BGuthrie Photos: DC -- Supreme Court Building -- Exhibit: In War and Peace

DC -- Supreme Court Building -- Exhibit: In War and Peace:

Bruce Guthrie Photos Home Page: [Click here] to go to Bruce Guthrie Photos home page.

Description of Pictures: In War and In Peace: The Supreme Court and the Civil War:
Marking the 150th anniversary of the Civil War, this exhibition looks at the Supreme Court during this volatile period in American history and the conflict’s impact on the
institution. Facing an unprecedented rebellion, the President and Congress took extraordinary measures to preserve the Union. The controversial wartime actions were challenged in several cases that reached the Supreme Court. Four issues are examined through important cases, including The Prize Cases (1863) and Ex Parte Milligan (1866), in which the Justices faced difficult questions about the Union’s actions during the war. In addition, individual Justices faced hardships as they maintained their loyalties while President Lincoln’s five appointees changed the Court’s membership for decades.
Objects like Justice Noah Swayne’s handwritten “Authorities” ledger help illustrate how the Court worked during the Civil War era. Other rare documents include Chief
Justice Salmon P. Chase’s Commission, the “test oath” administered to him by Justice James M. Wayne, and an Allotment Order signed by President Abraham Lincoln
assigning Stephen J. Field to the newly created 10th Judicial Circuit. Also exhibited is Chief Justice Roger B. Taney’s judicial robe, on loan from the Historical Society of Frederick County, Maryland, one of only two known Civil War-era Supreme Court robes known to survive.

Recognize anyone? If you recognize specific folks (or other stuff) and I haven't labeled them, please identify them for the world. Click the little pencil icon

underneath the file name (just above the picture). Spammers need not apply.

Slide Show: Want to see the pictures as a slide show? [Slideshow]

Copyrights: All pictures were taken by amateur photographer Bruce Guthrie (me!) who retains copyright on them. Free for non-commercial use with attribution. See the [Creative Commons] definition of what this means. "Photos (c) Bruce Guthrie" is fine for attribution. (Commercial use folks including AI scrapers can of course contact me.) Feel free to use in publications and pages with attribution but you don't have permission to sell the photos themselves. A free copy of any printed publication using any photographs is requested. Descriptive text, if any, is from a mixture of sources, quite frequently from signs at the location or from official web sites; copyrights, if any, are retained by their original owners.

Help? The Medium (Email) links are for screen viewing and emailing. You'll want bigger sizes for printing. [Click here for additional help]

Share: Facebook Twitter Digg
[1] SCXWAP_130208_08.JPG Medium (Email) (Bigger?)

[2] SCXWAP_130214_002_STITCH.JPG

Medium (Email) (Bigger?)

[3] SCXWAP_130214_009.JPG Medium (Email) (Bigger?)	[4] SCXWAP_130214_017.JPG Medium (Email) (Bigger?)	[5] SCXWAP_130214_033.JPG Medium (Email) (Bigger?)	[6] SCXWAP_130214_036.JPG Medium (Email) (Bigger?)
[7] SCXWAP_130214_043.JPG Medium (Email) (Bigger?)	[8] SCXWAP_130214_048.JPG Medium (Email) (Bigger?)	[9] SCXWAP_130214_073.JPG Medium (Email) (Bigger?)	[10] SCXWAP_130214_087.JPG Medium (Email) (Bigger?)
[11] SCXWAP_130214_101.JPG Medium (Email) (Bigger?)	[12] SCXWAP_130214_104.JPG Medium (Email) (Bigger?)	[13] SCXWAP_130214_119.JPG Medium (Email) (Bigger?)	[14] SCXWAP_130214_126.JPG Medium (Email) (Bigger?)
[15] SCXWAP_130214_145.JPG Medium (Email) (Bigger?)	[16] SCXWAP_130214_154.JPG Medium (Email) (Bigger?)	[17] SCXWAP_130214_169.JPG Medium (Email) (Bigger?)	[18] SCXWAP_130214_177.JPG Medium (Email) (Bigger?)
[19] SCXWAP_130214_183.JPG Medium (Email) (Bigger?)	[20] SCXWAP_130214_191.JPG Medium (Email) (Bigger?)	[21] SCXWAP_130214_194.JPG Medium (Email) (Bigger?)	[22] SCXWAP_130214_198.JPG Medium (Email) (Bigger?)
[23] SCXWAP_130214_204.JPG Medium (Email) (Bigger?)	[24] SCXWAP_130214_217.JPG Medium (Email) (Bigger?)	[25] SCXWAP_130214_223.JPG Medium (Email) (Bigger?)	[26] SCXWAP_130214_228.JPG Medium (Email) (Bigger?)
[27] SCXWAP_130214_246.JPG Medium (Email) (Bigger?)	[28] SCXWAP_130214_252.JPG Medium (Email) (Bigger?)	[29] SCXWAP_130214_258.JPG Medium (Email) (Bigger?)	[30] SCXWAP_130214_269.JPG Medium (Email) (Bigger?)
[31] SCXWAP_130214_278.JPG Medium (Email) (Bigger?)	[32] SCXWAP_130214_288.JPG Medium (Email) (Bigger?)	[33] SCXWAP_130214_300.JPG Medium (Email) (Bigger?)	[34] SCXWAP_130214_305.JPG Medium (Email) (Bigger?)
[35] SCXWAP_130214_316.JPG Medium (Email) (Bigger?)	[36] SCXWAP_130214_320.JPG Medium (Email) (Bigger?)	[37] SCXWAP_130214_324.JPG Medium (Email) (Bigger?)	[38] SCXWAP_130214_331.JPG Medium (Email) (Bigger?)
[39] SCXWAP_130214_334.JPG Medium (Email) (Bigger?)	[40] SCXWAP_130214_342.JPG Medium (Email) (Bigger?)	[41] SCXWAP_130214_346.JPG Medium (Email) (Bigger?)	[42] SCXWAP_130214_352.JPG Medium (Email) (Bigger?)
[43] SCXWAP_130214_363.JPG Medium (Email) (Bigger?)

Specific picture descriptions: Photos above with "i" icons next to the bracketed sequence numbers (e.g. "[1] ") are described as follows:
1. SCXWAP_130208_08.JPG: The new exhibit is about to open
2. SCXWAP_130214_017.JPG: In War and In Peace: The Supreme Court and the Civil War: In 1857, the Supreme Court's decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford pushed the nation closer to civil war. The Justices declared with a 7-2 vote that Congress could not regulate slavery in the territories, as it had done in a series of compromises since 1820. Moreover, the opinion denied all people of African descent, whether free or enslaved, citizenship under the Constitution. The now infamous decision became a focal point in the national debate over slavery. In the North, concerns grew that the opinion would allow the spread of slavery. In the South, suspicions that a new President or Congress might try to counteract the ruling with new legislation fueled talk of secession. In the closely contested 1860 election, Abraham Lincoln, a vocal critic of the opinion and the extension of slavery, won the presidency. On April 12, 1861, Fort Sumter was attacked and a week later President Lincoln ordered the naval blockade of Southern ports; the North and South were at war. Facing an unprecedented rebellion, the President and Congress took extraordinary measures to preserve the Union. These controversial wartime actions were challenged in several cases which reached the Supreme Court. Of these, only a few influenced the war directly, but several set landmarks for how the Constitution functions in the time of war.
3. SCXWAP_130214_033.JPG: Judicial Robe of Chief Justice Roger B. Taney: Supreme Court Justices have worn robes since the 1790s to denote their office. Taney's black silk robe may be the one seen in the late 1850s photograph by Gurney & Son Studio at left. Highly respected for much of his career, Taney's legacy was tainted by his controversial 1857 opinion in the Dred Scott case. At the start of the Civil War he was 84 years old and illness caused him to miss several Court sessions before his death in 1864.
4. SCXWAP_130214_036.JPG: Defining the Conflict: The Prize Cases: The very definition of the Civil War came before the Court in the Prize Cases (1863), four cases that were combined and argued over twelve days. On the surface, the cases dealt with the legality of the Union's seizure of neutral ships and cargos, or prizes, under a naval blockade of Southern ports. At their core, however, the cases asked the Justices to decide if under the Laws of war this was a conflict between nations or an internal rebellion. A War between Nations? Representatives for the ship owners argued that the blockade was illegal unless a recognized state of war existed between belligerent nations. Under the Laws of War, therefore, a blockade could only be legally enforced if the United States of America recognized the Confederate States of America as a belligerent nation. If the conflict was only a rebellion, as the Union claimed, the blockade was illegal and the captured prizes should be released to their original owners. "A Civil War is never solemnly declared... When the party in rebellion occupy and hold in a hostile manner a portion of territory, have declared their independence, ... have commenced hostilities against their former sovereign, the world acknowledges them as belligerents, and the contest as a war." -- Justice Robert C. Grier Or a Civil Rebellion? The attorneys representing the federal government argued that the conflict was a rebellion, with part of the populace fighting against the sovereignty of the Union. The scope of the conflict, however, was so large that a war existed whether Congress issued a declaration that recognized the Confederacy or not. Under these conditions, the Laws of War did not apply, the blockade was legal, and the capture prizes should be awarded. Scott's Great Snake, May 1861: Also known as the Anaconda Plan, this strategy devised by General Winfield Scott called for a naval blockade of Southern ports and sending military troops down the Mississippi River. The image of the snake was commonly associated with the plan, as the blockade would suffocate the Confederacy, like an anaconda. Laws of War: A set of international protocols and rules by which nations engage in war. By the mid-19th century, sovereign nations had to be recognized as belligerents, literally "waging war," for certain tactics like a naval blockade to be used legally. Recognition of No? In this cartoon, John Bull (representing England) asks Napoleon III (representing France), "Can you recognize that thing they call the C.S.A.?" Napoleon responds, "Well, I think I could, if 'twere not for the Big Fellow who stands in front." The Union did not want the European nations to recognize the Confederacy, fearing they would provide assistance during the war. Harper's Weekly, September 14, 1861 In a closely contested 5-4 decision, the Court ruled that the blockade was legal and the ships and cargos were awarded in accordance with the prize law. Justice Robert C. Grier's majority opinion stated that the Confederacy was not an independent country but that the Union was engaged in a civil war of such magnitude that it could proceed as if it was at war with another nation. The Court's decision was significant because it broadened the war powers available to the federal government under the Laws of War likely prevented foreign powers from allying with the North.
5. SCXWAP_130214_043.JPG: "A Civil War is never solemnly declared... When the party in rebellion occupy and hold in a hostile manner a portion of territory, have declared their independence, ... have commenced hostilities against their former sovereign, the world acknowledges them as belligerents, and the contest as a war." -- Justice Robert C. Grier Or a Civil Rebellion? The attorneys representing the federal government argued that the conflict was a rebellion, with part of the populace fighting against the sovereignty of the Union. The scope of the conflict, however, was so large that a war existed whether Congress issued a declaration that recognized the Confederacy or not. Under these conditions, the Laws of War did not apply, the blockade was legal, and the capture prizes should be awarded. In a closely contested 5-4 decision, the Court ruled that the blockade was legal and the ships and cargos were awarded in accordance with the prize law. Justice Robert C. Grier's majority opinion stated that the Confederacy was not an independent country but that the Union was engaged in a civil war of such magnitude that it could proceed as if it was at war with another nation. The Court's decision was significant because it broadened the war powers available to the federal government under the Laws of War likely prevented foreign powers from allying with the North.
6. SCXWAP_130214_048.JPG: A War between Nations? Representatives for the ship owners argued that the blockade was illegal unless a recognized state of war existed between belligerent nations. Under the Laws of War, therefore, a blockade could only be legally enforced if the United States of America recognized the Confederate States of America as a belligerent nation. If the conflict was only a rebellion, as the Union claimed, the blockade was illegal and the captured prizes should be released to their original owners. "A Civil War is never solemnly declared... When the party in rebellion occupy and hold in a hostile manner a portion of territory, have declared their independence, ... have commenced hostilities against their former sovereign, the world acknowledges them as belligerents, and the contest as a war." -- Justice Robert C. Grier Recognition of No? In this cartoon, John Bull (representing England) asks Napoleon III (representing France), "Can you recognize that thing they call the C.S.A.?" Napoleon responds, "Well, I think I could, if 'twere not for the Big Fellow who stands in front." The Union did not want the European nations to recognize the Confederacy, fearing they would provide assistance during the war. Harper's Weekly, September 14, 1861
7. SCXWAP_130214_073.JPG: Bust of Justice James M. Wayne by unknown artist, plaster, c. 1850
8. SCXWAP_130214_087.JPG: Civil War Circuit Riding: During the 19th century, Justices traveled the nation to hold circuit courts when the Supreme Court was not meeting in Washington. Keeping the federal court system open during the "War of the Rebellion," as the Justices often referred to it, was important and they attended to their circuit court duties where not disrupted by the war. Those who could not ride circuit in the South, such as James M. Wayne, remained in Washington for much of the war. The Justices who rode circuit often carried sensitive legal papers. Chief Justice Roger B. Taney owned a lockable document box for such items. Circuit riding also kept the Justices in touch with their home states, local politics, and public sentiment about the war. In July 1861, Noah H. Swayne wrote about obtaining a captain's commission for Charles Ewing, a future Union general. Two years later, while on circuit, Swayne noted "the intense Union feeling in Ohio. Public opinion is surging, in the right direction."
9. SCXWAP_130214_101.JPG: Almost unphotographical case because of really reflective glass! Items include: Correspondence of Justice Noah H. Swanye, 1861 and 1863. Bust of Justice James M. Wayne, c 1850. Document Box of Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, c 1850.
10. SCXWAP_130214_104.JPG: Habeas Corpus: All the Laws but One? At the start of the war, Confederate sympathizers in Maryland burned bridges and disrupted troop movements around Baltimore, a key transportation point connecting Washington to the North. In response, President Abraham Lincoln ordered the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus, which allowed the military to detain suspects rebels and insurgents indefinitely, even though the corts were open. In Ex Parte Merryman (1861), the legality of Lincoln's order came before Chief Justice Robert B. Taney, sitting as a circuit court judge. Taney's Opinion: Among the alleged rebel sympathizers was John Merryman, a Maryland farmer who was imprisoned at Fort McHenry in Baltimore harbor in May 1861. Merryman's lawyers asked Chief Justice Taney to issue a writ of habeas corpus. When the Fort's commander refused to obey the writ, Taney issued an opinion openly criticizing the President, arguing that only Congress could suspend the writ under the Constitution. Lincoln's Reaction: Lincoln ignored Taney's opinion but knew that suspending the writ was controversial. In a subsequent message to Congress, he argued that the Framers of the Constitution had intended for the President to do all things necessary to preserve the Union against a rebellion, including suspending habeas corpus. He was only doing his duty to "preserve, protect and defend" the Constitution and could not wait for Congress to convene while the Union was destroyed. Habeas Corpus: A write of habeas corpus (Latin for "to have the body") allows a prisoner to challenge the lawfulness of imprisonment before a court, a long-standing cornerstone of personal freedom. Under Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution, this privilege may only be suspended "when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it." Taney's passionate defense of habeas corpus made headlines, some praising him and others calling his actions disloyal. Merryman remained in Fort McHenry until the crisis near Baltimore passed, when he was released to a federal marshal to face treason charges in court. He posted bail and was released, but the case never came to trial. Ultimately, in 1863, Congress passed the Habeas Corpus Act giving the President the authority to suspend the writ throughout the country. Over the course of the war, the Union would detain thousands of people suspected of disloyalty. "I can see no ground whatever for supposing that the president, in any emergency, or in any state of things, can authorize the suspension of the privileges of the writ of habeas corpus..." -- Chief Justice Roger B. Taney "Are all the laws but one, to be go unexecuted, and the government itself go to pieces lest that one be violated?" -- President Abraham Lincoln
11. SCXWAP_130214_119.JPG: Taney's Opinion: Among the alleged rebel sympathizers was John Merryman, a Maryland farmer who was imprisoned at Fort McHenry in Baltimore harbor in May 1861. Merryman's lawyers asked Chief Justice Taney to issue a writ of habeas corpus. When the Fort's commander refused to obey the writ, Taney issued an opinion openly criticizing the President, arguing that only Congress could suspend the writ under the Constitution. Lincoln's Reaction: Lincoln ignored Taney's opinion but knew that suspending the writ was controversial. In a subsequent message to Congress, he argued that the Framers of the Constitution had intended for the President to do all things necessary to preserve the Union against a rebellion, including suspending habeas corpus. He was only doing his duty to "preserve, protect and defend" the Constitution and could not wait for Congress to convene while the Union was destroyed. Habeas Corpus: A write of habeas corpus (Latin for "to have the body") allows a prisoner to challenge the lawfulness of imprisonment before a court, a long-standing cornerstone of personal freedom. Under Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution, this privilege may only be suspended "when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it." Taney's passionate defense of habeas corpus made headlines, some praising him and others calling his actions disloyal. Merryman remained in Fort McHenry until the crisis near Baltimore passed, when he was released to a federal marshal to face treason charges in court. He posted bail and was released, but the case never came to trial. Ultimately, in 1863, Congress passed the Habeas Corpus Act giving the President the authority to suspend the writ throughout the country. Over the course of the war, the Union would detain thousands of people suspected of disloyalty. "I can see no ground whatever for supposing that the president, in any emergency, or in any state of things, can authorize the suspension of the privileges of the writ of habeas corpus..." -- Chief Justice Roger B. Taney "Are all the laws but one, to be go unexecuted, and the government itself go to pieces lest that one be violated?" -- President Abraham Lincoln
12. SCXWAP_130214_126.JPG: Habeas Corpus: All the Laws but One? At the start of the war, Confederate sympathizers in Maryland burned bridges and disrupted troop movements around Baltimore, a key transportation point connecting Washington to the North. In response, President Abraham Lincoln ordered the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus, which allowed the military to detain suspects rebels and insurgents indefinitely, even though the corts were open. In Ex Parte Merryman (1861), the legality of Lincoln's order came before Chief Justice Robert B. Taney, sitting as a circuit court judge.
13. SCXWAP_130214_145.JPG: Court in Turmoil: Resignation! "A resigned judge of the Supreme Court of the United States!! Resigned -- and for a cause that he is hardly more than half in sympathy with. His is one of the hardest cases." -- Mary Boykin Chesnut In early 1861, as the secessionist movement spread, the Justices from southern states faced a decision: remain on the Court or resign and return to their home states. Justice John A. Campbell of Alabama hoped to prevent the war and acted as an intermediary between the newly formed Confederacy and the Lincoln Administration. When the effort failed and war erupted, Campbell resigned. Later, Campbell served as the Confederate Assistant Secretary of War and was one of the Southern commissioners at the failed Hampton Roads Peace Conference of 1865. Patriots or Traitors? "I shall expect to be misunderstood and misjudged, but I shall leave posterity to do me justice." -- Justice John M. Wayne Two other southern Justices, James M. Wayne of Georgia and John Catron of Tennessee, remained on the Court. Justice Wayne was unable to travel to his judicial circuit in North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia, and his home state declared him an "alien enemy." Justice Catron was able to hold some circuit court sessions in Kentucky and Missouri, but when he went to Tennessee he was forced to leave his home in Nashville. Northern papers praised the long-serving Justices as patriots for their loyalty while Southern papers branded them traitors. The Daily Work of the Court: The Civil War disrupted many aspects of life in the Union, but legal issues continued to reach the Court. As armies fought, the Justices handed down more than 250 decisions, toiling over routine matters ranging from long-standing property disputes to settlements over lost cargos from ship collisions. The nation's westward expansion continued to add railroad-related cases while land title disputes from California also filled the docket. When not in Washington, the Justices attended to their circuit court duties in sections of the country not affected by the war. At the circuit courts, they encountered cases more directly related to the war, such as prize capture, draft issues, and appeals for habeas corpus relief.
14. SCXWAP_130214_154.JPG: Martial Law: Military Trials of Civilians: With many northerners having southern sympathies during the Civil War, the Lincoln Administration declared martial law across the Union. The military was authorized to arrest civilians for suspicion of treason and establish commissions to hold trials and issue sentences, including death. Objections to civilians being subject to military trial were raised, with two notable cases reaching the Supreme Court: Ex Parte Vallandigham (1864) and Ex Parte Milligan (1866). Voices of Dissent: Clement L. Vallandigham, a former Ohio Congressman, was arrested in May 1863 after a series of anti-war speeches. A military commission convicted him and sentenced him to prison, but Lincoln ordered him sent across enemy lines instead. The following year, Lambdin P. Milligan was arrested by the military in southern Indiana, convicted of conspiracy to overthrow the federal government by another commission, and sentenced to death. In separate appeals to the Supreme Court, their lawyers argued that military trials of civilians were illegal when the civil courts were open. "During the late wicked Rebellion, the temper of the times did not allow that calmness in deliberation and discussion so necessary to correct conclusion of a purely judicial question. Then, considerations of safety were mingled with the exercise of power... Now, that the public safety is assured, [questions] can be discussed and decided without a passion..." -- Justice David Davis No Jurisdiction: In early 1864, Vallandigham's case reached the Supreme Court. The government's attorneys argued the Court lacked jurisdiction to review appeals from military tribunals. The Justices agreed and the appeal was denied, ending the case. Two years later, when the appeal from Milligan's sentence came before the Court, the government again argued that the Court should not hear appeals from military tribunals, largely based on its decision in Ex Parte Vallandigham. The Copperhead Party: As the war continued, the federal government became increasingly concerned with "Copperheads," those with anti-war sentiments living within the northern state. Some Copperheads were pro-secession as well, spurring offshoot organizations that supported the Southern cause. Suspicious, the Union began to look closely for suspected traitors, like Valladigham and Milligan, in their midst. Harper's Weekly, February 28, 1863. The Court's dismissal of the Vallandigham appeal was considered a victory for the Lincoln Administration because it allowed the wartime policies, restricting civil liberties to continue. When Milligan was decided in 1866, however, the war was over and a unanimous Court now found it did have jurisdiction to review such appeals. Justice David Davis' majority opinion declared that the military commissions had been illegal "when the courts are open, and in the proper and unobstructed exercise of their jurisdiction." This opinion set an important legal landmark for the future use of military commissions.
15. SCXWAP_130214_169.JPG: The Copperhead Party: As the war continued, the federal government became increasingly concerned with "Copperheads," those with anti-war sentiments living within the northern state. Some Copperheads were pro-secession as well, spurring offshoot organizations that supported the Southern cause. Suspicious, the Union began to look closely for suspected traitors, like Valladigham and Milligan, in their midst. Harper's Weekly, February 28, 1863.
16. SCXWAP_130214_183.JPG: The Supreme Court of the United States by Alexander Gardner, c 1865 (reproduction)
17. SCXWAP_130214_191.JPG: The Chase Court: After receiving the presidential commission naming him Chief Justice, Salmon P. Chase took his seat on December 15, 1864. Within the first months of his tenure, he gathered the Justices for the first known photograph of the full Court. Under Chase, the Justices decided many cases during the Reconstruction era (1865-1877) that arose from Civil War legal issues. Among them was Hepburn v. Griswold (1870), a 4-3 decision ruling that the Union's use of paper currency, or "greenbacks," during the war had been illegal. Surprisingly, Chase wrote the majority opinion which declared the use of such currency unconstitutional even though he had authorized it earlier as Secretary of the Treasury. Subsequently, the Court reversed itself with Chase in dissent, in the Legal Tenders Cases (1871).
18. SCXWAP_130214_194.JPG: Bust of Salmon P. Chase by William Philip, plaster, 1865
19. SCXWAP_130214_198.JPG: Commission naming Salmon P. Chase, Chief Justice, 1864
20. SCXWAP_130214_204.JPG: Proving Loyalty: The Test Oath Cases: Throughout the Civil War, "test" oaths were used to ensure important office holders would remain loyal to the Union. Such statements spread in popularity leading to "ironclad" oaths that declared both past and future loyalty, thus preventing former Confederates from assuming public positions in the restored Union. The punitive nature of these oaths was questioned at both the state and federal level in what were popularly known as the Test Oath Cases. A Form of Punishment: In Ex Parte Garland, a former member of the Confederate Congress, Augustus H. Garland, challenged an ironclad oath required by Congress to practice before the federal courts, including the Supreme Court. In the second case, Cummings v Missouri, a Roman Catholic priest named John Cummings had been arrested for refusing to take a state loyalty oath required under Missouri's 1865 Constitution. In March 1866, lawyers in both cases argued that the ironclad oaths were punitive and, therefore, bills of attainder and ex post facto laws. Only a Qualification: The federal government's defense in Garland was that Congress had the authority to require an oath to ensure admitted traitors did not practice before the federal courts and such an oath was not a punishment because no one was compelled to take it. In Cummings, the attorneys representing Missouri argued that it was an issue of states' rights because the states set their own qualifications for who could vote, hold public office, or practice a profession. The state's loyalty oath did not presume guilt nor was it a punishment; it was simply a qualification. Bill of Attainder and Ex Post Facto: A bill of attainder is a legislative act that declares someone guilty and punishes them without a trial. Ex post facto laws are those that try to make actions illegal after they were committed. Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution prohibits such laws. In 1867, the Test Oath Cases were decided in a pair of 5-4 decisions with Justice Stephen J. Field writing the majority opinions which found the test oaths punitive and in violation of the Constitution. Justice Samuel F. Miller wrote the dissent, disagreeing with the definition of punishment used by the majority, and arguing that such qualifications were like any oath of office. Followed closely in the press, the decisions were viewed as being pro-Southern and underscored the difficulties the nation would face as North and South began rebuilding the Union in the Reconstruction era. "The Constitution deals with substance and shadows... It is intended that the rights of the citizen should be secure against deprivation for past conduct by legislative enactment, under any form, however disguised..." -- Justice Stephen J. Field
21. SCXWAP_130214_217.JPG: A Form of Punishment: In Ex Parte Garland, a former member of the Confederate Congress, Augustus H. Garland, challenged an ironclad oath required by Congress to practice before the federal courts, including the Supreme Court. In the second case, Cummings v Missouri, a Roman Catholic priest named John Cummings had been arrested for refusing to take a state loyalty oath required under Missouri's 1865 Constitution. In March 1866, lawyers in both cases argued that the ironclad oaths were punitive and, therefore, bills of attainder and ex post facto laws. Only a Qualification: The federal government's defense in Garland was that Congress had the authority to require an oath to ensure admitted traitors did not practice before the federal courts and such an oath was not a punishment because no one was compelled to take it. In Cummings, the attorneys representing Missouri argued that it was an issue of states' rights because the states set their own qualifications for who could vote, hold public office, or practice a profession. The state's loyalty oath did not presume guilt nor was it a punishment; it was simply a qualification. Bill of Attainder and Ex Post Facto: A bill of attainder is a legislative act that declares someone guilty and punishes them without a trial. Ex post facto laws are those that try to make actions illegal after they were committed. Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution prohibits such laws. In 1867, the Test Oath Cases were decided in a pair of 5-4 decisions with Justice Stephen J. Field writing the majority opinions which found the test oaths punitive and in violation of the Constitution. Justice Samuel F. Miller wrote the dissent, disagreeing with the definition of punishment used by the majority, and arguing that such qualifications were like any oath of office. Followed closely in the press, the decisions were viewed as being pro-Southern and underscored the difficulties the nation would face as North and South began rebuilding the Union in the Reconstruction era. "The Constitution deals with substance and shadows... It is intended that the rights of the citizen should be secure against deprivation for past conduct by legislative enactment, under any form, however disguised..." -- Justice Stephen J. Field
22. SCXWAP_130214_223.JPG: Proving Loyalty: The Test Oath Cases: Throughout the Civil War, "test" oaths were used to ensure important office holders would remain loyal to the Union. Such statements spread in popularity leading to "ironclad" oaths that declared both past and future loyalty, thus preventing former Confederates from assuming public positions in the restored Union. The punitive nature of these oaths was questioned at both the state and federal level in what were popularly known as the Test Oath Cases.
23. SCXWAP_130214_228.JPG: Changing Faces: The Civil War period was one of transition among the Court's membership. President Lincoln made five appointments to the Court, contributing a legacy in the law that long outlived him. The Replacements: At the start of the war, there were three vacancies on the Court. President Lincoln waited while Congress worked on legislation to reorganize the judicial circuits, but the undermanned Court needed help and in January 1862 he nominated Noah H. Swayne. The Judicial Reorganization Act passed in July, and he appointed Samuel F. Miller and David Dais returning the Cort to nine Justices during the December 1862 Term. Noah H. Swayne -- appointed from Ohio in 1862. Samuel F. Miller -- appointed from Iowa in 1862. David Davis -- appointed from Illinois in 1862. A Tenth Justice! In 1863, Congress passed an Act that created a tenth seat on the Court to represent the west coast states of California and Oregon. President Lincoln appointed Stephen J. Field to this position, and for the first time there ten Justices. Following the war, Congress decreased the number of Justices to nine, where it has remained since 1869. Stephen J. Field -- appointed from California. Chief Justice Chase: In October 1864, Chief Justice Robert B. Taney died at the age of 87. Lincoln nominated his former Secretary of the Treasury, Salmon P. Chase, who was confirmed by the Senate the same day. Chase, a leading abolitionist, was a symbolic choice to assume the seat of the author of the Dred Scott opinion. One of Chase's first acts was to allow the admission of the first African-American member of the Court's Bar, John S. Rock of Massachusetts. Salmon P. Chase -- appointed from Ohio. Lincoln's Lasting Legacy: The Lincoln appointees provided support for the Administration's policies during the war, but they also affected the decisions of the Court for many more decades. Justices Samuel F. Miller and Stephen J. Field, the two most influential members of the post-Civil War Court, served into the 1890s. These Justices played important roles as they interpreted the new amendments to the Constitution that resulted from the war; the 13th Amendment (1865) which abolished slavery; the 14th Amendment (1868) which provided citizenship for all people born or naturalized in the United States, in effect overturning the Dred Scott decision; and the 15th Amendment (1870) which extended the right to vote regardless of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
24. SCXWAP_130214_246.JPG: An Expanding Nation: Congress passed several acts relating to the Federal Judiciary during the Civil War to address issues stemming from the nation's growth. Minnesota was added to the Ninth Circuit with the Judicial Reorganization Act of 1862 and the Judiciary Act of 1863 created the Tenth Circuit for the states of California and Oregon.
25. SCXWAP_130214_252.JPG: Executive Mansion, Washington, June 22, 1863. Whereas the act of Congress approved the 3d day of March, A.D. 1863, entitled "An act to provide circuit courts for the districts of California and Oregon, and for other purposes," authorized the appointment of one additional associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, and provided that the districts of California and Oregon should constitute the tenth circuit and that the other circuits should remain as then constituted by law; and Whereas Stephen J. Field was appointed the said additional associate justice of the Supreme Court since the last adjournment of said court, and consequently he was not allotted to the said circuit according to the fifth section of the act of Congress entitled "An act to amend the judicial system of the United States," approved the 29th day of April, 1802: Now I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, under the authority of said section, do allot the said associate justice, Stephen J. Field, to the said tenth circuit. Attest: ABRAHAM LINCOLN. Titian J. Coffey Attorney-General ad interim
26. SCXWAP_130214_258.JPG: An Expanding Nation: Nominees to the Court were often chosen from the geographic area of the vacant judicial circuit. For the new Tenth Circuit, President Lincoln appointed Stephen J. Field of California and issued an allotment order assigning him to it. When the Court next reviewed circuit assignments, Field remained on the Tenth Circuit.
27. SCXWAP_130214_269.JPG: Loyalty Oaths: Test oaths were used throughout the Civil War to ensure office holders would remain loyal to the Union cause. Oaths that required both past and future loyalty were called "ironclad" oaths, such as the constitutional oath taken by Salmon P. Chase when he became Chief Justice in December 1864. I, Salmon P. Chase having by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, been appointed Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, do solemnly swear that I have never voluntarily borne arms against the United States since I have been a citizen thereof; that I have voluntarily given no aid, countenance, counsel, or encouragement to persons engaged in armed hostility thereto; that I have neither sought nor accepted nor attempted to exercise the functions of any office whatever under any authority or pretended authority in hostility to the United States; that I have not yielded a voluntary support to any pretended government, authority, power, or constitution, within the United States, hostile or inimical thereto. And I do further swear (or affirm) [the latter crossed out] that, to the best of my knowledge and ability, I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God. Salmon P. Chase Sworn to and subscribed before me, this fifteenth day of December A.D., 1864. James M. Wayne Associate Justice, Supreme Court
28. SCXWAP_130214_278.JPG: Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase
29. SCXWAP_130214_288.JPG: Loyalty Oaths: In 1865, Congress passed a new law requiring an "ironclad" oath to practice before federal courts and the Supreme Court adopted its use. This "Oath of Loyalty" ledger contains the signatures of Supreme Court Bar members who took the oath before it was successfully challenged in the case of Ex Parte Garland (1867).
30. SCXWAP_130214_300.JPG: Decision Making: During the Civil War era, each Justice tracked the progress of cases in an individual docket book, such as Samuel F. Miller's from the December Term 1864. The Justices routinely recorded dates of argument, names of attorneys in the cases, and the Justice assigned to write the opinion.
31. SCXWAP_130214_305.JPG: Decision Making: In 1869, the question of whether the act of secession from the Union was legal under the Constitution came before the Court in Texas v. White, a case about disputed U.S. bonds. The Justices ruled that upon becoming a state Texas had entered "a perpetual union" and therefore the state's "ordinance of secession... and all the acts of her legislature intended to give effect to that ordinance, were absolutely null." Secession was unconstitutional.
32. SCXWAP_130214_316.JPG: Rules and Authorities: Since the 1790s, the Court has published its rules of practice. Periodically, these rules need revision and following the Civil War several changes were necessary; including the removal of the "ironclad" oath required of Supreme Court Bar members. Justice Robert C. Grier received this copy of the 1867 edition.
33. SCXWAP_130214_320.JPG: Justice Robert C. Grier
34. SCXWAP_130214_324.JPG: Rules and Authorities: In researching a particular case, Justices review legal texts, previous decisions, and other sources that control the law in a particular case, also known as legal authorities. Without the aid of law clerks, the Civil War era Justices handled this task themselves as seen in Noah H. Swayne's "Authorities" ledger, open to his 1863 research for the Prize Cases.
35. SCXWAP_130214_331.JPG: Justice Noah H. Swayne
36. SCXWAP_130214_346.JPG: Judicial Robe of Chief Justice Roger B. Taney
Multi Column: Number of columns of thumbnails to appear per page (normally defaults to 3): [1 col] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]
AAA "Gem": AAA considers this location to be a "must see" point of interest. To see pictures of other areas that AAA considers to be Gems, click here.
Bigger photos? To save server space, the full-sized versions of these images have either not been loaded to the server or have been removed from the server. (Only some pages are loaded with full-sized images and those usually get removed after three months.) I still have them though. If you want me to email them to you, please send an email to guthrie.bruce@gmail.com and I can email them to you, or, depending on the number of images, just repost the page again will the full-sized images.
Directly Related Pages: Other pages with content (DC -- Supreme Court Building -- Exhibit: ) directly related to this one: [Display ALL photos on one page]:
- 2018_DC_Supreme_CtX_LLaw: DC -- Supreme Court Building -- Exhibit: In Re Lady Lawyers (79 photos from 2018)
- 2018_DC_Supreme_CtX_Fassett: DC -- Supreme Court Building -- Exhibit: Forgotten Legacy: Judicial Portraits by Cornelia Ad�le Fassett (39 photos from 2018)
- 2018_DC_Supreme_CtX_AT4C: DC -- Supreme Court Building -- Exhibit: All Together for the Camera (54 photos from 2018)
- 2016_DC_Supreme_CtX_Brazil: DC -- Supreme Court Building -- Exhibit: Bound for Brazil: Charles Evans Hughes' Diplomatic Trip (14 photos from 2016)
- 2016_DC_Supreme_CtX_2nd: DC -- Supreme Court Building -- Exhibit: Court's Second Home (3 photos from 2016)
- 2015_DC_Supreme_CtX_Reading: DC -- Supreme Court Building -- Exhibit: Reading the Law: Legal Education in America (60 photos from 2015)
- 2015_DC_Supreme_CtX_Hughes: DC -- Supreme Court Building -- Exhibit: Power of Image: Charles Evans Hughes (36 photos from 2015)
- 2015_DC_Supreme_CtX_Capture: DC -- Supreme Court Building -- Exhibit: Capturing Justice: Judicial Portraits by Augustus Saint-Gaudens (30 photos from 2015)
- 2013_DC_Supreme_CtX_Steinb: DC -- Supreme Court Building -- Exhibit: Curious Courtroom Sketches of Harris B. Steinberg: (7 photos from 2013)
- 2013_DC_Supreme_CtX_OConnor: DC -- Supreme Court Building -- Exhibit: Sandra Day O’Connor, First Woman on the Supreme Court (19 photos from 2013)
- 2013_DC_Supreme_CtX_Karsh: DC -- Supreme Court Building -- Exhibit: Portraits by Yousuf Karsh (5 photos from 2013)
- 2013_DC_Supreme_CtX_Campbell: DC -- Supreme Court Building -- Exhibit: John A. Campbell: In Pursuit of Peace (5 photos from 2013)
Same Subject: Click on this link to see coverage of items having the same subject: [Museums (History)] [US Supreme Court] [Display ALL US Supreme Court photos] [US Capitol Complex]
2013 photos: Trips this year: three Civil War Trust conferences (Memphis, TN, Jackson, MS [to which I added a week to to visit sites in Mississippi, Louisiana, and Tennessee], and Richmond, VA), and my 8th consecutive San Diego Comic-Con trip (including sites in Nevada and California). Ego Strokes: Aviva Kempner used my photo of her as her author photo in Larry Ruttman's "American Jews & America's Game: Voices of a Growing Legacy in Baseball" book. Equipment this year: I mostly used my Fuji XS-1 camera but, depending on the event, I also used a Nikon D7000 and Nikon D600. Number of photos taken this year: just over 570,000.
Connection Not Secure messages? Those warnings you get from your browser about this site not having secure connections worry some people. This means this site does not have SSL installed (the link is http:, not https:). That's bad if you're entering credit card numbers, passwords, or other personal information. But this site doesn't collect any personal information so SSL is not necessary. Life's good!
Limiting Text: You can turn off all of this text by clicking this link: [Thumbnails Only]
Photo Contact: [Email Bruce Guthrie].