Supreme Court cases of the American Civil War
Encyclopedia
A number of cases were tried before the Supreme Court of the United States
during the period of the American Civil War
. These cases focused on wartime civil liberties, and the ability of the various branches of the government to alter them. The following cases were among the most significant.
Supreme Court of the United States
The Supreme Court of the United States is the highest court in the United States. It has ultimate appellate jurisdiction over all state and federal courts, and original jurisdiction over a small range of cases...
during the period of the American Civil War
American Civil War
The American Civil War was a civil war fought in the United States of America. In response to the election of Abraham Lincoln as President of the United States, 11 southern slave states declared their secession from the United States and formed the Confederate States of America ; the other 25...
. These cases focused on wartime civil liberties, and the ability of the various branches of the government to alter them. The following cases were among the most significant.
Pre-war
- Ex parte BollmanEx parte BollmanEx parte Bollman, , was a case brought before the United States Supreme Court. Three main points were established in this early and formative civil liberties case:...
(1807) was an early case that made many important arguments about the power of the Supreme Court, as well as the constitutional definition of treason. - Dred Scott v. SandfordDred Scott v. SandfordDred Scott v. Sandford, , also known as the Dred Scott Decision, was a ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court that people of African descent brought into the United States and held as slaves were not protected by the Constitution and could never be U.S...
(1857) Dred Scott, a slave owned by a Dr. Emerson, was taken from Missouri to a free state and then back to Missouri again. Scott sued, claiming that his residence in a free territory granted him freedom. In a 7-2 vote, the Supreme Court decided that Congress did not have the power to prohibit slavery in the territories, making the already repealed Missouri CompromiseMissouri CompromiseThe Missouri Compromise was an agreement passed in 1820 between the pro-slavery and anti-slavery factions in the United States Congress, involving primarily the regulation of slavery in the western territories. It prohibited slavery in the former Louisiana Territory north of the parallel 36°30'...
of 1820 unconstitutional. Furthermore, the Court went on to state that blacks were not citizens of the United States and could not become citizens and therefore they could not sue in a court.
During the war
- Ex parte MerrymanEx parte MerrymanEx parte Merryman, 17 F. Cas. 144 , is a well-known U.S. federal court case which arose out of the American Civil War. It was a test of the authority of the President to suspend "the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus"...
(1861) was not actually a Supreme Court case, although it was heard by then-Chief Justice Roger Taney (see circuit ridingCircuit courtCircuit court is the name of court systems in several common law jurisdictions.-History:King Henry II instituted the custom of having judges ride around the countryside each year to hear appeals, rather than forcing everyone to bring their appeals to London...
). Taney protested Lincoln's secret notice granting military personnel the power to suspend the writ of habeas corpusHabeas corpusis a writ, or legal action, through which a prisoner can be released from unlawful detention. The remedy can be sought by the prisoner or by another person coming to his aid. Habeas corpus originated in the English legal system, but it is now available in many nations...
. This case is an example of a U.S. PresidentPresident of the United StatesThe President of the United States of America is the head of state and head of government of the United States. The president leads the executive branch of the federal government and is the commander-in-chief of the United States Armed Forces....
ignoring a court's ruling on the grounds of necessity. - In Ex parte VallandighamEx parte VallandighamEx parte Vallandigham, , is a United States Supreme Court case, involving a former congressman Clement Vallandigham of Ohio, who had violated an Army order against the public expression of sympathy for the Confederate States and their cause...
(1863), a former congressman was tried before a military tribunalMilitary tribunalA military tribunal is a kind of military court designed to try members of enemy forces during wartime, operating outside the scope of conventional criminal and civil proceedings. The judges are military officers and fulfill the role of jurors...
by General Ambrose BurnsideAmbrose BurnsideAmbrose Everett Burnside was an American soldier, railroad executive, inventor, industrialist, and politician from Rhode Island, serving as governor and a U.S. Senator...
for treason after he delivered an incendiary speech at Mount VernonMount Vernon, OhioMount Vernon is a city in Knox County, Ohio, United States. The population was 16,990 at the 2010 census. It is the county seat of Knox County. The city is named after Mount Vernon, the plantation owned by George Washington.-History:...
. A writ of certiorari brought the case to the Supreme Court under Chief Justice Salmon Chase. The court avoided disagreement with the President or military by arguing that since the extra-legal tribunals were, unsurprisingly, not listed in any documents enumerating courts over which the Supreme Court had authority, Vallandigham had no grounds for appeal. Ex parte Metzger was used as precedent.
Post-war
- In Ex parte MilliganEx parte MilliganEx parte Milligan, , was a United States Supreme Court case that ruled that the application of military tribunals to citizens when civilian courts are still operating is unconstitutional. It was also controversial because it was one of the first cases after the end of the American Civil...
(1866), the Supreme Court led by Chase ruled that, so long as local civilian courts are open, citizens may not be tried by military tribunals. It further observed that, during the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus, citizens may only be held without charges, not tried, and certainly may not be executed by military tribunals. - In Texas v. WhiteTexas v. WhiteTexas v. White, was a significant case argued before the United States Supreme Court in 1869. The case involved a claim by the Reconstruction government of Texas that United States bonds owned by Texas since 1850 had been illegally sold by the Confederate state legislature during the American...
(1869), the Court held in a 5–3 decision that TexasTexasTexas is the second largest U.S. state by both area and population, and the largest state by area in the contiguous United States.The name, based on the Caddo word "Tejas" meaning "friends" or "allies", was applied by the Spanish to the Caddo themselves and to the region of their settlement in...
had remained a state of the United StatesUnited StatesThe United States of America is a federal constitutional republic comprising fifty states and a federal district...
ever since it first joined the Union, despite its joining the Confederate States of AmericaConfederate States of AmericaThe Confederate States of America was a government set up from 1861 to 1865 by 11 Southern slave states of the United States of America that had declared their secession from the U.S...
and its being under military rule at the time of the decision in the case. It further held that the Constitution did not permit statesU.S. stateA U.S. state is any one of the 50 federated states of the United States of America that share sovereignty with the federal government. Because of this shared sovereignty, an American is a citizen both of the federal entity and of his or her state of domicile. Four states use the official title of...
to secedeSecessionSecession is the act of withdrawing from an organization, union, or especially a political entity. Threats of secession also can be a strategy for achieving more limited goals.-Secession theory:...
from the United States, and that the ordinances of secession, and all the acts of the legislatures within seceding states intended to give effect to such ordinances, were "absolutely null". However, the decision did allow some possibility of divisibility "through revolution, or through consent of the States."
Further reading
- Brian McGinty, Lincoln and the Court(Boston: Harvard University Press, 2008)(ISBN 978-0674026551);
- Michael A. Ross, Justice of Shattered Dreams: Samuel Freeman Miller and the Supreme Court During the Civil War Era(Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 2003)(ISBN 0807129240)