Making Our Democracy Work (38 page)

9.
Garraty,
supra
note 2, at 86.

10.
Marbury
, 5 U.S. at 163.

11.
Id
. at 164–66 (emphasis added).

12.
Id
. at 173. But see William W. Van Alstyne,
A Critical Guide to
Marbury v. Madison, 1969 Duke L.J. 1, 14–16 (suggesting that Marshall may have been wrong to assume that the Judiciary Act intended to grant the Supreme Court original jurisdiction).

13.
U.S. Const. art. III, § 2 (emphasis added);
Marbury
, 5 U.S. at 176.

14.
Marbury
, 5 U.S. at 176–78.

15.
Id
. at 177–78.

16.
U.S. Const. art. III, § 2;
id
. art. III, § 3;
id
. art. I, § 9;
id
. art VI; 1 Stat. 76 § 8;
Marbury
, 5 U.S. at 179–80. On the oath of office, see Supreme Court of the United States Office of the Curator, Information Sheet, Text of the Oaths of Office for Supreme Court Justices (Aug. 10, 2009),
www.supremecourtus.gov/about/textoftheoathsofoffice2009.pdf
.

17.
See, e.g., Warren,
supra
note 2,at 249–52 (quoting contemporary newspapers criticizing the
Marbury
opinion for reaching the merits). This criticism of Marshall’s opinion (Jefferson claimed it should be ignored as an “extrajudicial opinion”) has remained a common one. See letter from Jefferson to George Hay, June 20, 1807, in
The Works of Thomas Jefferson
, ed. Paul L. Ford, vol. 10 (New York: Putnam, 1905).

18.
If a modern reader criticizes Marshall for failure to abide by jurisdictional rules, then why not defend him as I have done? For historical detail, see Bruce Ackermann,
The Failure of the Founding Fathers
(2005).

19.
Marbury
, 5 U.S. at 180 (second emphasis added); see Larry D. Kramer,
The People Themselves
125–26 (2004) (arguing that though Marshall “was daring in finding a way to introduce judicial review into [
Marbury
], he [was not] equally bold and imaginative in developing the doctrine”).

1.
For a lengthier treatment of the events underlying the Cherokee cases, the reader is directed to the following sources that inform this account: Jill Norgren,
The Cherokee Cases: Two Landmark Federal Decisions in the Fight for Sovereignty
11–86 (2004); Grace Steele Woodward,
The Cherokees
(1963); Annie Heloise Abel,
The History of Events Resulting in Indian Consolidation West of the Mississippi
, in 1 Annual Report of the American Historical Association for 1906, 233–450 (1908); Wilson Lumpkin,
The Removal of the Cherokee Indians from Georgia
(1907); Ulrich Bonnell Phillips,
Georgia and State Rights
, in 2 Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1901, 66–86 (1902); 2 John P. Kennedy,
Memoirs of the Life of William Wirt
240–64, 290–97 (1850). The early secondary sources, even those sympathetic to the Cherokees, present a somewhat benighted view of their subject; in other respects, however, they are valuable, detailed historical accounts.

2.
Phillips,
supra
note 1, at 70; see generally
id
. at 69–86 (describing the presidents’ resistance to Georgia’s demands).

3.
Id
. at 68–71; Woodward,
supra
note 1, at 139–46 (describing the Cherokee nation’s establishment of a newspaper, schools, and a court system);
id
. at 157–91 (describing the leadership of Chief John Ross); Kennedy,
supra
note 1, at 245–46 (quoting an 1825 letter from a Cherokee man describing the Cherokee nation, including its public roads, villages, manufacturing, agriculture, religion, schools, and plans for a national library and museum); Samuel Carter III,
Cherokee Sunset
103 (1976).

4.
Phillips,
supra
note 1, at 72–73, 84; Woodward,
supra
note 1, at 158–60.

5.
Abel,
supra
note 1, at 379, 375–81; Woodward,
supra
note 1, at 160.

6.
Phillips,
supra
note 1, at 66–67; Norgren,
supra
note 1, at 26; U.S. Const. art. VI, cl. 2 (emphasis added).

7.
Kennedy,
supra
note 1, at 253–59 (quoting letters from Wirt describing the Cherokees’ case and his fears that Georgia might not obey an adverse decision of the Supreme Court); Phillips,
supra
note 1, at 63 (quoting Georgia’s governor, George Troup); see generally
id
. at 39–65 (describing the acquisition of the Creeks’ land); see also Lumpkin,
supra
note 1, at 42–43 (account of Lumpkin, Georgia’s governor from 1831 to 35, describing the “problem” for Georgia presented by the Cherokees);
Joseph C. Burke,
The Cherokee Cases: A Study in Law, Politics, and Morality
, 21 Stan. L. Rev. 500, 508 (1969) (describing Wirt as an advocate).

8.
Kennedy,
supra
note 1, at 256 (quoting letter from Wirt); Norgren,
supra
note 1, at 61–62, 97–98; Phillips,
supra
note 1, at 75–77.

9.
Cherokee Nation v. Georgia
, 30 U.S. (5 Pet.) 1 (1831); U.S. Const. art. III, § 2, cl. 2; Kennedy,
supra
note 1, at 293.

10.
Cherokee Nation
, 30 U.S. at 15–20; George Gilmer to S. S. Hamilton (June 20, 1831), in 2 Indian Removal Records, S. Doc. No. 23–512, at 22, 25.

11.
Worcester v. Georgia
, 31 U.S. (6 Pet.) 515, 537, 542 (1832); Phillips,
supra
note 1, at 78–81 (describing Worcester’s arrest and trial); Abel,
supra
note 1, at 396–403 (same); Samuel A. Worcester to George R. Gilmer (June 10, 1831), in 27 Missionary Herald 250, 251 (1831) (“I have the pleasure of sending to your excellency a copy of the Gospel of Matthew, of a hymn-book, and of a small tract … of excerpts from scripture” all translated into Cherokee).

12.
Worcester
, 31 U.S. at 541.

13.
Id
. at 548–54;
id
. at 575;
id
. at 557.

14.
Id
. at 561–62.

15.
Id
. at 562 (emphasis added).

16.
2 Charles Warren,
The Supreme Court in United States History
216–17 (1922).

17.
Id
. at 215–16;
id
. at 228; Lumpkin,
supra
note 1, at 104.

18.
Lewis Cass to William Reed (Nov. 14, 1831), in Robert Sparks Walker,
Torchlights to the Cherokees
285, 285–86 (1931); Andrew Jackson, Veto Message—Bank of the United States (July 10, 1832), reprinted in
The Statesmanship of Andrew Jackson
154, 163–64 (Francis Newton Thorpe ed., 1909); Warren,
supra
note 16, at 217;
cf. id
. at 219 (characterizing it as “a matter of extreme doubt” whether Jackson ever uttered his famous dictum);
id
. at 229.

19.
An ordinance to nullify certain acts of the Congress of the United States, purporting to be laws and imposts on the importation of foreign commodities, South Carolina (Nov. 24, 1832); Warren,
supra
note 16, at 234.

20.
Andrew Jackson, Anti-nullification Proclamation (Dec. 10, 1832), in
The Statesmanship of Andrew Jackson, supra
note 18, at 232, 238 (emphasis removed); Warren,
supra
note 16, at 234–38.

21.
Warren,
supra
note 16, at 235–37; Norgren,
supra
note 1, at 127–28.

22.
Norgren,
supra
note 1, at 136–37.

23.
Woodward,
supra
note 1, at 193–94; Norgren,
supra
note 1, at 134–36;
id
. at 143; Charles C. Royce,
The Cherokee Nation
164 (1975).

24.
Royce,
supra
note 23, at 162.

25.
Woodward,
supra
note 1, at 193–94.

1.
Scott v. Sandford
, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857).

2.
Id
. at 397–98. For a more comprehensive account of the facts of
Dred Scott
, see Don E. Fehrenbacher,
The
Dred Scott
Case
(1978), especially 240–49.

3.
James F. Simon,
Lincoln and Chief Justice Taney
13 (2007) (quoting Wirt);
id
. at
9;
id
. at 11 (quoting Taney’s opposition to slavery as expressed in oral argument at the trial of an abolitionist);
id
. at 16–17 (quoting Taney’s views on citizenship rights of the “African race” as expressed in a legal opinion to Secretary of State Edward Livingston).

4.
1 Benjamin R. Curtis,
A Memoir of Benjamin R. Curtis, LL.D
. 249–51 (Benjamin R. Curtis ed., 1879).

5.
U.S. Const. art. I, § 9, cl. 1;
id
. art. V;
id
. art. I, § 2, cl. 3, amended by U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 2.

6.
See Mark A. Graber, Dred Scott
and the Problem of Constitutional Evil
124–27 (2006) (describing how, despite expectations, population growth in the Northwest greatly surpassed that in the Southwest).

7.
See generally Fehrenbacher,
supra
note 2, at 250–83 (describing Dred Scott’s litigation in the Missouri courts and the federal circuit court);
id
. at 264 (quoting the Missouri Supreme Court opinion).

8.
Id
. at 281–82;
id
. at 293; Austin Allen,
Origins of the
Dred Scott
Case
148–49 (2006).

9.
Fehrenbacher,
supra
note 2, at 288–90; Simon,
supra
note 3, at 117–19; Fehrenbacher,
supra
note 2, at 314–21.

10.
Scott
, 60 U.S. at 403;
id
. at 427.

11.
U.S. Const. art. III, § 2;
Scott
, 60 U.S. at 407;
id
. at 413–17;
id
. at 419–21.

12.
U.S. Const. art. IV, § 2, cl. 1;
Scott
, 60 U.S. at 423–25;
id
. at 426.

13.
Scott
, 60 U.S. at 572–76 (Curtis, J., dissenting);
id
. at 582;
id
. at 580.

14.
Id
. at 574–75.

15.
Id
. at 580.

16.
For an account of the complex interaction between state and federal law in
Dred Scott
, see Allen,
supra
note 8, especially 52–67, 139–59.

17.
Scott
, 60 U.S. at 598–600 (Curtis, J., dissenting).

18.
Id
. at 432 (majority opinion); U.S. Const. art. IV, § 3, cl. 2;
Scott
, 60 U.S. at 451–52; U.S. Const. art. IV, § 2, cl. 3, amended by U.S. Const. amend. XIII.

19.
Scott
, 60 U.S. at 452.

20.
Id
. at 611–19 (Curtis, J., dissenting);
id
. at 616.

21.
Id
. at 624–26.

22.
Id
. at 626–27.

23.
Fehrenbacher,
supra
note 2, at 312–13;
id
. at 417 (quoting
New York Tribune);
3 Charles Warren,
The Supreme Court in United States History
27 (1922).

24.
Report of the Joint Committee on
Dred Scott
(Apr. 9, 1857), reprinted in 3
Southern Slaves in Free State Courts
279, 280–81 (Paul Finkelman ed., 2007).

25.
Frederick Douglass, The
Dred Scott
Decision: Speech Delivered Before the American Anti-slavery Society (May 11, 1857), in 2
The Life and Writings of Frederick Douglass
407, 411–12 (Philip S. Foner ed., 1950).

26.
Abraham Lincoln, Speech in Reply to Douglas, Chicago, Ill. (July 17, 1858), in
Abraham Lincoln: His Speeches and Writings
385, 397 (Roy P. Basler ed., 2d ed. 2001); Abraham Lincoln, The
Dred Scott
Decision, Speech at Springfield, Ill. (June 26, 1857), in
id
. at 352, 362; Abraham Lincoln, First Debate with Stephen Douglas, Ottawa, Ill. (Aug. 21, 1858), in
id
. at 428, 458.

27.
Fehrenbacher,
supra
note 2, at 574–75;
id
. at 568.

28.
Graber,
supra
note 6, at 15–16 (quoting sources).

29.
Scott
, 60 U.S. at 407;
id
. at 574 (Curtis, J., dissenting).

30.
Abraham Lincoln, First Inaugural Address (Mar. 4, 1861), in
Abraham Lincoln: His Speeches and Writings, supra
note 26, at 579, 585–86.

31.
See Harriet Beecher Stowe,
Uncle Tom’s Cabin
(1852).

1.
See, e.g., Michael Klarman, Brown v. Board of Education
and the Civil Rights Movement
3–53 (2007) (detailing the legally sanctioned segregation in place in the South prior to 1954);
Brown v. Board of Education
, 347 U.S. 483, 493, 495 (1954) (
Brown
I); U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1.

2.
Martin Luther King, Jr.,
MIA Mass Meeting at Holt Street Baptist Church
(Dec. 5, 1955), in 3
The Papers of Martin Luther King, Jr
. 71, 73 (Clayborne Carson et al. eds., 1997).

3.
For cases decided during the NAACP’s step-by-step litigation campaign, see, for example,
Missouri ex rel. Gaines v. Canada
, 305 U.S. 337 (1938);
Sipuel v. Board of Regents of University of Oklahoma
, 332 U.S. 631 (1948) (per curiam);
Sweatt v. Painter
, 339 U.S. 629 (1950); and
McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents
, 339 U.S. 637 (1950). See generally Richard Kluger,
Simple Justice: The History of
Brown v. Board of Education
and Black America’s Struggle for Equality
(1975; rev. ed. 2004) (tracing the history of desegregation lawsuits leading up to
Brown
). For desegregation of the armed forces, see EO 9981, 13 Fed. Reg. 4313 (July 26, 1948).