Introduction

Abstract

Introduction Melvin I. Urofsky Everytime I write an introductionto anew issue oftheJournal, I am amazed at the variety of topics that are included. In the past I have noted, and will note again, that when I was in college and even in graduate school, courses in constitutional and legal history consisted al­ most entirely ofcases. One mightreadLochner v. New York (1905), for example, and spend all of the time on Rufus Peckham’s majority opinion and Oliver Wendell Holmes’ dissent (one sort of dismissed the Harlan dissent, al­ though in jurisprudential terms it is far better than that ofHolmes). No one paid attention to the Progressive Era campaigns to secure bet­ ter working conditions and limits on how long a person labored, or how Lochner and other cases affected the politics of the time. Even when I went to law school in the early 1980s, the history surrounding cases was absent in nearly all classes. As Judge Posner once remarked in dismissing judicial biogra­ phies, it did not matter where a Justice came from or what elements inhis or herbackground led to a particular opinion. For lawyers and judges, the only thing that mattered in a case was the bottom line—what did the court say the law was, and how would this affect future litigation or prosecutions? Were we still in this era, none of the arti­ cles in this issue would have seen the light of day. Tony Freyer and Daniel Thomas do have an article on the 1849 Passenger Cases, but they are looking atthat decision not so much in light of internal jurisprudential logic as in the far broader context oftransatlantic commerce. In doing so, they arejoining a new wave ofhis­ torians who, while still interested primarily in American history, argue that, not only during the colonial times but afterwards, the United States has to be seen in the larger context ofthe Atlantic region—of the commercial, cultural, social, and economic interactions between the United States, on the western side ofthe ocean, and Great Britain and other European powers to the east. Dale Yurs finished his master’s degree in history at the University ofNorthern Iowa, and his mentor, John Johnson, suggested that he send part of it to us so we could consider it for publication. We liked what we saw, and sug­ gested that his chapter on circuit-riding and its hardships would be interesting to our readers. v vi JOURNAL OF SUPREME COURT HISTORY Everyone knows that, for a century, the Jus­ tices complained about what they saw as the most onerous part oftheirduties, and Dale tells us why. Anotherpiece writtenby the authorduring student days is Chris Hickman’s examination of how Richard Nixon targeted the Supreme Court and its decisions in the 1968 presidential election. That article is the winnerofthis year’s Hughes-Gosset Student Prize. The Court as an object of political condemnation is not unusual in American history: Thomas Jeffer­ son condemned the Marshall Court, Abraham Lincoln attacked the Dred Scott decision, and both Theodore Roosevelt and his cousin Franklin had some harsh things to say about the High Court. Nixon, however, took the crit­ icism to a new level. The case of Bradwell v. Illinois continues to serve as a teaching tool for understanding the status of women in the latter part of the nineteenth century. Myra Bradwell herselfwas an extraordinary woman, and, despite the prej­ udice she faced, she became one ofthe leading legal figures in the Midwest. John Lupton’s re­ search uncovered interesting documents con­ cerning her work, and we are pleased to be the venue in which they come to light. In some ways, the remaining articles this month are somewhat “internal.” Peter Bozzo and Lilit Sheymajash “Shimmy” Edwards are former judicial interns at the Supreme Court, while April Christine is a former Supreme Court Fellow. Their manuscript caught my at­ tention because I am currently working on a book on dissent, and their article on the origins ofdissent in the High Court is chock-full ofthe type of information that is not only useful to me, but also interesting to anyone who follows the Court’s history. Clare Cushman, of course, is our man...