Talk:Minor v. Happersett

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Good articleMinor v. Happersett has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 30, 2012Good article nomineeListed

Birther arguments

Minor v. Happersett is being used by birthers to "prove" Barack Obama is ineligible to be president. They are counting on "At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners." leaving out "Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts." To make their case stronger, they have changed "parents" to "two parents". I think this should not be allowed as it is not in the decision. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.151.2.10 (talk) 14:29, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. --Weazie (talk) 17:00, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In Ex parte Lockwood the court said "In Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, this court held that the word 'citizen' is often used to convey the idea of membership in a nation, and, in that sense, women, if born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction of the United States, have always been considered citizens of the United States, as much so before the adoption of the fourteenth amendment of the constitution as since;". This clearly shows that the court considered Minor v. Happersett precedent, and not mere dicta, when it 'held' Minor to be a natural born citizen.

The article should be changed to show Minor v. Happersett as precedent, and not mere dicta. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.17.150.50 (talk) 15:47, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In your opinion. Find a
reliable source that says that, and you are in business. --Weazie (talk) 15:51, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Above is a direct quote from the opinion - here is a link. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=154&invol=116 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.17.150.50 (talk) 19:08, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is not disputed that what Lockwood says. Your interpretation of Lockwood is
original research. --Weazie (talk) 19:13, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

I guess I'm a little confussed, what 'interpretation'? In the Lockwood opinion the SCOTUS said of Minor, "this court held that the word 'citizen'....". There is no interpretation needed, the court clearly states that it is a holding, and not dicta as this article states. Therefore it is incorrect for the article to state that the court was making dicta, when the SCOTUS itself says that it is a holding. I guess that's my issue, I can't figure out how the article is saying something is dicta, when the SCOTUS is calling it a holding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.17.150.48 (talk) 19:41, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, how any editor interprets Lockwood (interpreting Minor) is
reliable source that discusses Lockwood (and Minor) in the manner you describe them. --Weazie (talk) 21:57, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

From 'Wong Kim Ark' - "Minor v. Happersett (1874), 21 Wall. 162, 166-168. The [B]decision[/B] in that case was that a woman born of citizen parents within the United States was a citizen of the United States, although not entitled to vote, the right to the elective franchise not being essential to citizenship.". It's really quite impossible how you are still arguing that the construing of "natural born Citizen" in 'Minor' is mear dicta, when in WKA the Supreme Court of the United States says that it is not! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.17.150.48 (talk) 20:11, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, a
reliable source is needed. For example, the latest CRS report
said this on this topic, "The Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett, in ruling in 1875 that women did not have the constitutional right to vote in federal or state elections (as a privilege or immunity of citizenship), raised and discussed the question in dicta as to whether one would be a “natural born” citizen if born to only one citizen-parent or to no citizen-parents, noting specifically that “some authorities” hold so. The Court, however, expressly declined to rule on that subject in this particular case. In dicta, that is, in a discussion not directly relevant to or part of the holding in the case, the Court explained [Minor quote omitted]. Those issues or “doubts” raised in dicta by the Supreme Court in Happersett in 1875 were, however, answered by the Supreme Court in a later decision in 1898, in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which clearly repudiated the narrow and exclusive “original-community-of-citizens” reasoning of the Court in Dred Scott based on lineage and parentage, in favor of interpreting the Constitution in light of the language and principles of the British common law from which the concept was derived."
I anticipate that you will disagree with the CRS report. But the CRS report is a
reliable source, and your reading of Wong Kim Ark (or Lockwood) is not. --Weazie (talk) 22:29, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

You're wasting your time with this anonymous person. You're dealing with a birther. Because Minor v. Happersett states that those born in the United States are natural born citizens, birthers have attempted to thrust an interpretation on it that SCOTUS never said, namely that those born in the U.S. to citizen parents are the [i]only[/i] natural born citizens. It's a birther lie. That standard has never existed in the United States and barring a constitutional amendment, it never will. PatrickLMT (talk) 23:09, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Because Minor v. Happersett states that those born in the United States are natural born citizens..." provided that their "...parents ... were its citizens". How is quoting from the decision deserving of pejorative dismissal? Surakmath (talk) 22:58, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Literally no court or scholar reads Minor as birthers do; quote mining doesn't improve the birthers' case, especially on Wikipedia. Weazie (talk) 23:12, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a more complete quote from the court's decision: At common law . . . it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts.
In context, this statement meant that someone born in the US to American parents was unquestionably a citizen, and for purposes of the Minor v. Happersett dispute, that was all the court needed to note in order to conclude that Virginia Minor was a citizen. The court in Minor v. Happersett didn't explore the meaning of "natural-born citizen" in any depth because this was not a point at issue in the case — Mrs. Minor wasn't trying to run for President, she was trying to vote, and no one (then or now) has tried to argue that only "natural-born" US citizens can vote.
This distinction is one of
obiter dicta
. Absolutely no US court case has ever cited Minor v. Happersett in order to define the term "natural-born citizen" in the context of Presidential eligibility, because all US judges understand the difference between holdings and dicta, and they all recognize that the passing remark in Minor about natural-born citizens is just that. Again, the Minor court wasn't even thinking about whether Virginia Minor was eligible to be President — her case had nothing to do with that, but instead dealt solely with whether or not her (unquestioned) US citizenship gave her the right to vote.
If you're not familiar with the legal concept of obiter dicta, I would urge you to study it. If you deny the concept of obiter dicta and insist that every sentence, phrase, and word in a SCOTUS decision can be pulled out of context and applied with equal authority to any and all situations, then you are flying in the face of all accepted US legal interpretation, and I would urge you to reconsider your position. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 23:40, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Van Dyne

Van Dyne does not support the suggested inference that Minor defined citizenship. Please read the entire section more carefully, instead of just that one sentence. Van Dyne is saying Minor held voting was not synonymous with citizenship, which this article has already stated. --Weazie (talk) 17:53, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why not just let the words in the source stand for themselves, instead of pushing your interpretation of what they mean? That's what sources are for, aren't they? RodCrosby (talk) 18:11, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cherry-picking one sentence creates an inference that doesn't exist, gives weight where there should be none, and ignores what the author is actually trying to say. --Weazie (talk) 18:19, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All in your opinion, of course.... And there is only one sentence of Van Dyne's to quote in relation to Minor, in any event. So no cherry picking in sight. I quote it, and with it the "dicta" myth vanishes in a puff of smoke. RodCrosby (talk) 18:39, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Again, it is clear from the context of what Van Dyne is writing (hint: the section is captioned Children born in United States of alien parentage; Minor was not of alien parentage) that Minor was a voting case that held citizenship and voting were not synonymous. This reliance on Van Dyne is -- surprise, surprise! -- a birther meme. There is no problem with citing Van Dyne for the proposition that Minor was a voting case. But the inclusion of the passing reference to natural-born citizenship in Minor gives
undue weight to the topic. --Weazie (talk) 19:09, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
Sorry, you've lost me. What's a "birther meme"? You will note that the source treatise is called "Citizenship in the United States", and not "Voting Rights in the United States", so it is fanciful to characterise the citizenship aspect of Minor as a "passing reference". Van Dyne thought it important enough to include on his treatise on Citizenship. You will note further that Van Dyne is smart enough on page 12 to identify as "only a dictum" part of the Slaughter-House Cases, and "not involved in the decision of the case." Whereas, in Minor, on the next page we have "the decision in this case was that a woman born of citizen parents within the United States was a citizen of the United states..." So Van Dyne explodes the myth that the citizen aspect of Minor was mere dicta. And yet.... you now choose call it a "passing reference" and "undue". It is neither. It is, in the opinion of Van Dyne, a Supreme Court decision in relation to citizenship. RodCrosby (talk) 19:35, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The passing reference to the
Birthers. --Weazie (talk) 19:42, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
So Van Dyne, writing in 1904, was a Coatracker or Birther? I see.... Btw, have you read "Through the Looking Glass"? I think you'd enjoy it! RodCrosby (talk) 19:48, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If I've found the correct source, here's what Van Dyne said just before the Minor v. Happersett quote in question: "And the fact that neither Mr. Justice Miller, nor any of the justices who took part in the decision above referred to [i.e., the Slaughterhouse Cases], understood the court to be committed to the view that children born in the United States of alien parents were excluded from the operation of the first sentence of the 14th Amendment, is shown by the unanimous opinion of the court in the case of Minor v. Happersett ... decided but two years later, when all these judges but Chief Justice Chase were still on the bench." (This is, BTW, essentially a quote from Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at 679.)

(Or, paraphrased by me in a hopefully less convoluted form: There is a view, held by some, that children born in the US of alien parents are/were not entitled to citizenship via the Citizenship Clause. The Supreme Court justices who participated in the Slaughterhouse Cases decision did not share this view. As proof that they really did not believe this, consider their unanimous ruling, just two years later, in Minor v. Happersett.)

In any case, the Slaughterhouse Cases reference would deal with the issue of whether US-born children of alien parents are US citizens at all (not whether they are "natural-born" or not). And as for the Minor v. Happersett quote on page 13 of Van Dyne, that doesn't really say anything conclusive about the limits of natural-born citizenship; see my comments below on the Ankeny case. As for the "birther meme" thing, it's obviously not Van Dyne's fault that some people, a century later, would grab onto his writings and (mis)interpret them as supporting a view opposite to what he really meant. But this does show that we need to be careful that our sources really are reliable and really do say what we claim they say. — Richwales 08:06, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I should add here that the Minor v. Happersett opinion's statement that Minor was a US citizen because she was born in the US to American parents ís a legitimate holding because Minor's status as a citizen was crucial to the court's reasoning in the case (if she hadn't been a citizen, it wouldn't have mattered if the 14th Amendment guaranteed to citizens the right to vote, because it wouldn't have applied to Minor). But the idea that "natural-born" citizenship must be limited to US-born children of US citizen parents — assuming the court said this at all (which, as I indicated above, they really didn't) — would be obiter dictum, a passing remark that wasn't relevant at all to Minor's claiming a constitutional right to vote. Dicta are not entitled to the same precedential weight as holdings because the court is assumed not to have expended the same degree of care in analysing these non-central, side issues. To be sure, sometimes it's a matter of debate whether a given portion of a ruling is holding or dictum — but in this situation, there really isn't anything to debate, since "natural-born" citizenship vs. any other sort of citizenship is a meaningless distinction except when eligibility for the office of President or Vice-President is involved (which was unarguably not the case in Minor v. Happersett). — Richwales 20:59, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ankeny

Minor is a voting-rights case. It gives undue weight to suggest that Minor has any relevance with regard to the definition of natural-born citizenship; certainly no

WP:RS
has said that. The edit itself is confusing -- it makes an oblique reference to defining something, but fails to explain, exactly, what that definition is. --Weazie (talk) 22:59, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know what Minor is about, but voting also entails citizenship. If you read Ankeny, at the pages I cited (the point cites), you will see what I mean.
WP:UNDUE does not, and can not, apply to a single sentence with a single footnote. If anything, that argument is logically inconsistent with asking for more context! Bearian (talk) 23:03, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
The notion that Minor defined natural-born citizenship is
WP:OR. In addition, the edit made was unclear. --Weazie (talk) 23:13, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
The court in Ankeny specifically states what the court in Minor also stated--that they did not rule on whether citizen parents are required. Additionally the court in Ankeny dismissed the plaintiffs (who argued that Minor defined natural born citizenship) case. This is why it's important for Wikipedia editors to not try and interpret legal decisions themselves but rather to find reliable secondary sources that have interpreted those rulings. Wikipedia editors are generally not competent to interpret case law. Mystylplx (talk) 08:18, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, the state appellate court in Ankeny said the following with regard to Minor v. Happersett:
  • The Supreme Court held that "new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization." (Ankeny v. Governor, 916 N.E.2d at 685.)
  • The Supreme Court "left open the issue of whether a person who is born within the United States of alien parents is considered a natural born citizen." (At 686.)
  • Based on "the guidance provided by" the Supreme Court's later decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, the state court concluded that "persons born within the borders of the United States are 'natural born Citizens' for Article II, Section 1 purposes [i.e., for purposes of Presidential eligibility] regardless of the citizenship of their parents." (At 688.)
So much, then, for the notion that Ankeny interprets Minor as limiting natural-born citizenship to US-born children of two American parents. — Richwales 07:30, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think where birthers get lost is in their failure to recognize the logical distinction between "sufficient" vs. "necessary" conditions in law & philosophy. That is, what Minor v Happersatt essentially asserts (in dicta) is that while birth in US territory to two citizen parents is clearly sufficient basis for natural born citizenship, it is not a necessary basis. Big logical difference there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.228.193.25 (talk) 00:32, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Probably more significantly, birthers fail (or refuse) to understand the difference between holdings and dicta. Nothing the justices said here about "natural-born citizens" can possibly have anything to do with anything other than the right to vote (since Minor wasn't trying to run for President, she was trying to vote). In any case, we really can't say anything about this in the article unless we can find reliable sources which discuss the case's connection to natural-born citizenship — and no such sources appear to exist (i.e., none of the mainstream authorities appear to consider this point even worth mentioning, not even in order to debunk it). — Richwales 01:51, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More on In re Lockwood, Minor v. Happersett, and birther arguments

Regarding In re Lockwood, 154 U.S. 116 (1894):

Accepting (at least for the sake of argument) that a Supreme Court decision may be a reliable secondary source interpreting another Supreme Court decision, let's stop here and see just what the Lockwood court actually said: "In Miner [sic] v. Happersett, this court held that the word 'citizen' is often used to convey the idea of membership in a nation, and in that sense, women, if born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction of the United States, have always been considered citizens of the United States, as much so before the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution as since...."

First, there is no mention here of natural-born citizens — just "citizens" — so Lockwood has (as best I can tell) no bearing on whether Minor v. Happersett defines eligibility for the Presidency or not.

Second, Lockwood is certainly not saying that Minor conclusively limited citizenship (natural-born or otherwise) to only the US-born children of US citizens. If that sort of logic were valid, then we could go one step further and have a crop of "feminist birthers" using Lockwood itself to "prove" that only women born in the US to US citizen parents are natural-born citizens (or even citizens at all!).

In the same sense, Minor said that being born in the US to US citizen parents was a sufficient qualification for being a natural-born citizen, but the court explicitly declined to answer the question of whether this was a necessary qualification — because they didn't have to — because Virginia Minor was not trying to run for President, she was trying to vote — and the only reason the justices of the Supreme Court were talking about citizenship at all in Minor v. Happersett was to establish that Virginia Minor was a US citizen, so that they could move on and decide whether or not the Privileges or Immunities Clause guaranteed her, as a citizen, the right to vote. "For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts." (Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. at 168.)

And it's also clear, from a careful reading of Minor, that the Supreme Court didn't see any difference between a "natural-born citizen" and anyone else who had citizenship from birth. "Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides that 'no person except a natural-born citizen ... shall be eligible to the office of President,' and that Congress shall have power 'to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.' Thus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization." (Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. at 167.)

So, if there is in fact any reliable secondary source out there that confirms the notion that, per Minor v. Happersett, one must be born in the US of two American parents in order to be a "natural-born citizen" and eligible to serve as President, In re Lockwood does not appear to be that source. And I challenge anyone to find any such source. I've tried, without success: I

shepardized Minor v. Happersett, and I looked through the list of several hundred law review articles mentioning the case, and I read the dozen or so of these articles whose titles contained words such as "citizen", or "natural-born", or "President" (or variations on these words), and none of them even came close to offering Minor v. Happersett as a case supporting this particular birther notion. Unless someone can find a source other than their own supposedly "common-sense" reading of the Minor opinion, or a birther blog reporting someone else doing this, I'm content to conclude that no reliable legal experts consider this view to be valid, or even to be worth discussing. — Richwales 07:16, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Birther interpretations of this case need to be debunked in a level-headed fashion

With respect, I'm going to revert this recent edit's rewriting of the last paragraph (describing the Ankeny case). I believe the source being offered (a piece from The Economist) is too overtly biased to be usable as the one and only secondary source for this material. I'm not even sure I'm comfortable with using it along with a description labelling it as one opinion on the subject. The original text of the paragraph does not, in my view, give undue weight to the "birther" misinterpretation of Ankeny vs. Governor of Indiana; rather, it succinctly describes the case and shows how the Indiana appeals court used Minor v. Happersett to give the birther interpretation short shrift. This article needs to explain what the relevant piece of Minor really means, in an even-handed and dispassionate manner, because many people will come to this article precisely because Minor is claimed by some birthers as supporting their position, and these readers need to see a fact-based explanation of what the case actually says and means. It will come as no surprise to anyone reading the rest of this talk page that I believe the "birther" view of Minor v. Happersett is not credible, but that doesn't mean we can adopt the editorializing of an unabashedly anti-birther source as the voice of Wikipedia. — Richwales 02:27, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ankeny doesn't even merit a mention in this article -- which is about Minor -- because the birther view of Minor is
WP:UNDUE to pretend that it a question worth serious discussion when there is no source affording it any respect. --Weazie (talk) 04:19, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
I believe we basically agree in principle, though we disagree regarding exactly where to draw the line. I continue to strongly believe that a major factor in the present-day notability (or notoriety) of Minor is precisely that birthers who don't understand or believe in the difference between holdings and dicta are prooftexting the opinion's comments on citizenship — and for that reason, we do need to make at least modest mention of this part of the opinion, in such a way as to illustrate the accepted mainstream view of what this language actually means. In particular, I believe the Ankeny case does deserve mention here, because it shows how a real, live court has cited the citizenship comments of Minor to illustrate what this verbiage really meant (and how, taken in proper context, it really means the opposite of what the birthers say it means). In this respect, Ankeny is a reliable secondary source explaining this minor (no pun intended) aspect of Minor — and in that light, it's worth including precisely because the accepted body of reliable sources (law journals) do not consider the point to be worth the time of day. If you and I are currently unable to agree on exactly how to handle this issue, I propose we ask at
WP:3O or use other ways to get more people involved in this discussion. — Richwales 04:47, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
I agree with Weazie. As much as I'd like to see birther arguments debunked in this context those arguments are still fringe arguments from a fringe group and aren't relevant to this article. There's no point in addressing fringe misinterpretations of the case as if they were serious. There are other articles that could more properly address this--this article should stick to this particular case which, regardless of what birthers say, has nothing to do with Presidential eligibility. Mystylplx (talk) 09:38, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, in that case, I guess we would be better off not saying anything at all here about the Ankeny case. I've removed the last paragraph entirely for the time being. — Richwales 15:43, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is
transcluded from Talk:Minor v. Happersett/GA1
. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Wizardman (talk · contribs) 03:18, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review this article. No reason it should have had to wait 4 months. Comments will be up within 30 hours, ideally within two. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 03:18, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting article; did not know that there was an original Supreme Court ruling on that issues, always assumed the states all decided it. Anyway, here are my issues:

  • I was going to ask about making the images larger, but since Minor's barely a 100px image to begin with I understand keeping both small for consistency.
  • "Associate Justice John Marshall Harlan II included Minor in a list of "decisions of this Court which are disregarded or, more accurately, silently overruled today".[19]" This almost feels like quoting for the sake of quoting, and could probably be put in your own words without difficulty.
  • There are very few contemporary sources. While it's of course not a requirement, are there other recent scholarly works that could be beneficial in adding to the article?

Just a couple minor nitpicks. The article's a bit short, but given the unanimous ruling and early date it's more than understandable. I'll put the article on hold and pass it when the issues are fixed. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 03:36, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for working on the review for this article.
My impression is that there just isn't very much said in modern times about Minor v. Happersett, partly because it's an old case, and partly because it was mostly overruled by the 19th Amendment (which gave women the right to vote). Mentions of Minor in modern law review articles are pretty much limited to footnotes citing the case. And it might have stayed completely obscure except that some of the anti-Obama "birther" crowd have taken to prooftexting the Law of Nations paraphrase about natural-born citizenship, claiming that the Supreme Court definitively established a very narrow definition for Presidential eligibility (and refusing to accept the principle of holdings vs. dicta). The sources saying this are essentially all fringe blogs (and thus not reliable sources), and the mainstream legal community has pretty much completely ignored the issue. As you can see from the article's talk page, we discussed the idea a while ago of mentioning the "birther" misinterpretation of Minor (if only to alert people who might come to the article that the natural-born-citizen verbiage is being misused), but the consensus went against saying anything along those lines at all.
I'll take a look at that Harlan quote. Am I correctly understanding you to be saying that the existing image sizes are OK? As you noted, the photo of Virginia Minor (from Commons) is already tiny. — Richwales 03:56, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I replaced the Harlan quote with a paraphrase. I'm looking around in hopes of finding a suitable secondary source to use here, so far without success. — Richwales 04:24, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the existing images are ok. I won't worry about extra sources, since as you say there's not much out there recently, so I'll pass the article. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 05:04, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again for your help with this. — Richwales 05:27, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Argued" and "decided" dates — 1874 or 1875?

Up until just now, this article has given 1875 as the year for Minor v. Happersett. However, the sources for the case's opinion identify its year as 1874. The FindLaw source (per link at the bottom of the article) says it was decided on October 1, 1874. Two comments:

  1. Can anyone find a source for the "argued" date — and, if possible, additional sources for the "decided" date?
  2. There are other mentions in the article (e.g., categories) which currently reference 1875, but which should apparently all be changed to 1874.

— Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 17:52, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Library of Congress and Census Bureau both say the case was decided on March 29, 1875. (As do many others.) October 1, 1874 was the date the term started. --Weazie (talk) 18:03, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but as I pointed out, the sources for the text of the case's opinion (external links at the bottom of the article) all say 1874. Even though these are primary sources, we would normally consider them authoritative for the full cite of the case. Which other sources say 1875? And are there any sources explaining the apparent discrepancy in the year? — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 18:07, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Oxford Guide to U.S. Supreme Court decisions says it was argued and decided in 1875 (February 9 and March 9, respectively.) Unlike the LOC link at the bottom of the article, the LOC link above says 1875. It was argued and decided in the October 1874 Term. --Weazie (talk) 18:17, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Are there any more sources for 1875 (not counting sources which might base their information on the Oxford Guide)? For example, any contemporary newspaper stories or law journal articles? I'm worried that if all we have is the Oxford Guide article saying 1875, vs. half a dozen "full text" pages all saying 1874, any effort to keep the year 1875 will fall victim to well-intentioned editors who will point to the primary sources of the text and insist 1874 is definitive. This could, of course, conceivably happen even if we do find a multitude of solid contemporary accounts. We might end up needing to add notes explaining the discrepancy, along the lines of what is in Dred Scott v. Sandford (explaining that the respondent's name was really Sanford). I'm also going to go ahead and notify the SCOTUS WikiProject about this and see if anyone there has ideas for clarifying and sourcing. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 19:01, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Supreme Court's Casefinder reports it as "Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162 (1875)". I think that's authoritative. The "[Sup. Ct. ... Oct. 1874]" one sees at the page-tops in the official report appears to be a reference to the October 1874 term, which began in October 1874 and ran through the 1875 recess; and not to the date of the case itself. TJRC (talk) 19:24, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's definitely 1875. The resource for decision dates on U.S. Supreme Court cases decided before the reporters started including the dates is here. The confusion may partly result from the fact that the opinions in 21 Wallace were not reported in chronological order. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:40, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Washington University Law's Supreme Court Database says:[1]

Date Decision March 29, 1875
Date Argument February 09, 1875

TJRC (talk) 19:46, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. We should probably add the above cites to the places in the article which say 1875, in case anyone else comes along and tries to "correct" this "error". I'll do this myself later today, unless someone beats me to it. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 19:55, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Done TJRC (talk) 20:10, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I added "Dates of Supreme Court Decisions and Arguments: United States Reports, Volumes 2-107 (1791-1882)", a PDF document, as a source for the "argued" and "decided" dates for this case.
@TJRC: Could you recheck your source in Washington University Law School's Supreme Court Database? I tried this link and got an "item not found" error. Also, please note that the institution here is Washington University in St. Louis, not Washington State University. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 03:44, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like Washington University Law's DB only keeps the link to the results for a relatively short time. I clicked on the link I provided and I also got a "not found". Then I re-ran the the same search I ran a few hours ago, and now when I click on the same link, the results do show up.
My take is not to use the database as a cite; the source Newyorkbrad posted above and that you added to the article is stable and more authoritative, and the Washington University Law DB adds nothing on top of that. It looks like a useful thing for general SCOTUS research, though.
For the record, here's how to find the case in the DB:
  • Start at http://scdb.wustl.edu/index.php
  • Click on the yellow "Analysis" Tab (http://scdb.wustl.edu/analysis.php)
  • Select the "Legacy Data (1791 - 1945)" subtab (since this is an 189x case)
  • In the search box, type "Minor v. Happersett" and select the "Case Names" option, and hit the "Analyze" button. You should get one hit.
  • Click on "view case detail" to get the info in the DB.
Thanks for the correction on the University ID. I typed it correctly in my comments here, but finger-autopilot took over when I did the citation template and I typed "Washington State" instead of "Washington University" (corrected in this edit). TJRC (talk) 04:29, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Minor v. Happersett". The Supreme Court Database. Washington University Law. Retrieved September 27, 2020.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Minor_v._Happersett&oldid=1208246181"