The Supreme Court in United States History, Vol. 1: 1789-1821

by Charles Warren

A term-by-term exposition of the Court and its major decisions are explored as factors in the course of history.

Genres: History, Nonfiction

572 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1926

About the author

Librarian Note: There is more than one author in the GoodReads database with this name. See this thread for more information.

Reviews

[Dave Carroll · Rating 4 out of 5]

A comprehensive, at times tedious, history of the Supreme Court

Charles Warren won the 1923 #pulitzerprizeforhistory with this vast, 1600+ page history of the United States Supreme Court up to 1918. Were he to write this today, I have no doubt it would be six volumes. As a lawyer rather than a historian, he presented this comprehensive work from a legalistic perspective at a period in history when the role of the court was being redefined under the leadership of former President and now Chief Justice William Howard Taft who was considering the function of the court as a newly internationalized United States was taking a prominent role on the world stage. As such, it seemed as though Warren wanted to capture the progress of the Court from an ill-defined, underfunded and vastly stressful and undesirable job due to the extensive Circuit Court travel required of the early justices and the growing partisan political pressure with the changing of Chief Executives as exemplified in the anti-partisan Washington and the hyper partisan natures of both Adams and Jefferson.

The first third of this first of a three volume work gave me many details on the first three Chief Justices (Jay, Rutledge and Ellsworth) which I hadn't known, specifically, the vociferous response to their ill-defined roles. Of course, having just finished another Pulitzer Prize winning three volume history on Chief Justice John Marshall, I was very versed in his background although Warren, a Democrat, has a very different opinion of the long serving Chief Justice then did Republican biographer and former Senator Albert Beveridge whose Marshall biography is still the seminal study. Thus I was able to skim this section seeking new information or inconsistencies in portrayal. While making a point that he had published biographical data on Marshall before Beveridge released his biography, even Warren had to admit that even his vast contribution still pales in comparison to the old Senators.

It's a big tedious, wonky study that won't appeal to light readers or those who depend upon partisan television news for their historical facts. I considered not reading this work despite the #pulitzerprizereadingchallenge but, fortunately, Warren writes well and does try to tell a good story, not just recite history. His footnotes are extensive and definitely worth the read for those who appreciate factoids and major topic digressions.

[Andrew · Rating 3 out of 5]

You know, this book starts off badly. The attention to detail can be distracting and unilluminating. Every person considered for the first SCOTUS bench should not have been profiled. But once the bench is assembled, the book takes a certain stride and works its way amiably all the way to the death of John Marshall. I don't plan on reading the second two volumes, because this one is enough!

Once characters become near constant and through-lines in legal thought begin to be established, the book becomes a decent enough history. I wish Warren spent more time on the legal arguments presented in these early landmark cases and less time on quoting the partisan press at the time, but he set out to capture moods and does a fine job at that. There are so many damn details and points in early American history where the fabric of our nation was close to be unraveled that I think Warren's argument carries a lot of weight. The court in the early days of the United States kept the dang nation together!

[David · Rating 5 out of 5]

770 pages to tell a 500 page story. A thorough cradle to grave book on Marshall. The author likes Marshall but still offers some criticism of Marshalls mistakes. If you dive into this book be prepared for a long and sometimes boring read. The last half reads better than the first half. The lengthy discussion of court cases provides a much wider understanding than was needed to tell the "Marshall" story, but you may find it interesting. Often I felt like the author had done in depth research and didn't want any of it to be left out.
It is still a toss up for me if the time spent in this book was worth it or not. Glad I finally finished it. My slow pace was mostly because I could not read 15-20 pages at a time and stay interested. It was much more interesting at 2 or 3 pages a day as my bathroom book.