Levi Woodbury

Levi Woodbury
John Parrott
Succeeded by	Isaac Hill
Personal details
Born	(1789-12-22)December 22, 1789 Francestown, New Hampshire, U.S.
Died	September 4, 1851(1851-09-04) (aged 61) Portsmouth, New Hampshire, U.S.
Political party	Democratic-Republican (Before 1825) Democratic (1828–1851)
Spouse	Elizabeth Woodbury
Education	Dartmouth College (BA) Litchfield Law School
Signature

Levi Woodbury (December 22, 1789 – September 4, 1851) was an American attorney, jurist, and Democratic politician from New Hampshire. During a four-decade career in public office, Woodbury served as Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, a United States Senator, the ninth governor of New Hampshire, and cabinet member in the Andrew Jackson and Martin Van Buren administrations. He was promoted as a candidate for the Democratic nomination for President of the United States in 1848.

Born in Francestown, New Hampshire, he established a legal practice in Francestown in 1812. After serving in the New Hampshire Senate, he was appointed to the New Hampshire Supreme Court in 1817. He served as Governor of New Hampshire from 1823 to 1824 and represented New Hampshire in the Senate from 1825 to 1831, becoming affiliated with the Democratic Party of Andrew Jackson. He served as the United States Secretary of the Navy under President Jackson and as the United States Secretary of the Treasury under Jackson and President Martin Van Buren.

He served another term representing New Hampshire in the Senate from 1841 to 1845, when he accepted President James K. Polk's appointment to the Supreme Court. Woodbury was the first Justice to have attended law school.^[a] He received significant support for the presidential nomination at the 1848 Democratic National Convention, particularly among New England delegates, but the nomination went to Lewis Cass of Michigan. Woodbury served on the court until his death in 1851. Woodbury died of an inflammatory tumor in the stomach.^[2]

Life and early career

Woodbury was born in Francestown, New Hampshire, the son of Mary and Peter Woodbury.

After his term as governor, he served as Speaker of the New Hampshire House of Representatives in 1825.

Federal government service

Senate and Cabinet service

Woodbury served as a

In the 1844 presidential election, Woodbury and the

He was promoted as a candidate for president at the 1848 Democratic National Convention, his support was largely centered in New England. He remained on the Court until his death at age 61 in 1851, in Portsmouth, New Hampshire.

Personal writings

Woodbury's writings shed light on his rulings as a justice, which reflect his strict constructionist views. He was one of the few justices on the court at the time to write outside of his rulings, along with McLean and Taney. Woodbury was concerned with individual rights before those rights were the focus of the court, and also thought slavery was wrong. He wrote of the judicial powers:

In due time, by stopping the fountain-head of slavery, through the power expressly granted to Congress to prohibit further additions to it from abroad ... the country will be enabled gradually to purify the corrupt waters that have flowed from this fountain ... if all this should be accomplished without violating the sacred compromises of the constitution.^[8]

Woodbury ruled based on the powers that exist in the US Constitution. He believed that slavery had been written into the Constitution but could be scaled down by Congress. In his rulings as a justice, he abided by the Fugitive Slave Clause in Article IV, Section 2.

Jones v. Van Zandt

Although Woodbury had already died when the Court decided Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), he set a precedent when he wrote for the majority in Jones v. Van Zandt (1847).

Van Zandt was an abolitionist in Ohio who harbored fugitive slaves and was sued for $500 (~$11,390 in 2023) for violating the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793. The primary issue was whether the Fugitive Slave Act was constitutional. Woodbury ruled in favor of the rights of slaveholders by arguing that the compromises in the US Constitution, such as the Fugitive Slave Clause, bound the states to enforce the act. As a strict constructionist, he defended the rights of slaveholders as protected in the Constitution regardless of his personal stance on slavery. Woodbury viewed slavery as a political question that should be settled by each state: "this Court has no alternative, while they exist, but to stand by the Constitution and laws with fidelity to their duties and their oaths... to go where that Constitution and the laws lead, and not to break both."^[9]

The decision helped reinforce the ideas that slavery was written into the Constitution and that slaveholders' rights were protected. It also furthered the precedent established in Prigg v. Pennsylvania that the Fugitive Slave Act was constitutional and paved the way for the Dred Scott decision.

Contract Clause cases

Aside from his contribution to the precedent for slavery cases, Woodbury shaped the Court's interpretation of the Contract Clause by reinforcing the obligation of contracts. His tenure on the Court came during a confused and sectionally-divided era in Supreme Court history.

In Planters' Bank v. Sharp (1848), Mississippi passed a statute forbidding a state bank from transferring notes to other banks because of the instability of the banking system after the Bank War. The issue the Court had to decide was "whether an act of the legislature of Mississippi... impaired the obligation of any contract which the state or others had previously entered into with Planters' Bank."^[10] Woodbury ruled in favor of the bank and found that the Mississippi statute violated the Contract Clause in Article 1, Section 10, of the US Constitution. He explained the contracts that were violated under the statute: "First, in the obligation of the contract in the charter with the state; and secondly, in the obligation of the contract made by the signers of the note declared on with the bank."^[11]

The contracts were valid because a bank had the power to make them when they related to the bank's business purposes and monetary dealings and a right to sell anything that it owned. Justices Taney and Peter V. Daniel dissented and favored more state control. Woodbury's leadership in dealing with the Commerce Clause helped reinforce the Contract Clause, but Taney would have taken the court in a direction to place state power over contracts.

Commerce Clause cases

Woodbury also formed the basis for the interpretation of the Commerce Clause in the License Cases in which he developed a case-by-case method for determining the extent of state regulatory power. His reasoning was the basis for the Cooley Doctrine, a later development by his successor, Justice Benjamin R. Curtis.

In the License Cases, the Court dealt with state liquor-censoring statutes. Lacking a clear precedent for how much power the states had under the Constitution to regulate commerce, the justices were not unified enough to write a majority opinion. Woodbury's opinion focused on the context on a case-by-case basis instead of deciding based on an abstract principle of commerce power. He stated that the "subject of buying and selling within a state is one as exclusively belonging to the power of the state over its internal trade as that to regulate foreign commerce is with the general government under the broadest construction of that power."^[12] He distinguished between a prohibition on selling liquor on a certain day and a prohibition on imports, which would reach into the federal government's jurisdiction of commerce. Woodbury studied the particulars of the case instead of examining only the source of power in the Commerce Clause. The Court later followed Woodbury's reasoning in Cooley v. Board of Wardens that it would decide on a case-by-case basis depending on whether the subject of regulation was local in nature or required national legislation. Woodbury's opinion had helped bring about that shift.

Woodbury's contributions to the interpretation of the Commerce Clause extended to a defense of states' rights in Waring v. Clarke. He dissented from the majority's attempts to expand federal admiralty jurisdiction. A ship accident had occurred near New Orleans on the Mississippi River, and the Court was to decide whether the federal government or the Louisiana government had jurisdiction over it. Woodbury disagreed with the assertion that the federal government had jurisdiction over every river that was controlled by the ocean's tide because citizens who had gotten into accidents on the water would have to travel greater distances if the federal government was involved than if they settled the dispute near where it had happened.

He urged the federal government to resist interfering with state power that is written into the Constitution and went so far as to say that the extension of federal power could be troublesome when it was applied to issues such as slavery. Woodbury warned that overextending federal powers would lead to "a struggle for jurisdiction between courts of the states and courts of the United States, always delicate, and frequently endangering the harmony of our political system."^[13] He advocated states' rights and indicated how he would rule in future slavery cases in what is now called a strict constructionist.

Legacy

Woodbury is one of the few individuals to serve in all three branches of the US government and one of three people to have served in all three branches and also as a US governor (the others being

• Harrison Gray Dyar
• Levi Woodbury Homestead
• List of justices of the Supreme Court of the United States

Notes

References

1. ^ ^{a b} "Justices 1789 to Present". Washington, D.C.: Supreme Court of the United States. Retrieved February 15, 2022.
2. ISSN 2474-3224
   . Retrieved September 22, 2022.
3. ^ "Portsmouth Athenaeum Finding Aids". Archived from the original on July 8, 2015. Retrieved March 23, 2015.
4. ^ Supreme Court Justices Who Are Phi Beta Kappa Members Archived September 28, 2011, at the Wayback Machine, Phi Beta Kappa website, accessed October 4, 2009
5. OCLC 12212199
   . embassytoeaster00unkngoog. Retrieved March 23, 2012.
6. ^ Levi Woodbury, Progress, in 3 Writings of Levi Woodbury 75 (Boston, Little, Brown & Co. 1852). See also Alfred L. Brophy, Property and Progress: Antebellum Landscape Art and Property Law, McGeorge Law Review 40 (2009): 603, 648-49 Archived July 17, 2011, at the Wayback Machine (discussing Woodbury's oration and noting that it reflects Woodbury's Democrat values, such as interest in universal education).
7. ^ ^{a b} McMillion, Barry J. (January 28, 2022). Supreme Court Nominations, 1789 to 2020: Actions by the Senate, the Judiciary Committee, and the President (PDF) (Report). Washington, D.C.: Congressional Research Service. Retrieved February 15, 2022.
8. ^ Capen, Writings of Levi Woodbury, LL.: D. Political, Judicial, and Literary, 14-15.
9. ^ Jones v. Van Zandt, 46 U.S. 215, 231 (1847).
10. ^ Planters' Bank v. Sharp, 47 U.S. 301, 318 (1848).
11. ^ Planters' Bank v. Sharp, 47 U.S. 301, 320 (1848).
12. ^ License Cases, 46 U.S. 504, 620 (1847).
13. ^ Waring v. Clarke, 46 U.S. 441, 473 (1847).
14. ^ "List of Markers by Marker Number" (PDF). nh.gov. New Hampshire Division of Historical Resources. November 2, 2018. Archived (PDF) from the original on January 27, 2013. Retrieved July 5, 2019.

Sources

• "Levi Woodbury". Biographical Directory of the United States Congress.
• Levi Woodbury at the Biographical Directory of Federal Judges, a publication of the Federal Judicial Center.
• Dictionary of American Biography.
• Capowski, Vincent. The Making of a Jacksonian Democrat: Levi Woodbury, 1789-1851 Ph.D. dissertation, Fordham University, 1966
• Woodbury, Levi. Writings of Levi Woodbury. 3 vols. Boston: Little, Brown and Co., 1852.
• Bader, M.D., and Roy M. Mersky. "Justice Levi Woodbury: A Representational Study." Journal of Supreme Court History 23 (1998): 129–142. Accessed November 9, 2015. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-5818.1998.tb00140.x
• Friedman, Leon, Ed. The Justices of the United States Supreme Court 1789-1969: Their Lives and Major Opinions. Vol. 2, 843–854. New York: Chelsea House Publishers, 1969. Print.
• Woodbury, Levi. Writings of Levi Woodbury, LL.: D. Political, Judicial, and Literary. Vol. 2. Edited by Nahum Capen. Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1852. Accessed November 9, 2015.
• Kahan, Paul (2016). The Bank War: Andrew Jackson, Nicholas Biddle, and the Fight for American Finance.
  ISBN 978-1594162343
  .

External links

Wikisource has the text of an Encyclopædia Britannica (9th ed.) article about Levi Woodbury.

• Media related to Levi Woodbury at Wikimedia Commons

Party political offices
Preceded by Samuel Dinsmoor	Democratic-Republican nominee for Governor of New Hampshire 1824	Succeeded by None
Political offices
Preceded by Samuel Bell	Governor of New Hampshire 1823–1824	Succeeded by David Morril
Preceded by Edmund Parker	Speaker of the New Hampshire House of Representatives 1825	Succeeded by Henry Hubbard
Preceded by John Branch	United States Secretary of the Navy 1831–1834	Succeeded by Mahlon Dickerson
Preceded by Roger Taney	United States Secretary of the Treasury 1834–1841	Succeeded by Thomas Ewing
U.S. Senate
Preceded by John Parrott	U.S. senator (Class 3) from New Hampshire 1825–1831 Served alongside: Samuel Bell	Succeeded by Isaac Hill
Preceded by Josiah S. Johnston	Chair of the Senate Commerce Committee 1827–1831	Succeeded by John Forsyth
Preceded by Henry Hubbard	U.S. senator (Class 2) from New Hampshire 1841–1845 Served alongside: Franklin Pierce, Leonard Wilcox, Charles Atherton	Succeeded by Benning Jenness
Preceded by George Evans	Chair of the Senate Finance Committee 1845	Succeeded by John Calhoun
Legal offices
Preceded by Joseph Story	Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States 1845–1851	Succeeded by Benjamin Curtis