Open Canavan Thesis.Pdf
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY SCHREYER HONORS COLLEGE DEPARTMENT OF HISTORY YOUNG FEDERALIST: THE INFLUENCE OF JOHN MARSHALL’S EARLY LIFE ON MARBURY V. MADISON FRANCIS J CANAVAN SPRING 2017 A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for baccalaureate degrees in History & International Politics with honors in History Reviewed and approved* by the following: Anne C. Rose Distinguished Professor of History and Religious Studies Thesis Supervisor Michael J. Milligan Senior Lecturer of History Honors Adviser * Signatures are on file in the Schreyer Honors College i ABSTRACT Influential scholarly analyses of Chief Justice John Marshall’s opinion in the U.S. Supreme Court case Marbury v. Madison (1803) tend to focus on the immediate politics of the time, with a lack of emphasis on earlier developments in the life of Marshall. This study seeks to trace the growth of Marshall’s Federalist ideology long before the formal establishment of the political party to which he declared his allegiance. The influence of his father, his experience in the Revolutionary War, and his service in Virginia state government all powerfully shaped Marshall. The principle of judicial review stated by the Supreme Court in Marbury had already been developed in Marshall’s mind decades prior. Historians have long argued about whether a partisan motivation existed for the Supreme Court’s decision in Marbury; however, significant attention has not been directed towards what can be seen as parallels between the formative years of Marshall and his opinion written in 1803. Marshall’s decision in Marbury was the product of an early life typified by tireless advocacy in favor of the policies put forth by his ideological counterparts in favor of a stronger central government. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ......................................................................................... iii Introduction .................................................................................................................. 1 Chapter 1 The Marshall Family, Educational Influences, & Wartime Experiences.....11 Chapter 2 Marshall in State Government & the Virginia Ratifying Convention ........ 27 Chapter 3 Marshall and the Partisanship of Marbury v. Madison ............................... 53 BIBLIOGRAPHY ........................................................................................................ 81 iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to Professor Annie Rose for her tireless efforts in pushing me to make my thesis the best product possible. I am deeply indebted to her for spending countless hours reading and rereading my drafts in order to create the strongest finished product possible. Without her, my thesis would be nowhere near where it stands now. 1 Introduction The goal of this study is to examine the link, if one exists, between John Marshall’s early life as a strong central-government partisan and the potential partisanship of his decision in Marbury v. Madison (1803). Appointed Chief Justice in 1801, Marshall issued this ruling in what scholars identify as the first landmark Supreme Court case. As its author Marshall articulated the principle of judicial review of laws against the standard of the supreme law of the land – the Constitution- as the prerogative of the Supreme Court. While the Federalist Party did not officially come to exist until the mid-1790’s, the label “Federalist,” for a lack of a better term, will be used to describe Marshall’s political orientation well before the party’s official recognition. Before analyzing any potential partisanship in Marshall himself, it is important to begin by defining exactly what Federalism as an ideology entails. By using this definition, I will then examine Marshall’s potential partisanship in Marbury as a direct extension of his experiences as a young man. For the period following ratification of the United States Constitution in 1791, the legal scholar James F. Simon describes the overarching goal of Federalists as “consolidating the power of the newly constituted government.”1 Such policies included strengthened relations with Great Britain at the expense of France, enhanced national government economic power, and favored judicial independence. The results of the election of 1800, in which the Federalist Party lost control of both the executive and legislative branches, sparked a political crisis that impelled Federalists to look for other ways by which to retain influence in the federal government. In this context, my study examines if Marshall’s actions in Marbury possibly served a partisan purpose 1 Simon, What Kind of Nation, 28. 2 of consolidating power within a Federalist-dominated branch of central government – that is, Supreme Court. Historical scholarship has covered Marshall’s career as a national figure extensively, and rightly so; but there has been much less focus on his early life and the development of his political ideology. The Federalist Party did not officially exist until 1792-1794, yet Marshall espoused core tenets of the party’s philosophy over the previous decade by way of his activity in Virginia. Many scholars view Marshall’s opinion in Marbury in the immediate context of the circumstances of the time; however, it is quite possible that the ideas developed in the Court’s decision share many parallels with ideas embodied and practiced by Marshall early in life. For this study, I understand “Marshall’s early life” as beginning with his childhood (born 1755) through his attendance at the Virginia Ratifying Convention in 1788. This study hopes to shed a greater light on a period of Marshall’s life for which admittedly few primary documents authored by Marshall himself remain. Marshall recorded little about his early life until 1818, when he drafted a biographical sketch, and thus by faults of human memory and self-interest, his recollections may not be entirely accurate.2 Nonetheless, this document serves as a powerful firsthand account of Marshall’s beginnings. Marshall was meticulous about periodically destroying his personal files throughout his life. Thus the amount of material that remains may not be nearly enough to accurately draw definitive conclusions on what may have been politically motivated actions during his lifetime. This lack of conclusive evidence does not entirely handicap a study focusing on Marshall’s early life in relation to later partisan actions, but it does seem to have caused scholars to focus their attention elsewhere towards potentially more reliable areas of research. 2 Marshall, An Autobiographical Sketch, xii. 3 The present study makes no attempt to take away from the clear importance of the 1790’s in regards to the development of American politics, Marshall’s political orientation, or the rise of Marbury as a legal case. Rather, I seek to demonstrate how Marshall’s arguments in Marbury expressed a partisan framework for his thinking and actions well before his rise to national prominence in the 1790’s. By 1788 Marshall had reformulated the theory of judicial review multiple times, and more or less committed himself to the Federalist Party a decade before it came to exist as a formal political unit. The contentious political climate of the period was vital in contributing to the substance of Marshall’s opinion in Marbury; however, as Robert K. Faulkner, professor of political science at Boston College, cautions, Marshall was a strong proponent of judicial review well before the election of Thomas Jefferson elicited its promulgation.3 From this perspective, Marshall’s early life experiences served as a launch pad, so that by the time he had reached national prominence in the 1790’s, his partisan Federalist beliefs had already crystalized. Further events only served to harden his political resolve and allow Marshall ample practice to hone his craft as a skillful partisan on the national stage. Simply declaring Marbury a partisan decision and offering evidence in support of its partisanship is not a sufficient analysis. In order to point to any particular Court case as potentially partisan, it must first be stated how partisanship could appear within the confines of a judicial opinion. No legal decision emanating from the Supreme Court will not on its face be partisan; to look for explicit proof of political intentions would be difficult. Instead, the context of the case must be considered in order to unpack potential motivations which may or may not have driven a decision in a particular direction. 3 Faulkner, The Jurisprudence of John Marshall, 201-202. 4 In this case, William Marbury filed his suit at a particularly fragile time in American history. For the first time, the party in power would peacefully hand over control of the government to the opposition party. To say that the Federalists did so willingly is false. As the election of 1800 neared, President Adams’s support within his own party can be described as tepid at best. Federalist leaders in government recognized their predicament and began politically maneuvering every which way to ensure the Republican candidate, Jefferson, would not win the election. Quite possibly the clearest example of the politically toxic environment out of which Marbury emerged is the Bill For Settling Disputed Presidential Elections (1800). This bill, originating from the Federalist-controlled Senate and authored by James Ross of Pennsylvania, proposed a commission made up of six members chosen from both houses of Congress, along with the Chief Justice, to independently certify