers: Retirement Series, J. Jefferson Looney, ed. (Princeton University Press, 2004- ), vol. 3, pp. 123-25, quoted at p. 124.
36 [“pseudo-republican”] : Jefferson to Henry Dearborn, letter of July 16, 1810, in ibid., vol. 2, pp. 537-38, quoted at p. 537.
36 [“unquestionably a tory”] : Jefferson to Madison, letter of October 15, 1810, in ibid., vol. 3, pp. 165-66, quoted at p. 166.
36 [“although subscribed to”] : White, p. 192.
37 [Fletcher] : 10 U.S. (6 Cranch) 87 (1810), quoted at 135, 134, respectively.
38 [“sound construction”] : 14 U.S. (1 Wheaton) 304 (1816), quoted at 306.
38 [“extend to cases”] : ibid., quoted at 351, 348, respectively.
39 [“liberal latitude”] : Hamilton, “An Opinion on the Constitutionality of an Act to Establish a Bank,” February 23, 1791, in Hamilton, Papers, Harold C. Syrett, ed. (Columbia University Press, 1961-87), vol. 8, pp. 97-134, quoted at p. 103.
39 [“emphatically and truly”] : 17 U.S. (4 Wheaton) 316 (1819), quoted at 404-5, 402, 405, respectively.
39 [“Let the end be”] : ibid., 421.
40 [“fair construction”] : ibid., 406, 407, 401, 423, respectively.
40 [“retard, impede”] : ibid., 436, 432, respectively.
40 [“judicial coup de main”] : Roane, first “Hampden Essay,” Richmond Enquirer, June 11, 1819, in Gunther, pp. 106-14, quoted at pp. 110, 111; and Roane, fourth “Hampden Essay,” Richmond Enquirer, June 22, 1819, in ibid., pp. 138-54, quoted at p. 140.
41 [“every tittle”] : Jefferson to Roane, letter of September 16, 1819, in Jefferson, Writings, pp. 1425-28, quoted at p. 1425.
41 [“reduce the whole instrument”] : Jefferson, “Opinion on the Constitutionality of a National Bank,” February 15, 1791, in Jefferson, Writings, pp. 416-21, quoted at p. 418.
41 [“opinion is huddled up”] : Jefferson to Ritchie, December 25, 1820, in ibid., p. 1446.
41 [“thing of wax”] : Jefferson to Roane, September 16, 1819, in ibid., p. 1426.
41 [“Let each operate”] : Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6 Wheaton) 264 (1821), quoted at 344.
42 [“all its departments”] : ibid., 415, 414, respectively.
43 [“perhaps two-thirds”] : diary entry, December 31, 1825, in Adams, Memoirs, Charles Francis Adams, ed. ( J. B. Lippincott, 1874-77), vol. 7, p. 98.
43 [“Federalist heresies”] : quoted in Silbey, p. 17.
43 [“I should consider”] : see Marshall to Joseph Story, letter of May 1, 1828, in Marshall, Papers, vol. 11, pp. 93-94, quoted at p. 94.
44 [Georgia and the Cherokees] : Worcester v. Georgia, 31 U.S. (6 Peters) 515 (1832); see also Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 30 U.S. (5 Peters) 1 (1831).
44 [“power to make war”] : “Special Message to the Senate,” February 22, 1831, in James D. Richardson, ed., A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents (Bureau of National Literature and Art, 1913), vol. 2, pp. 1099-1104, quoted at p. 1102.
44 [“made his decision”] : quoted in Longaker, p. 341.
44 [“fell still born”] : Jackson to John Coffee, letter of April 7, 1832, quoted in Remini, vol. 2, p. 276.
44 [“permitted to control”] : “Veto Message,” July 10, 1832, in Richardson, vol. 2, pp. 1139-54, quoted at p. 1145.
45 [“hazard the disgrace”] : Marshall to Joseph Story, letter of October 12, 1831, in Marshall, Papers, vol. 12, pp. 118-20, quoted at p. 119; for Marshall’s thoughts on retirement, see letter to Story, June 26, 1831, in ibid., vol. 12, pp. 93-94.
45 [“principles on the Constitution”] : Jackson to Martin Van Buren, letter of October 27, 1834, quoted in Longaker, p. 358 fn. 43.
46 [Majority rule in Marshall’s court] : see Briscoe v. Commonwealth Bank and City of New York v. Miln, 33 U.S. (8 Peters) 118, Marshall’s remark at 122. The two cases were eventually decided by the Taney Court; for Briscoe, see 36 U.S. (11 Peters) 257 (1837), and for Miln, 36 U.S. (11 Peters) 102 (1837).
46 [“revolutionary spirit”] : Marshall to Joseph Story, letter of May 3, 1831, in Marshall, Papers, vol. 12, pp. 62-63, quoted at p. 62.
46 [Marshall’s dissent] : Ogden v. Saunders, 25 U.S. (12 Wheaton) 213 (1827), dissent at 332.
47 [“I yield slowly”] : letter of September 22, 1832, in Marshall, Papers, vol. 12, pp. 237-38, quoted at p. 238.
CHAPTER THREE-THE DRED DECISION
Henry J. Abraham, Justices and Presidents: A Political History of Appointments to the Supreme Court, 3rd ed. (Oxford University Press, 1992), ch. 6.
Austin Allen, Origins of the Dred Scott Case: Jacksonian Jurisprudence and the Supreme Court, 1837-1857 (University of Georgia Press, 2006).
Walter Ehrlich, They Have No Rights: Dred Scott’s Struggle for Freedom (Greenwood Press, 1979).
Nicole Etcheson, Bleeding Kansas: Contested Liberty in the Civil War Era (University Press of Kansas, 2004).
Don E. Fehrenbacher, The Dred Scott Case: Its Significance in American Law and Politics (Oxford University Press, 1978).
Paul Finkelman, Dred Scott v. Sandford (Bedford Books, 1997).
Leon Friedman and Fred L. Israel, eds., The Justices of the United States Supreme Court, 1789-1969 (Chelsea House, 1969-78), vol. 2.
Mark A. Graber, “Desperately Ducking Slavery: Dred Scott and Contemporary Constitutional Theory,” Constitutional Commentary, vol. 14, no. 2 (Summer 1997), pp. 271-318.
Charles Grove Haines, The American Doctrine of Judicial Supremacy, 2nd ed. (University of California Press, 1932).
Timothy S. Huebner, The Taney Court: Justices, Rulings, and Legacy (ABC-CLIO, 2003).
Harold M. Hyman and William M. Wiecek, Equal Justice Under Law: Constitutional Development, 1835-1875 (Harper & Row, 1982).
William Lasser, The Limits of Judicial Power: The Supreme Court in American Politics (University of North Carolina Press, 1988), ch. 2.
Donald E. Lively, Foreshadows of the Law: Supreme Court Dissents and Constitutional Development (Praeger, 1992), ch. 2.
Earl M. Maltz, Dred Scott and the Politics of Slavery (University Press of Kansas, 2007).
Wallace Mendelson, “Chief Justice Taney: Jacksonian Judge,” University of Pittsburgh Law Review, vol. 12 (Spring 1951), pp. 381-93.
Lucas E. Morel, “The Dred Scott Dissents: McLean, Curtis, Lincoln, and the Public Mind,” Journal of Supreme Court History, vol. 32, no. 2 (August 2007), pp. 133-51.
David M. Potter, The Impending Crisis, 1848-1861 (Harper & Row, 1976).
Donald L. Robinson, Slavery in the Structure of American Politics, 1765-1820 (Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1971).
John R. Schmidhauser, “Judicial Behavior and the Sectional Crisis of 1837-1860,” Journal of Politics, vol. 23, no. 4 (November 1961), pp. 615-40.
Joel H. Silbey, The American Political Nation, 1838-1893 (Stanford University Press, 1991).
James F. Simon, Lincoln and Chief Justice Taney: Slavery, Secession, and the President’s War Powers (Simon & Schuster, 2006).
Kenneth M. Stampp, America in 1857: A Nation on the Brink (Oxford University Press, 1990).
Stuart Streichler, Justice Curtis in the Civil War Era (University of Virginia Press, 2005).
Carl B. Swisher, Roger B. Taney (Macmillan, 1935).
Carl B. Swisher, The Taney Period, 1836-64, vol. 5 of History of the Supreme Court of the United States (Macmillan, 1974).
Samuel Tyler, Memoir of Roger Brooke Taney, LL.D, 2nd ed. (John Murphy, 1876).
Keith E. Whittington, “The Road Not Taken: Dred Scott, Judicial Authority, and Political Questions,” Journal of Politics, vol. 63, no. 2 (May 2001), pp. 365-91.
William M. Wiecek, “Slavery and Abolition Before the United States Supreme Court, 1820-1860,” Journal of American History, vol. 65, no. 1 (June 1978), pp. 34-59.
Xi Wang, “The Dred
Scott Case,” in Annette Gordon-Reed, ed., Race on Trial: Law and Justice in American History (Oxford University Press, 2002), pp. 26-47.
49 [“slavery, spittoons”] : Dickens to Charles Sumner, letter of March 13, 1842, in Dickens, Letters, Madeline House et al., eds. (Clarendon Press, 1965-2002), vol. 3, pp. 126-28, quoted at p. 127 ; Dickens, American Notes and Pictures from Italy (Oxford University Press, 1957), p. 120.
49 [African-American population, late 1780s] : U.S. Bureau of the Census, Negro Population in the United States, 1790-1915 (1918; reprinted by Arno Press, 1968), p. 45 (Table 13).
51 [“consistent with the Constitution”] : quoted in Hyman and Wiecek, p. 144.
52 [“preservation of the Union”] : Congressional Globe, 31st Congress, 1st session, March 7, 1850, p. 476.
52 [Marshall leaving slavery to the states] : see R. Kent Newmyer, John Marshall and the Heroic Age of the Supreme Court (Louisiana State University Press, 2001), pp. 424-34.
53 [“debt of gratitude”] : Jackson to Taney, letter of June 25, 1834, in Tyler, pp. 222-23, quoted at p. 223.
53 [Charles River Bridge] : Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge, 36 U.S. 420 (1837), Taney quoted at 548; Story’s dissent at 598.
54 [Taney’s expansions of state powers] : see License Cases, 46 U.S. 504 (1847), esp. 578-80.
54 [“could not be questioned”] : 48 U.S. 1 (1849), quoted at 42.
54 [“African race”] : quoted in Simon, pp. 16, 17.
55 [Taney on interstate slave trade] : Groves v. Slaughter, 40 U.S. 449 (1841), Taney’s concurrence at 508.
55 [Strader] : 51 U.S. 82 (1851), esp. 93-94.
55 [Prigg] : 41 U.S. 539 (1842).
56 [“all questions pertaining”] : quoted in Hyman and Wiecek, p. 163.
57 [“times are not now”] : quoted in Finkelman, p. 22.
58 [“dead letter”] : “Fourth Annual Message,” December 2, 1856, in Richardson, vol. 4, pp. 2930-50, quoted at p. 2935.
58 [“compromise of principle”] : quoted in Fehrenbacher, p. 301.
59 [Explanations for the court’s shift] : I have relied on Fehrenbacher’s discussion in his ch. 13.
Packing the Court: The Rise of Judicial Power and the Coming Crisis of the Supreme Court Page 27