Reconstructing the practice: The effects of expanded federal judicial power on postbellum lawyers

American Journal of Legal History

Volumn 43, Issue 3, 1999, Pages

  Thompson, Elizabeth Lee ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0043136251     PISSN: 00029319     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2307/846161     Document Type: Review

References (11)

1. William M. Wiecek, "The Reconstruction of Federal Judicial Power, 1863-1876," American Journal of Legal History 13 (1969), 333-59; Stanley I. Kutler, Judicial Power and Reconstruction Politics (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1968), 143-60; Felix Frankfurter and James M. Landis, The Business of the Supreme Court: A Study in the Federal Judicial System (New York: Macmillan Company, 1928), 56-64. Wiecek and Kutler disagree with historians who deem the federal courts, and particularly the Supreme Court, to have been weak, ineffective, and intimidated by Congress during Reconstruction. Wiecek and Kutler point to a vigorous Supreme Court and jurisdictional grants by Congress to argue otherwise. Wiecek concludes that the Court of Claims's creation was one of the five influential extensions of federal jurisdiction. Wiecek, id., 352-55; Kutler, id. For an example of the opposing view, see Charles Warren, The Supreme Court in United States History (Boston: Little, Brown & Co., 1922), 3:1-219.
2. William M. Wiecek, "The Reconstruction of Federal Judicial Power, 1863-1876," American Journal of Legal History 13 (1969), 333-59; Stanley I. Kutler, Judicial Power and Reconstruction Politics (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1968), 143-60; Felix Frankfurter and James M. Landis, The Business of the Supreme Court: A Study in the Federal Judicial System (New York: Macmillan Company, 1928), 56-64. Wiecek and Kutler disagree with historians who deem the federal courts, and particularly the Supreme Court, to have been weak, ineffective, and intimidated by Congress during Reconstruction. Wiecek and Kutler point to a vigorous Supreme Court and jurisdictional grants by Congress to argue otherwise. Wiecek concludes that the Court of Claims's creation was one of the five influential extensions of federal jurisdiction. Wiecek, id., 352-55; Kutler, id. For an example of the opposing view, see Charles Warren, The Supreme Court in United States History (Boston: Little, Brown & Co., 1922), 3:1-219.
3. William M. Wiecek, "The Reconstruction of Federal Judicial Power, 1863-1876," American Journal of Legal History 13 (1969), 333-59; Stanley I. Kutler, Judicial Power and Reconstruction Politics (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1968), 143-60; Felix Frankfurter and James M. Landis, The Business of the Supreme Court: A Study in the Federal Judicial System (New York: Macmillan Company, 1928), 56-64. Wiecek and Kutler disagree with historians who deem the federal courts, and particularly the Supreme Court, to have been weak, ineffective, and intimidated by Congress during Reconstruction. Wiecek and Kutler point to a vigorous Supreme Court and jurisdictional grants by Congress to argue otherwise. Wiecek concludes that the Court of Claims's creation was one of the five influential extensions of federal jurisdiction. Wiecek, id., 352-55; Kutler, id. For an example of the opposing view, see Charles Warren, The Supreme Court in United States History (Boston: Little, Brown & Co., 1922), 3:1-219.
4. William M. Wiecek, "The Reconstruction of Federal Judicial Power, 1863-1876," American Journal of Legal History 13 (1969), 333-59; Stanley I. Kutler, Judicial Power and Reconstruction Politics (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1968), 143-60; Felix Frankfurter and James M. Landis, The Business of the Supreme Court: A Study in the Federal Judicial System (New York: Macmillan Company, 1928), 56-64. Wiecek and Kutler disagree with historians who deem the federal courts, and particularly the Supreme Court, to have been weak, ineffective, and intimidated by Congress during Reconstruction. Wiecek and Kutler point to a vigorous Supreme Court and jurisdictional grants by Congress to argue otherwise. Wiecek concludes that the Court of Claims's creation was one of the five influential extensions of federal jurisdiction. Wiecek, id., 352-55; Kutler, id. For an example of the opposing view, see Charles Warren, The Supreme Court in United States History (Boston: Little, Brown & Co., 1922), 3:1-219.
5. William M. Wiecek, "The Reconstruction of Federal Judicial Power, 1863-1876," American Journal of Legal History 13 (1969), 333-59; Stanley I. Kutler, Judicial Power and Reconstruction Politics (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1968), 143-60; Felix Frankfurter and James M. Landis, The Business of the Supreme Court: A Study in the Federal Judicial System (New York: Macmillan Company, 1928), 56-64. Wiecek and Kutler disagree with historians who deem the federal courts, and particularly the Supreme Court, to have been weak, ineffective, and intimidated by Congress during Reconstruction. Wiecek and Kutler point to a vigorous Supreme Court and jurisdictional grants by Congress to argue otherwise. Wiecek concludes that the Court of Claims's creation was one of the five influential extensions of federal jurisdiction. Wiecek, id., 352-55; Kutler, id. For an example of the opposing view, see Charles Warren, The Supreme Court in United States History (Boston: Little, Brown & Co., 1922), 3:1-219.
6. William M. Wiecek, "The Reconstruction of Federal Judicial Power, 1863-1876," American Journal of Legal History 13 (1969), 333-59; Stanley I. Kutler, Judicial Power and Reconstruction Politics (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1968), 143-60; Felix Frankfurter and James M. Landis, The Business of the Supreme Court: A Study in the Federal Judicial System (New York: Macmillan Company, 1928), 56-64. Wiecek and Kutler disagree with historians who deem the federal courts, and particularly the Supreme Court, to have been weak, ineffective, and intimidated by Congress during Reconstruction. Wiecek and Kutler point to a vigorous Supreme Court and jurisdictional grants by Congress to argue otherwise. Wiecek concludes that the Court of Claims's creation was one of the five influential extensions of federal jurisdiction. Wiecek, id., 352-55; Kutler, id. For an example of the opposing view, see Charles Warren, The Supreme Court in United States History (Boston: Little, Brown & Co., 1922), 3:1-219.
7. An Act to provide for the Collection of abandoned Property and for the Prevention of Frauds in insurrectionary Districts within the United States, Stats. at Large of USA 12 (1865); 821-21 (hereinafter cited as Captured and Abandoned Property Act). The few historians who have considered the act and related Court of Claims cases focus on the measure's legislative history and operation during and after the conflict. See James G. Randall, Constitutional Problems Under Lincoln, rev. ed. (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1951), 224, 316-17, 323-28, 335-41; "Captured and Abandoned Property Act During the Civil War," American Historical Review 19 (Oct. 1913): 65-79; Irving A. Hamilton, "The United States Court of Claims and the Captured and Abandoned Property Act of 1863" (Ph.D. diss., University of North Carolina, 1956); Frank W. Klingberg, The Southern Claims Commission (University of California Publications in History, ed. J.S. Galbraith, R.N. Burr, and Brainerd Dyer, vol. 50) (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1955), 32-37.
8. An Act to provide for the Collection of abandoned Property and for the Prevention of Frauds in insurrectionary Districts within the United States, Stats. at Large of USA 12 (1865); 821-21 (hereinafter cited as Captured and Abandoned Property Act). The few historians who have considered the act and related Court of Claims cases focus on the measure's legislative history and operation during and after the conflict. See James G. Randall, Constitutional Problems Under Lincoln, rev. ed. (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1951), 224, 316-17, 323-28, 335-41; "Captured and Abandoned Property Act During the Civil War," American Historical Review 19 (Oct. 1913): 65-79; Irving A. Hamilton, "The United States Court of Claims and the Captured and Abandoned Property Act of 1863" (Ph.D. diss., University of North Carolina, 1956); Frank W. Klingberg, The Southern Claims Commission (University of California Publications in History, ed. J.S. Galbraith, R.N. Burr, and Brainerd Dyer, vol. 50) (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1955), 32-37.
9. An Act to provide for the Collection of abandoned Property and for the Prevention of Frauds in insurrectionary Districts within the United States, Stats. at Large of USA 12 (1865); 821-21 (hereinafter cited as Captured and Abandoned Property Act). The few historians who have considered the act and related Court of Claims cases focus on the measure's legislative history and operation during and after the conflict. See James G. Randall, Constitutional Problems Under Lincoln, rev. ed. (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1951), 224, 316-17, 323-28, 335-41; "Captured and Abandoned Property Act During the Civil War," American Historical Review 19 (Oct. 1913): 65-79; Irving A. Hamilton, "The United States Court of Claims and the Captured and Abandoned Property Act of 1863" (Ph.D. diss., University of North Carolina, 1956); Frank W. Klingberg, The Southern Claims Commission (University of California Publications in History, ed. J.S. Galbraith, R.N. Burr, and Brainerd Dyer, vol. 50) (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1955), 32-37.
10. An Act to provide for the Collection of abandoned Property and for the Prevention of Frauds in insurrectionary Districts within the United States, Stats. at Large of USA 12 (1865); 821-21 (hereinafter cited as Captured and Abandoned Property Act). The few historians who have considered the act and related Court of Claims cases focus on the measure's legislative history and operation during and after the conflict. See James G. Randall, Constitutional Problems Under Lincoln, rev. ed. (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1951), 224, 316-17, 323-28, 335-41; "Captured and Abandoned Property Act During the Civil War," American Historical Review 19 (Oct. 1913): 65-79; Irving A. Hamilton, "The United States Court of Claims and the Captured and Abandoned Property Act of 1863" (Ph.D. diss., University of North Carolina, 1956); Frank W. Klingberg, The Southern Claims Commission (University of California Publications in History, ed. J.S. Galbraith, R.N. Burr, and Brainerd Dyer, vol. 50) (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1955), 32-37.
11. An Act to provide for the Collection of abandoned Property and for the Prevention of Frauds in insurrectionary Districts within the United States, Stats. at Large of USA 12 (1865); 821-21 (hereinafter cited as Captured and Abandoned Property Act). The few historians who have considered the act and related Court of Claims cases focus on the measure's legislative history and operation during and after the conflict. See James G. Randall, Constitutional Problems Under Lincoln, rev. ed. (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1951), 224, 316-17, 323-28, 335-41; "Captured and Abandoned Property Act During the Civil War," American Historical Review 19 (Oct. 1913): 65-79; Irving A. Hamilton, "The United States Court of Claims and the Captured and Abandoned Property Act of 1863" (Ph.D. diss., University of North Carolina, 1956); Frank W. Klingberg, The Southern Claims Commission (University of California Publications in History, ed. J.S. Galbraith, R.N. Burr, and Brainerd Dyer, vol. 50) (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1955), 32-37.