(1 / 4)

You've asked a lot of questions, and the answers could (and have) filled books. I'll try to address them all, though given the scope, I've left out some details.

Specifically, were there Southerners on it?

..

I’m assuming some of the Supreme Court justices were Southerners.

THERE WERE EIGHT JUSTICES, INCLUDING FOUR FROM SLAVE STATES, AND ONE EMPTY SEAT

At the time of Lincoln's election, there were eight living Supreme Court justices. One, Peter Vivian Daniel, a Democrat from Virginia, had died on May 31, 1860, during that year's Presidential campaign. President James Buchanan did not nominate a replacement before Election Day. His party was deeply divided as it was, with a Democratic National Convention less than a month before Daniel's death failing to nominate a presidential candidate. This resulted in a second convention already scheduled just a couple of weeks after Daniel died. And ultimately, that convention also failed, the Democrats could not unify, and they nominated two different presidential candidates at competing conventions.

Rather than risking a campaign issue that might aid the Democrats' opponents and further aggravate the Democrats' divide, Buchanan decided not to nominate anybody until after the election. Of course, immediately after the election, the Secession Crisis erupted, making it even more difficult for Buchanan to actually get anybody through, and the Supreme Court nomination took a back seat. Buchanan finally did make a nomination less than a month before leaving office. On February 5, 1861, he nominated Jeremiah Black but the nomination failed by a vote of 25-26 on February 21. (Black was Buchanan's Attorney General, though stepping in as Secretary of State in the administration's final weeks when SoS Lewis Cass resigned in December 1860 over Buchanan's handling of the Fort Sumter issue. Unlike Cass, Black was very much a "Doughface".)

THERE WERE SEVEN DEMOCRATS AND ONE CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICAN ON THE BENCH

Of the eight living justices, the court was decidedly conservative. All eight justices had been nominated by Democratic presidents. Only one non-Democrat was on the court - John McLean, the Whig-turned-conservative Republican, though even he had been nominated to the court by Andrew Jackson.

The other seven were all conservative Democrats, though their brands of conservatism followed the geographic North/South line. Nathan Clifford, Robert Cooper Grier, and Samuel Nelson were Northern Democrats whose pre-war rulings were very much in keeping with what might be expected of Northern Democrats. John Catron, James Moore Wayne, John Archibald Campbell, and Chief Justice Roger B. Taney were all Southern Democrats whose rulings reflected that partisanship - though Taney was actually from a slaveholding family from the non-seceding slave state of Maryland.

The other three - Catron, Wayne, and Campbell - were all from states that seceded (Tennessee, Georgia, and Alabama, respectively). Of them, only Campbell actually resigned, and he waited over three months after Alabama seceded to actually hand in his resignation (after Fort Sumter).

Were they viewed skeptically by their colleagues if they stayed?

THE JUSTICES TRIED TO KEEP THE COURT INTACT

No, in fact, there was an effort by the Northern Democrats to try to ensure that the three secession-state Democrats remained on the court. McLean, too, was somewhat involved in making sure the court stayed united, but it was really Samuel Nelson of New York who took the lead. Rather than antagonism, there was something of a camaraderie among them, that they didn't want to make the situation worse, and "break up the court". They were also all quite old, with six of them having been serving on the court between 15 and 30 years already. Though they had disagreements about law sometimes, socially, they all got along. (A few years earlier, Benjamin Curtis resigned after the Dred Scott decision, after having a falling out with Taney, but that's another story).

There were a couple of news reports in April 1861 that Campbell, Wayne, and Taney were going to resign en masse and issue a statement, first reported in the Richmond Examiner and Philadedlphia Inquirer, but these reports were pretty quickly discredited as inaccurate. Of the eight justices, the only one who really considered resigning is the one who did, and that was Campbell. Campbell would even write later on about telling Wayne of his decision, and while Wayne didn't try to stop him, he disagreed with him, and Campbell defended Wayne's own decision to stay on the court.

Outside their colleagues, there was some criticism by the press. When Campbell took his time in leaving Washington after resigning his seat, the New York Post called him a "convenient spy for the Montgomery mutineers". On the flipside, when Wayne remained on the court after the war started, the New York newspapers all praised his decision, while Atlanta's Southern Confederacy newspaper wrote: "Georgia does not claim him, and he is no more of us".

Did they remain loyal to the union or leave to join the Confederacy?

..

Do we know about their thoughts and their decisions?

Yes, and I'm taking "decisions" here to mean their decision to stay on or leave the court. If you're asking about their history of Supreme Court case decisions, that's another matter, but to put it briefly, all except McLean were conservative Democrats, and McLean was a rather conservative Republican - in comparison to a moderate like Abraham Lincoln and a progressive like Sen. Benjamin Wade of Ohio. Though to the South, McLean was way too radical.

Again, there were three justices from seceding states on the court during the Secession Crisis - Catron of Tennessee, Wayne of Georgia, and Campbell of Alabama. And again, of the three, the only one who seriously considered resigning was the one who did, Campbell.

Nobody on the court issued a press release or anything giving a direct reason for deciding to stay or resign. But we can glean from their actions and writings what they believed.

JOHN CATRON

At the time of the Civil War, Supreme Court justices actually had two jobs. In February and August, they sat in session with the Supreme Court. At other parts of the year, each sat in session as one of the Circuit Court justices. Even now, each SCOTUS judge is assigned to overseeing one of the nine circuits, but in those days, the SCOTUS judge doubled as an actual Circuit Judge whenever their assigned circuit was in session.

On July 10, 1861, during John Catron's duties as a circuit court judge, he issued what is known as "The Charge of Judge Catron to the Grand Jury at St. Louis". These were jury instructions in which he essentially told a grand jury to treat acts committed by Confederates against the U.S. government as treason against the Constitution:

"...[T]he crime [of treason] is committed whenever war against the United States by those owing allegiance thereto, is raised, created, made or carried on; or when, daring a war, they adhere to the enemy, giving him aid and comfort. The terms 'levying war' embrace not merely the act of formal or declared war, but any combination, in military array, forcibly to prevent or oppose, generally, the execution of a provision either of the United States Constitution, or a United States statute: or forcibly to subvert the United States Government or any department thereof; or by force to procure the repeal or alteration of the Constitution or laws; if such combination be accompanied or followed by an act of forcible opposition in pursuance of the treasonable design."

If that's too obscure, the July 21, 1861, edition of the Daily Nashville Patriot printed Catron's Charge at length, and prefaced it with:

"We lay before our readers this morning that portion of the charge of Judge Catron to the Grand Jury at St. Louis on the 10th [of July 1861], which relates to the crime of treason. According to the definition of the learned Judge the volunteers of the State of Tennessee are traitors in arms against their Government, and liable to be punished as such. Judge Catron is a citizen of Tennessee, and the Confederate States, yet he clings to his position under the Federal Government, and gives it aid and comfort by holding its courts, and holding over the heads of our patriotic volunteers, struggling in the cause of liberty and independence, the penalties of treason."

Just three months after Fort Sumter, Catron was telling a jury in that hotbed of conflict, Missouri, to consider Confederates as traitors if they were to try to resist the enforcement of U.S. Constitutional law.

Edit: I am not sure what question I read in my head about this but my thoughts went in lateral way and this is...relevant but doesn't answer your question super well. This is what I get for being helpful when I first wake up. Justice John Archibald Campbell is who we should be looking for answers about. The below is all informational and relevant

There has only ever been one impeached justice, Samuel Chase. Interestingly he is mentioned in the FAQ on the Supreme Court's website under "Has a Justice ever been impeached?"

The only Justice to be impeached was Associate Justice Samuel Chase in 1805. The House of Representatives passed Articles of Impeachment against him; however, he was acquitted by the Senate.

I went to go refresh my memory on him when this popped up, so that's kinda cool!

Any way Samuel Chase was appointed by George Washington himself. To better understand why he was impeached, we have to first talk about the Judiciary Review Act of 1801, also known as the "Midnight Judges Act". The impact of this act was to empower the judicial branch but doubling the amount of circuits from 3, to 6, and adding 10 new judges. Prior to this act (and in fact up until 1879), Supreme Court justices would "ride circuit". This literally mean they were riding from circuit location to circuit location, performing judicial duties and learning of new cases, law, and the people.

So here you are, the body of the judiciary branch supposedly crafting the legal balance in the political force but you're riding up and down the eastern seaboard in a shitty carriage or on horseback, getting tossed into rivers, having bones broken, and just generally not staying near your family. Then the Judiciary Review Act comes along says, hey lets get you some backup. Sounds good right?

So here's where it goes south and draws parallels to today. The act was passed at the very end of the Adam's Administration, and Adams filled many of the open positions just days before Jefferson would take office. The whole "Midnight Judges Act" name was called such because Adams was "signing the judges at midnight before his day was over" as it were. This is very well displayed in this lovely Wikipedia List: List of federal judges appointed by John Adams. Adam's would step out of office March 4th 1801. Between Jan 1, and March 04 Adam's appointed:

• 1 Supreme court justice,
• 15 Circuit Judges
• 1 District Judges

So it was a massive power swing towards the Federalist party after the loss to Jefferson and the Democratic-Republicans. Jed Glickstein writes about it in After Midnight: The Circuit Judges and the Repeal of the Judiciary Act of 1801.

To summarize: Thomas Jefferson and the Democratic-Republicans defeated the reigning Federalist Party, led by President John Adams, in the election of 1800. In response, the lame-duck Federalists tried to shore up their position in the short time before Adams left office. Just a few weeks before Jefferson's inauguration, the outgoing Federalist Congress passed the Judiciary Act of 1801, creating sixteen new federal circuit judgeships. In a separate act, Congress created three additional circuit judgeships and over forty justices of the peace for the District of Columbia. Adams hastily filled as many of these positions as he could with his supporters. As a Federalist senator famously observed to a friend, his party was "about to experience a heavy gale of adverse wind; can they be blamed for casting many anchors to hold their ship thro the storm?"

All seeming very familiar yeah?

But what does this have to do with Samuel chase, an already sitting justice? Jefferson comes to office and works to reverse the act with congress. It goes well and now you have Samuel chase, again a man who was literally thrown from his carriage into a river once while riding circuit asked to go do the very thing he despised. So like any angry man he went on a rant about it. And boy do judges have time to rant.

Our stat and national Institutions were framed to secure ever member of society equal liberty and equal rights, but the late alteration of the federal Judiciary and the recent change in our state constitution, by the establishing of universal suffragel and the further alteration that is contemplated in our State Judiciary (if adopted) will, in my judgement, take away all the security for our property and personal liberty. The independence of the National Judiciary is already shaken to its foundation; and the virtue of the people alone can restore it. The change of the State constitution, by allowing universal suffrage, will in my opionon, certainly and rapidly destroy all protection to property and all security to personal liberty; and our Republican Constitution will sink into a mobocracy, the worst of all possible governments. Will liberty or property be protected by laws made by representatives chose by electors who have no property in common interest with, or attached to the community?

Ok, so the dude went on a rant while arguing against people's right to vote, so...not really a winner in the history books looking back. But this rant was enough for Jefferson to do what Jefferson did, retort:

Ought the seditious and official attack on the principles of our Constitution . . .to go unpunished?"

This retort was a request made to the house of representatives, and thus followed the impeachment of Samuel Chase. This was orchestrated primarily by Congressman John Randolph

Representative John Randolph of Virginia, at the urging of President Thomas Jefferson, orchestrated impeachment proceedings against Chase, declaring he would wipe the floor with the obnoxious justice. The House voted to impeach Chase on March 12, 1804, accusing Chase of refusing to dismiss biased jurors and of excluding or limiting defense witnesses in two politically sensitive cases.

While he was Impeached, he was acquitted by the senate. There are a few good write ups (I like Elkins and McKitrick's The Age of Federalism) of what happened in this trial, but the summary from the official U.S. Senate history site is quite good

Chase's defense team, which included several of the nation's most eminent attorneys, convinced several wavering senators that Chase's conduct did not warrant his removal from office. With at least six Jeffersonian Republicans joining the nine Federalists who voted not guilty on each article, the Senate on March 1, 1805, acquitted Samuel Chase on all counts. A majority voted guilty on three of the eight articles, but on each article the vote fell far short of the two-thirds required for conviction. The Senate thereby effectively insulated the judiciary from further congressional attacks based on disapproval of judges’ opinions. Chase resumed his duties at the bench, where he remained until his death in 1811.

So that's the only impeached Supreme Court justice, but this was decades before our country was split in two

Enter West Hughes Humphreys

Humphreys was the presiding judge over all three of Tennessee's district courts. Upon secession and the creation of the Confederacy, Humphrey's accepted an appointment to be a judge for the district. Makes sense, if you have a job, and that job gets taken over by a new owner, you can choose to just keep doing your same job for the new owner right?

Well...Kind of. Humphrey's still kept his old job, for his old bosses too. There wasn't really precedent for this at all.

Richard Aynes wrote about this in his paper "The Impeachment and Removal of Tennessee Judge West Humphreys: John Bingham's Prologue to the Johnson Impeachment Trial"

At the beginning of the Civil War many individuals who held positions under the United States government submitted resignations which, in their minds, allowed them to assume positions with the so-called government of the Confederate States of America. One of the few individuals who did not do so, but nevertheless assumed a position under the Confederate States of America was U.S. District Judge West H. Humphreys. After the Confederacy was formed, he continued to hold court in the same courtroom but under the guise of a Confederate States Judge.

This presented two problems for President Lincoln and the Unionists. First, without even the thin reed of resignation to attempt to protect him, this made Humphreys a visible and active traitor. Second, though one could argue that Humphreys had functionally vacated the U.S. District Court judgeship, others could make arguments that as long as Humphreys had not resigned there was no vacancy for President Lincoln to fill.

So pretty clear where this is going right? He's impeached and in 1862 the Senate finds him guilty, bans him from serving in a federal appointment forever, and vacates the seat. You can read the Senate minutes here.

There were 7 articles brought against him and (most) of them were a landslide Most importantly

Article 1. That, regardless of his duties as a citizen of the United States, and unmindful of the duties of his said office, and in violation of the sacred obligation of his official oath to administer justice without respect to persons,'' and faithfully and impartially discharge all the duties incumbent upon him as judge of the district court of the United States for the several districts of the State of Tennessee agreeable to the Constitution and laws of the United States,''

39 guilty 0 not guilty.

SO I hope that answers your question, in the sense that No, no supreme court justices were impeached because of the Civil War