DOCSLIB.ORG

The Trials of John Fries

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Trials of John Fries The Trials of John Fries N THE spring of 1800 Samuel Chase, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, presided with District I Judge Richard Peters at the Circuit Court for the Middle District in Pennsylvania. One of the cases before them which was destined to attract much public attention was that of the United States v. John Fries. The defendant, a Federalist, was fifty years old when he was brought to trial a second time for treason. Fries was a moderately successful auctioneer who had served as a captain in the Continental Army and in the Whiskey Rebellion. His arrest and first trial in 1799 resulted from his participation in the tragi- comic "Hot Water War" of that year. This ludicrous episode originated from a misunderstanding precipitated by poor com- munications. Anticipating war with France, Congress had enacted legislation designed to provide a means of financing it. Under the provisions of an Act of July 9, 1798, Congress authorized excise officers to assess the value of houses, lands, and slaves. On July 14th Congress also sanctioned a direct tax of $2,000,000 which was to be laid according to the preceding evaluation of property.1 In urban areas the acts were publicized, and the inhabitants were relatively in- different to the officers who proceeded unmolested with their work. In rural regions, however, such as northeastern Pennsylvania where many of the residents spoke and read only German, many people were unaware of the reason for the inquisitiveness of the men who were so assiduously assessing property and inexplicably counting windows of houses. The last was not required by law and, ironically, led to the succeeding insurrection. Resentful and fearful of some of these officers who were considered locally to be of poor character, many women began to heap verbal and physical abuse on them, and soon the male residents took up their wives' offensive. In a l U. S. Statutes at Large, I, 580-591, 597-604; W. W. H. Davis, The Fries Rebellion, 1798-99 (Doylestown, 1899), 3-4. 43* TH I979 E TRIALS OF JOHN FRIES 433 short time the disturbance mushroomed and normal administrative functions were hampered or forced to cease in parts of Bucks, Montgomery, and Northampton Counties. The "Hot Water War" received its name when a housewife doused one of the revenue officers with the contents of a bucket of hot water. It was the proverbial last straw for the exasperated man, who in retaliation sought to arrest his assailant's husband. Accounts differ as to what followed, but while pursuing the husband the exciseman was himself captured by a band of the husband's neigh- bors. Meanwhile William Nichols, a United States Marshal, had received warrants to arrest several men charged with insurrection following earlier incidents. Being in the vicinity when he learned of the exciseman's plight, Nichols went to his rescue only to be himself taken captive and held for a time until he explained the purpose of the revenue officers' activities. Released, Nichols returned to Bethle- hem with twenty-three men under arrest. On March 7, 1799, John Fries led a "body of armed men, between 80 and 100," as estimated by Judge James Iredell, "in military array, forming one troop of horse and two companies of foot," who forcibly obtained the release of the men arrested by Nichols. Fries and his associates were sincere in their belief that the tax measures were designed to de- prive them of their constitutional rights and of their property.2 Some of the disaffected men had second thoughts about continued opposition, however, as the reason for the excisemen's work became better known and also as word was received that the federal govern- ment planned to take strong measures against the insurgents. Approxi- mately 200 men from Bucks, Montgomery, and Northampton Counties met on March 15th to discuss the situation. It was the consensus that their opposition had been unwarranted because the revenue officers had a valid reason to assess property. Made aware that their actions could be construed as treason, some of the men rescued from prison at Bethlehem decided to go to Philadelphia and give themselves up to the authorities. A few succeeded in reaching the city but the majority were stopped by a large body of men who 2 James Iredell to Hannah Johnston Iredell, Mar. 14, 1799, Griffith J. McRee, Life and Correspondence of James Iredell (New York, 1949), II, 547; Aurora, Apr. 1, 3, 1799; Davis, The Fries Rebellion^ 7-8, 38-66. 434 JANE SHAFFER ELSMERE October continued to believe their liberties were in danger of being infringed as a result of the revenue officers' work. This latter group forced the former to swear that they would not surrender and told them to return home.3 Meanwhile, rumors and a few facts reached government leaders. Remembering the Whiskey Rebellion, some of the Federalists feared that a similar or worse problem might be brewing. The dread spectre of civil war was raised. Federalists conjectured that the disturbance was part of a Republican plot to overthrow the government. Oliver Wolcott urged adoption of a watchful posture until the truth of what was occurring could be learned. He was not as alarmed as were some of his colleagues, terming the trouble a "paltry insurrection" but stating that it could "be nursed into something formidable." Wolcott heartily disliked Republican leaders in Pennsylvania, especially Thomas McKean and Alexander James Dallas; he wrote of them that "What lies in their power towards promoting rebellion against the government, they will effect."4 Some Republicans, on the other hand, believed that the insurrection had been fomented by Samuel Sitgreaves, the Assistant United States District Attorney, in an attempt to channel federal money into Pehnsylvania's etonomy. Judge Chase followed the progress of the "Northampton Insur- rection," as many now called it, from accounts appearing in news- papers and from correspondence with friends. He concluded that it was a serious matter and expressed his opinion privately that "a body of horse and foot" should be "ordered to seize the insur- gents."5 3 Annals of Congress, 5 Cong., 2 sess., Appendix, 3758, 3778-3786; Aurora, Mar. 12, 23, Apr. 11, 1799; Gazette of the United States, Mar. n, 30, 1799; Connecticut Courant, Mar. 15, Apr. 1, 8, 1799; Davis, The Fries Rebellion, 5, 45-46^ 67-69; Frank M. Eastman, The Fries Rebellion (New York, 1922), 72; Joseph M. Levering, A History of Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, 1741-1892 (Bethlehem, 1902), 564; Harry M. Tinkcom, The Republicans and Federalists in Pennsylvania, 1790-1801 (Harrisburg, 1950), 215-216; Francis Wharton, comp., State Trials of the United States During the Administrations of Washington and Adams (Philadelphia, 1849), 2, 458-459, 50^-504, $*SS*6, 53*S36> Dwight F. Henderson, "Treason, Sedition, and Fries' Rebellion," American Journal of Legal History, XIV (1970), 309-311. 4 Oliver Wolcott to Frederick Wolcott, [?], 1799, Wharton, State Trials, 466. 5 Samuel Chase to James Iredell, Mar. 17,1799, McRee, Life and Correspondence of James Iredell, II, 548; James Iredell to Hannah Johnston Iredell, Apr. 25,1799, ibid., II, 573. I979 THE TRIALS OF JOHN FRIES 435 On March 12, 1799, President John Adams issued a proclamation ordering the insurgents to disperse and to obey the laws of the land. When continued reports of difficulties reached him, Adams deter- mined that troops should be sent into the disaffected area to arrest the ringleaders. He directed James McHenry, Secretary of War, to request Pennsylvania's governor, Thomas Mifflin, to dispatch militia with qrdelrs to make the desired arrests. This corps of state militia was placed under the command of Brigadier General William Mac- Pherson. Later it was joined by federal troops. The military rode nearly sixty miles to make their arrests. John Fries was crying a sale when he sighted the approaching soldiers. He slipped off into a nearby woods, eluding his pursuers until his hiding place was betrayed by the barking of his little black dog "Whiskey." John Eberhart who had assisted Fries with the release of the prisoners at Bethlehem was arrested at his home, and the two, escorted by a guard of twelve troopers, were taken to Phila- delphia where they were charged by Judge Peters with high treason and were committed to jail. Other insurgents were also arrested and either jailed, or, like Hermann Hartmann, Adam Stephan, and Henry Skanwiler, released upon bail until the next sitting of the circuit court. Of the men arrested, forty-four were indicted for con- spiracy, thirty-two for conspiracy, rescue, and obstruction of process, eleven for treason, and one for uttering seditious statements.6 Willing as each was to use the insurrection as a basis for political propaganda directed against the other party, neither Federalists nor Republicans could find much of value to exploit. The Federalists were embarrassed to learn that most of the arrested men were themselves Federalists. Therefore, a convincing case could not be made that the disturbance was a Republican effort to subvert the government. Nevertheless, President Adams was reluctant to give up the idea that the "obscure, miserable Germans" were being 6 Minute Book, 1796-1799, 30, 33, 36-39, 46-47, 50-51, Records of the District Courts of the United States, United States Circuit Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, RG ai, National Archives; Connecticut Courant, Apr. 15, 1799; Kentucky Gazette, May 2, 1799; Robert Goodloe Harper to [?], Mar. 5, 1801, Select Works of Robert Goodloe Harper (Baltimore, 1814), 338; Tinkcom, The Republicans and Federalists in Pennsylvania, 216-217; Wharton, State Trials, 458-482; Henderson, "Treason, Sedition, and Fries' Rebellion/' *3l-3l3l Aurora, Mar.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Caqe ,T-)65 61
    eiF C714rd FF27JAIKL,ti Ckw.i,ZSI CAqE ,t-)65_61,. ;bo'7qra TAE C3h11© I-SuPRLrnE COi.I fF,a,qRh aF- CoFnmi SSiWER.SI 1N fvE: LE VEF2T K. PdE3221't2^. AKC^N.d^l ^f^r's^'L., t.^SES. A- LLCyt:LSTiN P. oSUEL^Sa7.ReGA(a.OGi 115% 511 M.MArN ST ./LMZc^ni.e^l1 4431U< .4AOa.... pE^,' 0 6 Z006 LAWREIJGE R. Sin^TiJ.FS©.,REG.NO.a©2902Es1 ONE CflSCA6E PLZ.. 7t1(.FL..AKR-dN.ON 44 3ej8, MARCIA J NIENGEL, CLERI( AEFTS.,APLEES..RES.... SUPREME CUF;! OF ILELATQiZ.AP('ELLAnfT, PLAu.ITiF'F LEVErc'l` K,C►RIPFrn! MOi IGaI FdR r-N7RY FdOR ALLEGE LdA1rQI.ITN6kI ZE P'cAcT 1 CE aF LAW L6t^^EN AGAwsT ZnTF1 A'T'f'oRAfEYs Lf1ldYER lA1LAPTlOAIEN As AL3ouE SEE NEraLE EXNIL3rT#'^"^4 "C° &IbuS CvMES,RELATafZ.ArPELLqM.PLAinitrFF LEUERT nc.6RIF'FiN.NE(mF3Y PRRY PbfZ RELIEF LLPOni'Ta WlliG.N RELIER CAnr BE GPtAn[TEd. A.rnaTrer.t FrafR Eti1TRY FoR ALLEGE dnrr4uTW0rtraE PreACTrcE aF LAru IoOisEO Afvr^,E6-ra ArTaRuEYs LAwyER. ^nsCA.PTranrE& AS AbevsE_ .SEC r(s,ucE cxAI PEr.li,rmL. L>APPE.FlL As QF R1a13T z^TRFanI Smi?R'Fa L eF RS.Car'.h LEVESZ~1 SOaw Cl-,..uSE- dRDE2 FOp^ REL)Ar11b, MmANf]E& TA)C f'fLEE AT ALL COS*P `TAlS RZEqmCLE5r wER Ciau F3AR rL, U rs 6lFl, PEnrtvAjG AISTddtC A7rVE REL/EF C,u P. RL. 55(a1^6) t*'s4,uERN WJLUE' 7)IE Au7'F1.. SctP CT RL. P"h.'00 , iti{E rgAl2cFoAln RL,$L.LIh^A^t^^JGR^ZEb PrZALT^CECK LAC^/.
    [Show full text]
  • Justice William Cushing and the Treaty-Making Power
    Vanderbilt Law Review Volume 10 Issue 2 Issue 2 - February 1957 Article 9 2-1957 Justice William Cushing and the Treaty-Making Power F. William O'Brien S.J. Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/vlr Part of the Constitutional Law Commons, and the Supreme Court of the United States Commons Recommended Citation F. William O'Brien S.J., Justice William Cushing and the Treaty-Making Power, 10 Vanderbilt Law Review 351 (1957) Available at: https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/vlr/vol10/iss2/9 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarship@Vanderbilt Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Vanderbilt Law Review by an authorized editor of Scholarship@Vanderbilt Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. JUSTICE WILLIAM CUSHING AND THE TREATY-MAKING POWER F. WILLIAM O'BRIEN, S.J.* Washington's First Appointees Although the work of the Supreme Court during the first few years was not great if measured in the number of cases handled, it would be a mistake to conclude that the six men who sat on the Bench during this formative period made no significant contribution to the develop- ment of American constitutional law. The Justices had few if any precedents to use as guides, and therefore their judicial work, limited though it was in volume, must be considered as stamped with the significance which attaches to all pioneer activity. Moreover, most of this work was done while on circuit duty in the different districts, and therefore from Vermont to Georgia the Supreme Court Justices were emissaries of good will for the new Constitution and the recently established general government.
    [Show full text]
  • Conflicts of Interest in Bush V. Gore: Did Some Justices Vote Illegally? Richard K
    Maurice A. Deane School of Law at Hofstra University Scholarly Commons at Hofstra Law Hofstra Law Faculty Scholarship Spring 2003 Conflicts of Interest in Bush v. Gore: Did Some Justices Vote Illegally? Richard K. Neumann Jr. Maurice A. Deane School of Law at Hofstra University Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.hofstra.edu/faculty_scholarship Recommended Citation Richard K. Neumann Jr., Conflicts of Interest in Bush v. Gore: Did Some Justices Vote Illegally?, 16 Geo. J. Legal Ethics 375 (2003) Available at: https://scholarlycommons.law.hofstra.edu/faculty_scholarship/153 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarly Commons at Hofstra Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Hofstra Law Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of Scholarly Commons at Hofstra Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ARTICLES Conflicts of Interest in Bush v. Gore: Did Some Justices Vote Illegally? RICHARD K. NEUMANN, JR.* On December 9, 2000, the United States Supreme Court stayed the presidential election litigation in the Florida courts and set oral argument for December 11.1 On the morning of December 12-one day after oral argument and half a day before the Supreme Court announced its decision in Bush v. Gore2-the Wall Street Journalpublished a front-page story that included the following: Chief Justice William Rehnquist, 76 years old, and Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, 70, both lifelong Republicans, have at times privately talked about retiring and would prefer that a Republican appoint their successors.... Justice O'Connor, a cancer survivor, has privately let it be known that, after 20 years on the high court,'she wants to retire to her home state of Arizona ...
    [Show full text]
  • High Court of Congress: Impeachment Trials, 1797-1936 William F
    College of William & Mary Law School William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository Popular Media Faculty and Deans 1974 High Court of Congress: Impeachment Trials, 1797-1936 William F. Swindler William & Mary Law School Repository Citation Swindler, William F., "High Court of Congress: Impeachment Trials, 1797-1936" (1974). Popular Media. 267. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/popular_media/267 Copyright c 1974 by the authors. This article is brought to you by the William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/popular_media High Court of Congress: Impeachment Trials, 1797-1936 by William F. Swindler Twelve "civil officers" of the United States have tacle, appear to have rested more on objective (and been subjected to trials on impeachment articles perhaps quasi-indictable) charges. in the Senate. Both colorful and colorless figures The history of impeachment as a tool in the struggle have suffered through these trials, and the nation's for parliamentary supremacy in Great Britain and the fabric has been tested by some of the trials. History understanding of it at the time of the first state constitu- shows that impeachment trials have moved from tions and the Federal Convention of 1787 have been barely disguised political vendettas to quasi-judicial admirably researched by a leading constitutional his- proceedings bearing the trappings of legal trials. torian, Raoul Berger, in his book published last year, Impeachment: Some Constitutional Problems. Like Americans, Englishmen once, but only once, carried the political attack to; the head of state himself. In that encounter Charles I lost his case as well as his head. The decline in the quality of government under the Com- monwealth thereafter, like the inglorious record of MPEACHMENT-what Alexander Hamilton called American government under the Reconstruction Con- "the grand inquest of the nation"-has reached the gresses, may have had an ultimately beneficial effect.
    [Show full text]
  • Keep Reading Wilson As a Justice
    Wilson as a Justice MAEVA MARCUS* ABSTRACT James Wilson, a founding father of great intellect and promise, never ful®lled his potential as a Justice. This paper explores his experience on the Supreme Court and the reasons that led to his failure to achieve the distinction that was expected of him. James Wilson very much wanted to be the ®rst Chief Justice.1 But when George Washington denied him that honor and nominated him to be an Associate Justice, he accepted and threw himself into the work with characteristic industry.2 Other than a title and $500 more in annual salary3 (Wilson probably wanted this more than anything else), Wilson lost little. Life as an Associate Justice would be no different from life as the Chief. A Justice occupied one of the most exalted positions in the new government and was paid more than any other federal em- ployee, except the President and the Vice-President.4 Nominations were the sub- ject of ®erce competition.5 But in 1789 no one knew exactly what that job would entail. This paper gives the reader some idea of what a Justice, and speci®cally James Wilson, did in the 1790s.6 Wilson spent more of his time on the bench of circuit courts than he did on the Supreme Court bench; thus, this paper will focus signi®- cantly on his circuit court activities.7 And Wilson performed his circuit court * Currently Director of the Institute for Constitutional History at the New-York Historical Society and Research Professor at the George Washington University Law School and General Editor of the Oliver Wendell Holmes Devise History of the Supreme Court of the United States, Maeva Marcus previously edited The Documentary History of the Supreme Court of the United States, 1789-1800, an eight-volume series completed in 2006.
    [Show full text]
  • 1823 Journal of General Convention
    Journal of the Proceedings of the Bishops, Clergy, and Laity of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America in a General Convention 1823 Digital Copyright Notice Copyright 2017. The Domestic and Foreign Missionary Society of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America / The Archives of the Episcopal Church All rights reserved. Limited reproduction of excerpts of this is permitted for personal research and educational activities. Systematic or multiple copy reproduction; electronic retransmission or redistribution; print or electronic duplication of any material for a fee or for commercial purposes; altering or recompiling any contents of this document for electronic re-display, and all other re-publication that does not qualify as fair use are not permitted without prior written permission. Send written requests for permission to re-publish to: Rights and Permissions Office The Archives of the Episcopal Church 606 Rathervue Place P.O. Box 2247 Austin, Texas 78768 Email: [email protected] Telephone: 512-472-6816 Fax: 512-480-0437 JOURNAL .. MTRJI OJr TllII "BISHOPS, CLERGY, AND LAITY O~ TIU; PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL CHURCH XII TIIJ! UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Xif A GENERAL CONVENTION, Held in St. l'eter's Church, in the City of Philadelphia, from the 20th t" .the 26th Day of May inclusive, A. D. 1823. NEW· YORK ~ PlllNTED BY T. lit J. SWURDS: No. 99 Pearl-street, 1823. The Right Rev. William White, D. D. of Pennsylvania, Pre­ siding Bishop; The Right Rev. John Henry Hobart, D. D. of New-York, The Right Rev. Alexander Viets Griswold, D. D. of the Eastern Diocese, comprising the states of Maine, New­ Hampshire, Massachusct ts, Vermont, and Rhode Island, The Right Rev.
    [Show full text]
  • Supreme Court Justices
    The Supreme Court Justices Supreme Court Justices *asterick denotes chief justice John Jay* (1789-95) Robert C. Grier (1846-70) John Rutledge* (1790-91; 1795) Benjamin R. Curtis (1851-57) William Cushing (1790-1810) John A. Campbell (1853-61) James Wilson (1789-98) Nathan Clifford (1858-81) John Blair, Jr. (1790-96) Noah Haynes Swayne (1862-81) James Iredell (1790-99) Samuel F. Miller (1862-90) Thomas Johnson (1792-93) David Davis (1862-77) William Paterson (1793-1806) Stephen J. Field (1863-97) Samuel Chase (1796-1811) Salmon P. Chase* (1864-73) Olliver Ellsworth* (1796-1800) William Strong (1870-80) ___________________ ___________________ Bushrod Washington (1799-1829) Joseph P. Bradley (1870-92) Alfred Moore (1800-1804) Ward Hunt (1873-82) John Marshall* (1801-35) Morrison R. Waite* (1874-88) William Johnson (1804-34) John M. Harlan (1877-1911) Henry B. Livingston (1807-23) William B. Woods (1881-87) Thomas Todd (1807-26) Stanley Matthews (1881-89) Gabriel Duvall (1811-35) Horace Gray (1882-1902) Joseph Story (1812-45) Samuel Blatchford (1882-93) Smith Thompson (1823-43) Lucius Q.C. Lamar (1883-93) Robert Trimble (1826-28) Melville W. Fuller* (1888-1910) ___________________ ___________________ John McLean (1830-61) David J. Brewer (1890-1910) Henry Baldwin (1830-44) Henry B. Brown (1891-1906) James Moore Wayne (1835-67) George Shiras, Jr. (1892-1903) Roger B. Taney* (1836-64) Howell E. Jackson (1893-95) Philip P. Barbour (1836-41) Edward D. White* (1894-1921) John Catron (1837-65) Rufus W. Peckham (1896-1909) John McKinley (1838-52) Joseph McKenna (1898-1925) Peter Vivian Daniel (1842-60) Oliver W.
    [Show full text]
  • H. Doc. 108-222
    FOURTH CONGRESS MARCH 4, 1795, TO MARCH 3, 1797 FIRST SESSION—December 7, 1795, to June 1, 1796 SECOND SESSION—December 5, 1796, to March 3, 1797 SPECIAL SESSION OF THE SENATE—June 8, 1795, to June 26, 1795 VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES—JOHN ADAMS, of Massachusetts PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE OF THE SENATE—HENRY TAZEWELL, 1 of Virginia; SAMUEL LIVERMORE, 2 of New Hampshire; WILLIAM BINGHAM, 3 of Pennsylvania SECRETARY OF THE SENATE—SAMUEL A. OTIS, of Massachusetts DOORKEEPER OF THE SENATE—JAMES MATHERS, of New York SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES—JONATHAN DAYTON, 4 of New Jersey CLERK OF THE HOUSE—JOHN BECKLEY, 5 of Virginia SERGEANT AT ARMS OF THE HOUSE—JOSEPH WHEATON, of Rhode Island DOORKEEPER OF THE HOUSE—THOMAS CLAXTON CONNECTICUT GEORGIA Richard Potts 17 18 SENATORS SENATORS John Eager Howard Oliver Ellsworth 6 James Gunn REPRESENTATIVES James Hillhouse 7 James Jackson 14 8 Jonathan Trumbull George Walton 15 Gabriel Christie 9 Uriah Tracy Josiah Tattnall 16 Jeremiah Crabb 19 REPRESENTATIVES AT LARGE 20 REPRESENTATIVES AT LARGE William Craik Joshua Coit 21 Abraham Baldwin Gabriel Duvall Chauncey Goodrich Richard Sprigg, Jr. 22 Roger Griswold John Milledge George Dent James Hillhouse 10 James Davenport 11 KENTUCKY William Hindman Nathaniel Smith SENATORS Samuel Smith Zephaniah Swift John Brown Thomas Sprigg 12 Uriah Tracy Humphrey Marshall William Vans Murray Samuel Whittlesey Dana 13 REPRESENTATIVES DELAWARE Christopher Greenup MASSACHUSETTS SENATORS Alexander D. Orr John Vining SENATORS Henry Latimer MARYLAND Caleb Strong 23 REPRESENTATIVE AT LARGE SENATORS Theodore Sedgwick 24 John Patten John Henry George Cabot 25 1 Elected December 7, 1795.
    [Show full text]
  • Senate Trials and Factional Disputes: Impeachment As a Madisonian Device
    TURLEY TO PRINTER 11/30/99 3:15 PM Duke Law Journal VOLUME 49 OCTOBER 1999 NUMBER 1 SENATE TRIALS AND FACTIONAL DISPUTES: IMPEACHMENT AS A MADISONIAN DEVICE JONATHAN TURLEY† ABSTRACT In this Article, Professor Turley addresses the use of impeachment, specifically the Senate trial, as a method of resolving factional disputes about an impeached official’s legitimacy to remain in office. While the Madisonian democracy was designed to regulate factional pressures, academics and legislators often discuss impeachments as relatively static events focused solely on removal. Alternatively, impeachment is sometimes viewed as an extreme countermajoritarian measure used to “reverse” or “nullify” the popular election of a President. This Article advances a more dynamic view of the Senate trial as a Madisonian device to resolve factional disputes. This Article first discusses the history of impeachment and demon- strates that it is largely a history of factional or partisan disputes over legitimacy. The Article then explores how impeachment was used historically as a check on the authority of the Crown and tended to be used most heavily during periods of political instability. English and colonial impeachments proved to be highly destabilizing in the ab- sence of an integrated political system. The postcolonial impeachment process was modified to convert it from a tool of factional dissension to a vehicle of factional resolution. This use of Senate trials as a Madisonian device allows for the public consideration of the full rec- † J.B. and Maurice C. Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. For Benjamin John Turley, who was born during the research and writing of this Article.
    [Show full text]
  • The Ratings Game: Factors That Influence Judicial Reputation William G
    Marquette Law Review Volume 79 Article 2 Issue 2 Winter 1996 The Ratings Game: Factors That Influence Judicial Reputation William G. Ross Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/mulr Part of the Law Commons Repository Citation William G. Ross, The Ratings Game: Factors That Influence Judicial Reputation, 79 Marq. L. Rev. 401 (1996). Available at: http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/mulr/vol79/iss2/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Marquette Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Marquette Law Review by an authorized administrator of Marquette Law Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. MARQUETTE LAW REVIEW Volume 79 Winter 1996 Number 2 THE RATINGS GAME: FACTORS THAT INFLUENCE JUDICIAL REPUTATION WILLIAM G. ROSS* INTRODUCTION The rating of United States Supreme Court justices is an increasingly favorite pastime among scholars, judges, journalists, students, and practicing attorneys. Once the domain of a few pundits who made personal lists of the all-time "greatest" justices,' surveys are becoming more formal and are embracing more participants. The most extensive * Professor of Law, Cumberland School of Law of Samford University; A.B., Stanford, 1976; J.D., Harvard, 1979. The author was one of the scholars polled in the 1993 Blaustein- Mersky survey that is discussed in this Article. The author thanks Professor Roy M. Mersky of the University of Texas for advice and encouragement in connection with this Article and for his permission to publish the results of that survey as an appendix to this Article.
    [Show full text]
  • Truth About Justice Iredell's Dissent in Chisholm V. Georgia (1793) John V
    NORTH CAROLINA LAW REVIEW Volume 73 | Number 1 Article 7 11-1-1994 Truth about Justice Iredell's Dissent in Chisholm v. Georgia (1793) John V. Orth Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.unc.edu/nclr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation John V. Orth, Truth about Justice Iredell's Dissent in Chisholm v. Georgia (1793), 73 N.C. L. Rev. 255 (1994). Available at: http://scholarship.law.unc.edu/nclr/vol73/iss1/7 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Carolina Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in North Carolina Law Review by an authorized administrator of Carolina Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE TRUTH ABOUT JUSTICE IREDELL'S DISSENT IN CHISHOLM v. GEORGIA (1793) JOHN V. ORTH* Professor John Orth delivered this lecture at the Univer- sity of North Carolina School of Law on April 14, 1994, as part of the Faculty Perspectives Series. Professor Orth ex- plains that Justice Iredell's dissent in Chisolm v. Georgia has long been misrepresented: by the Supreme Court in its inter- pretation of the events surrounding the Eleventh Amend- ment's ratification;by Southerners who espoused states rights in the nineteenth century; and by legal historians who verified these accounts. Professor Orth exposes the "truth" in Justice Iredell's dissent-that the opinion of the North Carolinajus- tice not only reveals his Federalistleanings, but also presages Chief Justice John Marshall's reasoning in Marbury v. Madison. What is truth? said jesting Pilate, and would not stay for an answer.
    [Show full text]
  • In Preparation for the 2012 Presidential Election, Members Of
    Contested eleCtion laws: RepResentation, eleCtions, and paRty Building in pennsylvania, 1788–1794 David W. Houpt n preparation for the 2012 presidential election, members of the Pennsylvania GOP have been considering changing the way the Istate awards its electoral votes. Under the current system, the can- didate who wins the greatest number of votes statewide receives all twenty of the state’s votes in the Electoral College. In recent years, heavy Democratic voting in urban areas such as Philadelphia and Pittsburgh has offset Republican victories in rural parts of the state. In order to build on their strength in the less-populated areas, Republicans are considering having Pennsylvania award electors based on a district method. While this approach is technically con- stitutional, political commentators have been quick to condemn the proposal as unethical and potentially dangerous.1 This is not, however, the first time a political party has attempted to change election laws to their advantage. The manipulation of election law dates back to the first elections under the Constitution. pennsylvania history: a journal of mid-atlantic studies, vol. 79, no. 3, 2012. Copyright © 2012 The Pennsylvania Historical Association This content downloaded from 128.118.152.206 on Wed, 14 Mar 2018 16:12:29 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms pennsylvania history Concern over the lack of representation in the British Parliament was one of the major reasons the colonists decided to declare independence.2 The Revolution established the principle of actual representation—that all regions of a state or the nation ought to be represented in the legislature, and that federal representation ought to be apportioned by population in the House of Representatives—but there were still many questions about what that meant in practice.
    [Show full text]