DOCSLIB.ORG

Labor & Employment Law Section: Winter 2021 Lawnotes

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Labor & Employment Law Section: Winter 2021 Lawnotes LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT LAW SECTION – STATE BAR OF MICHIGAN LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT LAWNOTES Volume 30, No. 4 Winter 2021 Department sued for wrongful termination, Justice Barrett again JUSTICE AMY CONEY affirmed a trial court’s denial of an employer’s motion for BARRETT’S HISTORY WITH judgment as a matter of law and for a new trial. In Vega v. Chicago Park District, 954 F.3d 996 (7th Cir. 2020), the plaintiff alleged that EMPLOYMENT CASES her employer terminated her because of her national origin. While the plaintiff did not have direct evidence of discrimination, she Regan K. Dahle did have extensive circumstantial evidence, including a 20-year Butzel Long positive employment record; the fact that the defendant violated its commitment to the union not to terminate for first offenses; proof In her approximately three years on the bench of the 7th that there were multiple factual errors in the investigation that led Circuit Court of Appeals, Justice Amy Coney Barrett appears to to the plaintiff’s termination; and evidence that the defendant have authored seven opinions involving questions under Title VII mistreated other Hispanic employees and disciplined Hispanic of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), the Americans with employees more harshly than non-Hispanic employees. Justice Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Barrett concluded that the circumstantial evidence was sufficient Four opinions held in favor of the employer, and three opinions held to support a jury verdict in the plaintiff’s favor. in favor of the employee. In her first employment case on the bench, Justice Barrett In cases involving what she seemed to believe were less affirmed the trial court’s denial of an employer’s motion for egregious or substantial facts, Justice Barrett found in favor of the Weil v. Metal Technologies, Inc., judgment as a matter of law and for a new trial. In Smith v. employer. For example, in 925 Rosebud Farm, Inc., 898 F.3d 747, 752 (7th Cir. 2018), the F.3d 352 (7th Cir. 2019), Justice Barrett affirmed a district court plaintiff alleged that his co-workers groped and grabbed him and decision to decertify an FLSA collective action that the same simulated sex acts in front of him, and that one of his co-workers district court had previously certified. The plaintiff argued that the put his hands down the plaintiff’s pants. The plaintiff also claimed court could not decertify the collective action, because the that his co-workers slashed his tires and threatened him with employer had not offered any new evidence. Justice Barrett knives. Although Justice Barrett found that the facts of the case disagreed, reasoning that nothing in Fed.R.Civ.P. 23 requires there were sufficient to support a jury verdict in the plaintiff’s favor, she to be new evidence to justify a decertification decision. noted that “unwanted sexual behavior--including the touching of In a case about which she was questioned at her confirmation genitals and buttocks--is not necessarily actionable under Title hearing, Justice Barrett concluded that the plaintiff’s supervisor did VII,” and that “Title VII is an anti-discrimination statute, not an not create a racially hostile work environment by once calling the anti-harassment statute.” plaintiff the “n” word, where the plaintiff also experienced non- Shortly after issuing the opinion in Smith v. Rosebud Farm, race-based harassment. According to Justice Barrett, being called Inc., Justice Barrett affirmed a district court’s decision denying a “n---r” did not alter the plaintiff’s conditions of employment and Costco’s motion for judgment NOV in a sexual harassment lawsuit did not cause the plaintiff to suffer any “additional or different filed by the EEOC against Costco on behalf of a former Costco distress” than the non-race based harassment he suffered. Smith v. employee. The former employee alleged that a Costco customer Illinois Dep't of Transp., 936 F.3d 554, 561–62 (7th Cir. 2019). unlawfully harassed and stalked her for over one year, leading her In Purtue v. Wisconsin Dep't of Corr., 963 F.3d 598, 603 (7th to secure a one-year No Contact Order against the customer, and Cir. 2020), reh'g denied (July 31, 2020), Justice Barrett affirmed that Costco did not promptly remedy the situation. While Justice summary judgment in favor of the employer in a gender Barrett agreed with Costco that the customer’s conduct, which discrimination claim, discounting the plaintiff’s statistical ultimately led Costco to ban him from all Costco locations, was not evidence of a disparity between the termination rates of female as lewd or amorous as in other cases where an employer received and male employees. Justice Barrett agreed with the district court summary judgment, she also noted that actionable harassment that the plaintiff’s statistical evidence was immaterial, because the does not have to be sexual; it just has to be because of sex. Here, plaintiff had no evidence that the statistical comparators were where the customer filmed the employee while she was working; similarly situated with her in all material respects. screamed profanities at the employee while she was shopping with Finally, in Graham v. Arctic Zone Iceplex, LLC, 930 F.3d 926 her father at a different Costco location; hid in the Costco aisles (7th Cir. 2020), Justice Barrett affirmed summary judgment for to watch the employee while she worked; came to Costco just to the employer in an ADA failure-to-accommodate claim, because see the employee; and questioned the employee about the plaintiff had not provided his employer with enough notice conversations she had with other men at Costco, Justice Barrett that his work restrictions prevented him from performing the concluded that it was reasonable for the jury to conclude that this duties of his new job. Regarding the plaintiff’s disability customer created a hostile work environment for the employee. discrimination claim, Justice Barret also affirmed summary EEOC v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 903 F.3d 618 (7th Cir. 2018). judgment for the employer, finding it immaterial that the employer Earlier this year, in a national origin discrimination claim in had never written-up the plaintiff for many of the policy violations which a Hispanic former employee of the Chicago Parks leading up to plaintiff’s discharge. I Page 2 LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT LAWNOTES (WINTER 2021) CONTENTS DETERMINING WHEN A COVID-19 ILLNESS IS Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s History with Employment Cases . 1 “WORK-RELATED” AND Determining when a COVID-19 Illness is“Work-Related” and “Recordable” under OSHA Guidance . 2 “RECORDABLE” UNDER How Not to Write a Supreme Court Rule . 3 Michigan Arbitration and Mediation Case Law Update . 4 OSHA GUIDANCE How to Maximize your Article’s Impact . 8 Aaron V. Burrell David Porter Wins Lawnotes Caption Contest . 8 Dickinson Wright PLLC Fad Words—Les Paroles N’Engagent À Rien . 9 How Candor May Get Clients . 9 With the exception of certain low-risk industries, many Influencing Expert Opinions . 10 employers with more than 10 employees, especially those engaged MERC Update . 11 in manufacturing, are required to keep a record of serious work- Tackett, Reese, and the Mercuriality of related injuries and illnesses. In our current climate, questions arise: Stare Decisis—The Supreme Court’s Is COVID-19 a “recordable illness?” And under what circumstances Selective Disregard for its Own Precedent . 12 should an employer record? For What It’s Worth . 14 Under its May 19, 2020 Enforcement Memorandum, the United The Case for Embracing Diversity States Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health and Inclusion in our Profession . 15 Administration (OSHA) reinforced its position that COVID-19 is a Shirley Siegel, Civil Rights Lawyer: “Hard Work” . 16 “recordable illness.” According to the Memorandum at 1, employers The Lawsuit Market . 17 must record cases of COVID-19 if three conditions are met: What can Appellate Attorneys do for you? . 19 1. The case is a confirmed case of COVID-19, as defined by Abraham Lincoln and Michiganders the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; Daisy Elliott, Melvin Larsen, and Lewis Cass . 20 2. The case is work-related as defined by 29 CFR § 1904.5; Sedentary Attorneys: Beware the Dangers of Sitting . 21 3. The case involves one or more of the general recording “Never Stand Up when you can Sit Down, criteria set forth in 29 CFR § 1903.7. and Never Sit Down when you can Lie Down.” . 21 An employer must consider an injury “work-related” if an The 2020 Title IX Regulations . 22 “event or exposure in the work environment either caused or STATEMENT OF EDITORIAL POLICY contributed to the resulting condition or significantly aggravated Labor and Employment Lawnotes is a quarterly journal published under the auspices of the Council of the Labor and Employment Law Section of the State Bar of Michigan. Views expressed in articles and case commen- taries are those of the authors, and not necessarily those of the Council, the LOOKING FOR Section, or the State Bar. We encourage Section members and others inter- ested in labor and employment law to submit articles, letters, and other ma- terial for possible publication. Lawnotes Stuart M. Israel, Editor John G. Adam, Associate Editor Contributors! COUNCIL DIRECTORY Chair Lawnotes is looking for contributions of Michelle Crockett . Detroit interest to Labor and Employment Law Section Vice Chair John Runyan . Detroit members. Secretary Contributions may address legal develop - Keith Brodie. Grand Rapids ments, trends in the law, practice skills or Treasurer techniques, professional issues, new books and Heidi Sharp . Clinton Township resources, etc. They can be objective or opin - Council Members Nedra Campbell .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • These Are the Names for People Living in Every State
    These Are the Names for People Living in Every State bestlifeonline.com/names-for-state-residents By Matt Alderton November 8, 2019 November 8, 2019 Chances are you know most names for state residents: People who live in California are Californians, people who live in New York are New Yorkers, and people who live in Pennsylvania are—that's right—Pennsylvanians. Not every demonym is so straightforward, however. In some states, the nomenclature is gnarly and the parlance perilous. Just try calling someone who resides in Indiana an Indianian, for example. Trust us, it's a mistake you won't make twice. Whether you're a resident, a visitor, or you're just passing through, here's what you should—and shouldn't—call the folks who live in every U.S. state. 1 Alabama 1/51 Shutterstock In Alabama, you can get away with calling people Alabamans or Alabamians, but the latter is preferred. Because college football is religion in the state, you might also hear people called—sometimes dotingly, often disparagingly—Bammers, Barners or Blazers for their allegiance to the University of Alabama, Auburn University, and the University of Alabama at Birmingham, respectively. 2 Alaska 2/51 Shutterstock If you find yourself in Alaska, you can call the people you meet Alaskans. You should also be aware, however, that Alaska is home to many native peoples who wish to be called by their indigenous names—for example, Inuk (singular) and Inuit (plural). Whatever you do, don't call natives Eskimos; although some people are fine with the term, many consider it to be offensive.
    [Show full text]
  • President Buchanan's Minister to China 1857-1858
    WILLIAM B. REED: PRESIDENT BUCHANAN'S MINISTER TO CHINA 1857-1858 BY FOSTER M. FARLEY* A PRESIDENT'S administration is usually evaluated by some A great occurrence, good or bad, and other aspects of his term of office are forgotten. Martin van Buren and Herbert Hoover are generally charged with beginning the depressions of 1837 and 1929; Ulysses S. Grant and Warren G. Harding are usually thought of in connection with the various scandals and corruption during their administrations; and James Madison and James Buchanan with beginning the War of 1812 and the American Civil War. james Buchanan, the fifteenth President of the United States 'remains one of the least known statesmen of the American Nation."' According to Buchanan's latest biographer, Philip S. Klein, "many people remember Buchanan as the bachelor in the Ahite House who either caused the Civil War or who ought, some- how to have prevented it."2 Few people realize that the fifteenth President was singularly well qualified to occupy the White House. Born in 1791, a native of Pennsylvania, Buchanan graduated from Dickinson College in 1809. and was admitted to the bar three years later. With a good knowledge of the law, he served first in the Pennsylvania house arid then for the next ten years as Congressman. After serving as United States Minister to Russia from 1831-1833, he was elevated to the United States Senate.3 By 1844 he had be- come a leading contender for the Democratic nomination for President, and when James K. Polk was elected, the new Presi- dent appointed Buchanan Secretary of State mainly due to the *The author is Associate Professor of History at Newberry College.
    [Show full text]
  • “Nebraska Territory”
    3 – POPULAR SOVEREIGNTY “Nebraska Territory” By: Stephen Douglas Date: January 30, 1854 Explanation of the Source: While debating Abraham Lincoln, Stephen Douglas explains the principles of Popular Sovereignty (Self-Government) in the Compromise of 1850. “Upon the other point--that pertaining to the question of slavery in the Territories--it was the intention of the committee to be equally explicit. We took the principles established by the Compromise of 1850 as our guide, and intended to make each and every provision of the bill accord with those principles. Those measures established and rest upon the great principle of self-government--that the people should be allowed to decide the questions of their domestic institutions for themselves, subject only to such limitations and restrictions as are imposed by the Constitution of the United States, instead of having them determined by an arbitrary or geographical line… The leading feature of the Compromise of 1850 was congressional non-intervention as to slavery in the Territories; that the people of the Territories, and of all the States, were to be allowed to do as they pleased upon the subject of slavery, subject only to the provisions of the Constitution of the United States. That, sir, was the leading feature of the compromise measures of 1850. Those measures therefore, abandoned the idea of a geographical line as the boundary between free States and slave States; abandoned it because compelled to do it from an inability to maintain it; and in lieu of that substituted a great principle of self-government, which would allow the people to do as they thought proper.
    [Show full text]
  • Dos 230Th Anniversary Thos Jefferson First Secretary Of
    Thomas Jefferson (1790–1793) ✪ Edmund Jennings Randolph (1794–1795) ✪ Timothy Pickering (1795–1800) ✪ John Marshall (1800– 1801) ✪ James Madison (1801–1809) ✪ Robert Smith (1809–1811) ✪ James Monroe (1811–1817) ✪ John Quincy Adams (1817–1825) ✪ Henry Clay (1825–1829) ✪ Martin Van Buren (1829–1831) ✪ Edward Livingston (1831–1833) ✪ Louis McLane (1833–1834) ✪ John Forsyth (1834– 1841) DanielUnited Webster (1841–1843) Abel ✪ ✪ Parker Upshur (1843–1844) ✪ John Caldwell Calhoun (1844–1845)States ✪ James Buchanan (1845– 1849) ✪ John Middleton Clayton (1849–1850) ✪ Daniel Webster (1850–1852) ✪ Edward Everett (1852–1853)Department ✪ William Learned Marcy (1853– 1857) ✪ Lewis Cass (1857–1860) ✪ Jeremiah Sullivan Black (1860–1861) ✪ William Henry Seward (1861–1869)of ✪ Elihu Benjamin Washburne (1869–1869) ✪ Hamilton Fish (1869–1877) ✪ William Maxwell Evarts (1877–1881) ✪ James Gillespie BlaineState (1881–1881) Frederick ✪ Theodore Frelinghuysen (1881–1885) ✪ Thomas Francis Bayard (1885–1889) ✪ James Gillespie Blaine (1889–1892)1789 ✪ John Watson2019 Foster (1892– 1893) ✪ Walter Quintin• Gresham (1893–1895) ✪ Richard Olney (1895–1897) ✪ John Sherman (1897–1898) William Rufus Day (1898–1898) T✪ H E V O I C E ✪ John Milton Hay (1898–1905) ✪ Elihu Root (1905–1909) Robert Bacon (1909–1909) OF ✪AMERICA TO ✪ Philander Chase Knox (1909–1913) ✪ William Jennings Bryan (1913–1915) Robert Lansing THE WORLD ✪ (1915–1920) ✪ Bainbridge Colby (1920–1921) ✪ Charles Evans Hughes (1921–1925) Frank FOR 230 YEARS ✪ Billings Kellogg (1925–1929) ✪ Henry Lewis Stimson (1929–1933) Cordell Hull (1933–1944) AND BEYOND ✪ ✪ Edward Reilly Stettinius (1944–1945) ✪ James Francis Byrnes (1945–1947) ✪ George Catlett Marshall (1947–1949) ✪ Dean Gooderham Acheson (1949–1953) ✪ John Foster Dulles (1953– 1959) ✪ Christian Archibald Herter (1959–1961) ✪ David Dean Rusk (1961–1969) ✪ William Pierce Rogers (1969–1973) ✪ Henry A.
    [Show full text]
  • THE DEBATE OVER INDIAN REMOVAL in the 1830S
    University of Massachusetts Boston ScholarWorks at UMass Boston Graduate Masters Theses Doctoral Dissertations and Masters Theses 6-2011 The eD bate over Indian Removal in the 1830s George William Goss University of Massachusetts Boston Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarworks.umb.edu/masters_theses Part of the History Commons, Indian and Aboriginal Law Commons, and the Native American Studies Commons Recommended Citation Goss, George William, "The eD bate over Indian Removal in the 1830s" (2011). Graduate Masters Theses. Paper 44. This Open Access Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Doctoral Dissertations and Masters Theses at ScholarWorks at UMass Boston. It has been accepted for inclusion in Graduate Masters Theses by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks at UMass Boston. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE DEBATE OVER INDIAN REMOVAL IN THE 1830’s A Thesis Presented by GEORGE W. GOSS Submitted to the Office of Graduate Studies, University of Massachusetts Boston, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF HISTORY June 2011 History Department/Program © 2011 by George W. Goss All rights reserved THE DEBATE OVER INDIAN REMOVAL IN THE 1830’s A Thesis Presented by George W. Goss Approved as to style and content by: ________________________________________________ Timothy Hacsi, Assistant Professor Chairperson of Committee ________________________________________________ Julie Winch, Professor Member ________________________________________________ Bonnie Miller, Assistant Professor Member _________________________________________ Paul Bookbinder, Program Director History Department _______________________________________ Roberta L. Wollons, Chairperson History Department ABSTRACT THE DEBATE OVER INDIAN REMOVAL IN THE 1830’s June 2011 George W. Goss, BA, University of Texas MAT, Emmanuel College Directed by Professor Tim Hacsi The US in the 1830s debated the relationship between the US and Indian communities of North America.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter Eight “A Strong but Judicious Enemy to Slavery”: Congressman Lincoln (1847-1849) Lincoln's Entire Public Service O
    Chapter Eight “A Strong but Judicious Enemy to Slavery”: Congressman Lincoln (1847-1849) Lincoln’s entire public service on the national level before his election as president was a single term in the U. S. House. Though he had little chance to distinguish himself there, his experience proved a useful education in dealing with Congress and patronage. WASHINGTON, D.C. Arriving in Washington on December 2, 1847, the Lincolns found themselves in a “dark, narrow, unsightly” train depot, a building “literally buried in and surrounded with mud and filth of the most offensive kind.”1 A British traveler said he could scarcely imagine a “more miserable station.”2 Emerging from this “mere shed, of slight construction, designed for temporary use” which was considered “a disgrace” to the railroad company as well as “the city that tolerates it,”3 they beheld an “an ill-contrived, 1 Saturday Evening News (Washington), 14 August 1847. 2 Alexander MacKay, The Western World, or, Travels in the United States in 1846-47 (3 vols.; London: Richard Bentley, 1850), 1:162. 3 Letter by “Mercer,” n.d., Washington National Intelligencer, 16 November 1846. The author of this letter thought that the station was “in every respect bad: it is cramped in space, unsightly in appearance, inconvenient in its position, and ill adapted to minister to the comfort of travellers in the entire character of its arrangements.” Cf. Wilhelmus Bogart Bryan, A History of the National Capital from Its Foundation through the Period of the Adoption of the Organic Act (2 vols.; New York: Macmillan, 1914-16), 2:357.
    [Show full text]
  • H. Doc. 108-222
    OFFICERS OF THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH OF THE GOVERNMENT [ 1 ] EXPLANATORY NOTE A Cabinet officer is not appointed for a fixed term and does not necessarily go out of office with the President who made the appointment. While it is customary to tender one’s resignation at the time a change of administration takes place, officers remain formally at the head of their department until a successor is appointed. Subordinates acting temporarily as heads of departments are not con- sidered Cabinet officers, and in the earlier period of the Nation’s history not all Cabinet officers were heads of executive departments. The names of all those exercising the duties and bearing the respon- sibilities of the executive departments, together with the period of service, are incorporated in the lists that follow. The dates immediately following the names of executive officers are those upon which commis- sions were issued, unless otherwise specifically noted. Where periods of time are indicated by dates as, for instance, March 4, 1793, to March 3, 1797, both such dates are included as portions of the time period. On occasions when there was a vacancy in the Vice Presidency, the President pro tem- pore is listed as the presiding officer of the Senate. The Twentieth Amendment to the Constitution (effective Oct. 15, 1933) changed the terms of the President and Vice President to end at noon on the 20th day of January and the terms of Senators and Representatives to end at noon on the 3d day of January when the terms of their successors shall begin. [ 2 ] EXECUTIVE OFFICERS, 1789–2005 First Administration of GEORGE WASHINGTON APRIL 30, 1789, TO MARCH 3, 1793 PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES—GEORGE WASHINGTON, of Virginia.
    [Show full text]
  • Republican Conventions, Tickets Since 1860
    THE STATES Democratic Conventions And Tickets Since 1832 Tennessee 91 Delegates (9 are superdelegates) This week’s gathering in Charlotte is only the fifth time the Democrats Delegation headquarters: Courtyard by Marriott University have held their convention in the South. The other four weren’t auspi- 333 W. W.T. Harris Blvd., Charlotte, 704-549-4888 cious for the party. In 1860, the convention couldn’t even nominate a candidate and the Republicans won the White House all four times. President Senate Year Host city Nominee for Nominee for (11 electoral votes) SAFE REPUBLICAN president vice president Romney favored Mark Clayton, D 1832 Baltimore Andrew Jackson Martin Van Buren 2008 results: McCain 57%, Obama 42% vs. Bob Corker, R 1835 Baltimore Martin Van Buren Richard M. Johnson 1840 Baltimore Martin Van Buren (none nominated) House (9 seats) 1844 Baltimore James K. Polk George M. Dallas Democrat Republican 1848 Baltimore Lewis Cass William O. Butler 1852 Baltimore Franklin Pierce William R. King Safe (2) Safe (7) 1856 Cincinnati James Buchanan John C. Breckinridge 1860 Charleston Deadlocked 1860 Baltimore Stephen A. Douglas Benjamin Fitzpatrick Tennessee Democrats, who have fought long and hard to prevent Herschel V. Johnson1 Republican gains, have lost steam but seem to be holding on for now. 1864 Chicago George B. McClellan George H. Pendleton The governorship, both Senate seats and seven of the state’s nine 1868 New York Horatio Seymour Francis P. Blair House seats are held by Republicans. Democrats lost three of their five 1872 Baltimore Horace Greeley Benjamin G. Brown House members in the 2010 midterm election, but the current two Tennessee House Democrats, Reps.
    [Show full text]
  • National Party Convention Balloting and Results Larry J
    National Party Convention Balloting and Results Larry J. Sabato's Crystal Ball Election Party # of ballots First Ballot Leader Ultimate Nominee Party # of ballots First Ballot Leader Ultimate Nominee 1832 Democratic 1 n/a Andrew Jackson National Republican 1 n/a Henry Clay 1836 Democratic 1 n/a Martin Van Buren (Multiple) Whigs n/a n/a William Henry Harrison/Hugh Lawson White 1840 Democratic 1 n/a Martin Van Buren Whigs 1 n/a William Henry Harrison 1844 Democratic 9 Martin Van Buren James K. Polk Whigs Acclamation n/a Henry Clay 1848 Democratic 4 Lewis Cass Lewis Cass Whigs 4 Zachary Taylor Zachary Taylor 1852 Democratic 49 Lewis Cass Franklin Pierce Whigs 53 Millard Fillmore Winfield Scott 1856 Democratic 17 James Buchanan James Buchanan Republican 2 John C. Fremont John C. Fremont 1860 Democratic 57 Stephen Douglas (Deadlock) Republican 3 William H. Seward Abraham Lincoln Democratic 2 Stephen Douglas Stephen Douglas 1864 Democratic 1 n/a George McClellan Republican 1 n/a Abraham Lincoln 1868 Democratic 22 George Pendleton Horatio Seymour Republican 1 n/a Ulysses S. Grant 1872 Democratic 1 n/a Horace Greeley Republican 1 n/a Ulysses S. Grant 1876 Democratic 2 Samuel Tilden Samuel Tilden Republican 7 Rutherford B. Hayes 1880 Democratic 2 Winfield Hancock Winfield Hancock Republican 36 Ulysses S. Grant James A. Garfield 1884 Democratic 2 Grover Cleveland Grover Cleveland Republican 4 James G. Blaine James G. Blaine 1888 Democratic 1 n/a Grover Cleveland Republican 8 n/a Benjamin Harrison 1892 Democratic 1 n/a Grover Cleveland Republican
    [Show full text]
  • The "Pennsylvania Origins of Popular Sovereignty
    The "Pennsylvania Origins of Popular Sovereignty HE introduction of the Wilmot Proviso in 1846, perhaps more than any other single action, broke the uneasy sectional Ttruce regarding slavery and began the process of party and sectional realignments which culminated in the Civil War. As the proviso's basic principle of free soil became the dominant issue of the campaign of 1848, national politicians were forced to come to grips with this question in a variety of ways.* Popular Sovereignty, the Democratic Party's solution to these issues in 1848, had its origins as an acceptable political concept in Vice President George M. Dallas' Qreat Speech ... Upon the Reading Topics of the T)ay> which he gave in Pittsburgh on September 18, 1847. Although Congressmen Caleb B. Smith of Indiana and Shelton F. Leake of Virginia had made earlier vague references to the people of a territory governing themselves, Dallas was the first major political figure to call for popular sovereignty.1 He had been a prominent figure in the Democratic Party in Pennsylvania and the nation since Andrew Jackson's first bid for the presidency. He had served as Mayor of Philadelphia (1828-1829), Federal District Attorney (1829-1831), United States Senator (1831-1833), Attorney General of Pennsylvania (1833-1835), Minister to Russia (1837- 1839), and as Vice President under James K. Polk. Clearly his endorsement of popular sovereignty was an important political sign. It appears to be more than coincidental that the Proviso and two of the three leading solutions to the problem of slavery in the territories—extension of the Missouri Compromise line to the Pacific Ocean and popular sovereignty—originated within the Keystone State.
    [Show full text]
  • William Clark, Black Hawk, and the Militarization of Indian Removal | the Confluence
    William Clark, Black Hawk, and the Militarization of Indian Removal BY JEFFREY SMITH 4 | The Confluence | Fall/Winter 2016–2017 When William Clark stepped off a steamboat at Jefferson Barracks, just below St. Louis, in September 1832, he figured he had finally won. Clark, Indian Commissioner for the region, took the Sauk chief Keokuk and his entourage to the barracks prison to visit the latest arrivals, Black Hawk and a half-dozen of his fellow leaders. Clark and Keokuk knew they were in the midst of a new era of relations between the native peoples and the expanding United States. All three leaders—William Clark, Keokuk, and Black Hawk—thought they were promoting the best interests of Native Americans, too. During the 1820s, Clark had come around to the view that proximity to whites was hindering the process of “civilization”—making the Indians in the white man’s image—and that clearly the Indians needed to relocate away from the corrupting influences of white society where they could grow and evolve—become “civilized”—at their own pace. American officials like Clark and Lewis Cass held that the federal government was obliged to provide everything needed to facilitate the process; Clark believed the By the time George Catlin painted this portrait, William move should come of mutual consent, whereby the Clark had been overseeing relations between western tribes and the United States government for almost a quarter of a Indians agreed to move and to an agreeable location. century. In Washington, officials generally thought of Clark Thanks to William Clark, Keokuk had risen and Secretary of War (and former Michigan territorial to a position of prominence and leadership among governor) Lewis Cass as perhaps the most knowledgeable the Sauks.
    [Show full text]
  • From Commonwealth to Constitutional Limitations: Thomas Cooley's Michigan, 1805-1886
    University of Michigan Law School University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository SJD Dissertations Other Publication Series 2014 From Commonwealth to Constitutional Limitations: Thomas Cooley's Michigan, 1805-1886 Robert Allan Olender University of Michigan Law School Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/sjd Part of the Constitutional Law Commons, Courts Commons, Legal History Commons, and the State and Local Government Law Commons Citation Olender, Robert Allan, "From Commonwealth to Constitutional Limitations: Thomas Cooley's Michigan, 1805-1886" (2014). SJD Dissertations. This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Other Publication Series at University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in SJD Dissertations by an authorized administrator of University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. From Commonwealth to Constitutional Limitations: Thomas Cooley's Michigan, 1805-1886. By Robert Allan Olender Dissertation Submitted to the University of Michigan Law School Ann Arbor, Michigan In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of the Science of Jurisprudence 2014 Faculty Committee Professor William Novak, Chair Professor Thomas Green Professor Richard Primus 1 © Copyright by: Robert Allan Olender 2014 All rights reserved. 2 Acknowledgments A long list of friends and mentors provided considerable assistance during my journey to complete this work. I am indebted to them and thankful for their guidance, support, and wisdom. I am particularly indebted to my advisor and committee chair, Professor William Novak. Professor Novak took on the considerable task of molding me into a legal historian.
    [Show full text]